FIP-0080: Motivation for a Scheduled Reduction in the Quality Multiplier of Fil+ Deals and Example Timelines #774
Replies: 56 comments 301 replies
-
|
Thank you for getting this well-thought discussion open, @dcasem! I will have more 🤔 to share later, as I mentioned to you during the review, one thing I think needs to be discussed is "Should the cutoff multiplier be 1x?". I personally think it could be one day, but not now or soon at least:
If we were moving towards this direction (scheduled phased out), I think having a schedule that checks the "data storage %" on the network is worth considering.
I'd admit this is not the simplest approach. Thus I am looking forward to seeing other proposals that can also address the concern mentioned above! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
One more thing I would like you to address @momack2: It would appear that Antminer released a miner with 430Tb of storage that gives you an effective 4300Tb of power ("fully managed")
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@kaitlin-beegle The United States of America empowers everyone to speak, and you use your power to shut down the power of other people's language. What is the difference between you and a dictator? When someone outputs harsh language to you, it is because you and your team treat each of our participants with arrogance. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@kaitlin-beegle We reflect the real problems on the Internet to you and your team. Are you seriously thinking about these problems and solving them? Notaries are systematically corrupt and bureaucratic, filecoin data users are gradually decreasing, and it has been almost 10 years since you started construction in 2014, and you have no substantial use functions. Your most basic personal user upload data is restricted, why do you think you can store valuable human data? Filecoin is like a person's growth. Now it can't even walk, but you want to become world champion Usain Bolt? May I ask you to put down your arrogant posture, bend down your noble body, and listen to the few problems that everyone involved is eager to solve. The first is to remove the notary system, and the second is to lead the development of client software on Windows or Linux and Unix systems, allowing individual users to easily participate in the storage of file coins. Please remember that no one can define real data Meaning, like you can't define who is a good guy or a bad guy? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@kaitlin-beegle Can you guarantee that the storage on aws is all useful data? No, you can't guarantee it! Ask you and your team to define and your role, you are responsible for developing and optimizing the role of storage solutions, rather than defining who can store and can not store. AWS has not defined the concept of real data. As long as you are willing to pay, isn't it meaningful data? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hey @1246609553, I'm not sure we've spoken before, but I thought I'd jump in. Removing comments is very rare here (except by their authors) so it's understandable to be surprised. Here's the code of conduct for this space: https://github.com/filecoin-project/community/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md Different online spaces have different expectations for their users. Some spaces have no expectations at all. The above code is the basis for all Filecoin community discussions. Why have these rules? Some of it is cultural -- sub-cultural even -- some of it is pragmatic. In practice, the community has to have a way of dealing with spam, irrelevant crypto promotions, and other conversations that distracts everyone from the work of attaining consensus. Specifically, while language that compares specific people to religious icons and goes on to explain how they are personally drenched in the blood of the innocent can be powerful in certain contexts, here in largely technical discussions and governance debates, historically such language has proven unhelpful. It ends up with people escalating in their powerful poetic language until we're spending more time on eye-opening imagery and expressions of anger or other strong emotions than actually fixing the problem together. Personal attacks make people want to leave the discussion, and can make consensus even harder to achieve due to personal animosity. So culturally, a lot of global open source spaces have ended up with similar rules: from the W3C https://www.w3.org/about/positive-work-environment/ to the IETF https://www.ietf.org/about/administration/policies-procedures/code-of-conduct/ (A lot of those rules concentrate on current sensitive concerns in Western cultures, but hopefully you see the main point) If you're worried about who gets to decide on deletion, and what transparency there is -- yes that is a concern. Part of what I want to do right now -- and why I jumped into this thread -- is to better understand how we can keep governance conversations on track, and work to make sure that everyone knows they have effective ways to change things. Tactics that can be less distracting and more likely to work than more and more lurid and personal images. Right now the whole thing is more improvisational than it could be. I put that down to moving from a small, informal network working in a positive macroeconomic environment, to where we are now: opinions are strongly held, many people want to change course, and people are, as you said, struggling. It also doesn't help that we're all trying to do a million different things at once, so people are ending up playing multiple roles. Anyway, hopefully you can see that most of your messages are still getting through: if you are still concerned about not getting your point across contact me at danny@fil.org and I am happy to talk about this more, or start a new discussion here. I think I'm probably already too off-topic myself for this thread. 嘿@1246609553，我不确定我们之前说过话，但我想我应该插话。在这里删除评论是非常罕见的（除了他们的作者），所以感到惊讶是可以理解的。 以下是该空间的行为准则：https://github.com/filecoin-project/community/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md 不同的在线空间对其用户有不同的期望。 有些空间根本没有任何期望。 上面的代码是所有 Filecoin 社区讨论的基础。 为什么要有这些规则？ 其中一些是文化的——甚至是亚文化的——一些是务实的。 在实践中，社区必须有一种方法来处理垃圾邮件、不相关的加密货币促销以及其他分散每个人达成共识工作注意力的对话。 具体来说，虽然将特定的人与宗教偶像进行比较并继续解释他们如何亲自浸透无辜者的鲜血的语言在某些情况下可能很有效，但在很大程度上是在技术讨论和治理辩论中，但历史证明这种语言毫无帮助。 最终，人们用他们强大的诗意语言升级，直到我们花更多的时间在令人大开眼界的图像和愤怒或其他强烈情绪的表达上，而不是真正一起解决问题。 人身攻击会让人们想退出讨论，并且会因为个人仇恨而更难达成共识。 因此，在文化上，许多全球开源空间最终都遵循了类似的规则：从 W3C https://www.w3.org/about/positive-work-environment/ 到 IETF https://www.ietf.org /关于/管理/政策程序/行为准则/ （其中许多规则集中于西方文化中当前的敏感问题，但希望您能明白要点） 如果您担心谁有权决定删除以及透明度如何 - 是的，这是一个问题。 我现在想做的一部分——也是我跳入这个话题的原因——是更好地理解我们如何让治理对话步入正轨，并努力确保每个人都知道他们有有效的方法来改变事情。 与越来越耸人听闻和个人化的图像相比，这些策略可以减少干扰，并且更可能发挥作用。 现在整件事比它应有的更加即兴创作。 我把这归因于从一个在积极的宏观经济环境中工作的小型非正式网络，发展到我们现在的处境：人们强烈持有观点，许多人想要改变方向，而正如你所说，人们正在挣扎。 我们都试图同时做一百万件不同的事情，这也无济于事，所以人们最终会扮演多个角色。 无论如何，希望您能看到您的大部分信息仍在传达：如果您仍然担心无法传达您的观点，请通过 danny@fil.org 与我联系，我很乐意更多地谈论这个问题，或者开始新的讨论 这里。 我想对于这个话题来说，我自己可能已经太偏离主题了。 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Firstly, support this proposal to end Fil+, but it has to be said that reducing DC sector’s computing power is a huge challenge，Fil+ = Pandora's box, closing it may cost 10 times. and hope everything goes smoothly. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thank @jennijuju for mentioning my proposal it is indeed simpler to implement and completely permissionless. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Support this proposal. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Great proposal! Explaining the problems with Fil+ very well. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@bobdubois even in Option 1, it'll take 18 months for the Fil+ QAP to be out of the system. This should give us plenty of time to reorient the network. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Cancelling FIL+ is easy, but what are the next steps? Change to another way to encourage SP to perform sealing sector? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We may not know where the right direction is, but we know what has been proven wrong. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We can allocate all the resources going into Fil+ to instead build the tooling we need for reliable onboarding & retrieval (without having to worry about a notary's signature or release of Datacap quota). Without Fil+ overhead, we can focus on making the L1 increasingly performant, so that developers choose FVM. Meanwhile, SPs can begin to focus their energy on finding actual customers to pay for storage. The network as it exists today can support commercial applications. Necessity is the mother of invention. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The reason no one want to pay is because Fil+ give you money for storage, the money actually from the SP's pocket. It causes the price drop continuously. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Strictly speaking, the reward of Fil+ is to tie a white wolf with bare hands, which squeezes the benefits of other SPs, and at the same time leads to a smaller cake size. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
FIL+ can be regarded as a network subsidy. In the case of bad market conditions, network subsidies are very necessary. If there is no DC, most sp will not continue to invest in FIL, because the income cannot cover electricity costs, cabinet costs, machine costs, and network costs at all. Rather than canceling 10X, I think that 10X can be opened up so that all SPs can easily get 10X, just like getting CC. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I really think this is a practical way as a soft-landing, and it achieves the target, making Filecoin permissionless again at layer 1. People may not understand it's the same if all sectors have 10x power, comparing to every one only has 1x power. Actually, from the implementation point of view, it is just math. When all sectors have 10x power, we could simply transfer to 1x power by remove QAP and set baseline to 1/10, without impacting fairness and security. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@anorth Thanks for explaining your thoughts In a 1:1 POW chain, Filecoin chain stands for the hw amount that support the chain which is brief and clear. In a 1:x POS chain, Filecoin chain can only stands for how much Filecoin people want to put on their hw and sectors. This indicator is difficult to judge, it's unclear and inexplicable. It reduces the attractiveness of the Filecoin blockchain to investors and any clients.
I think this still introduce human component and bias into the protocol economic system. The human component comes from the bias of currently 1x sectors. Storage prividers that take the lead in adopting a higher multiplier will gain an unfair competitive advantage over 1x sectors in the blockreward distribution. Unless we want to please a certain group of people, why swim across the river when there is a bridge to walk on? Once we choose to give up the long-term goal for the sake of short-term benefits i.e. Favoring sectors with multipliers and abandon the 1x sectors in the network, this is going to be an infinite loop. In the future, when we ask investors and clients, why are people unwilling to participate in the Filecoin ecosystem? There may be a very strong argument that "Now you can exile those 1x sectors by 2-10x multipliers, in the future when you want to get rid of these current 1-10x sectors you will apply 50-100x multipliers." We break the contract once, there will be twice. It's endless and obviously harmful. It's the time for us to get rid of these burdens. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@anorth |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@steven004 Soft-landing is a very dangerous word we usually hear from central govs and federal reserves rather than free market. In my opinion a simple and strong proposition is more helpful to the network. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Here we go yet again. At least I'm happy we were able to get the "humanity's most important information" thing out of the way. We're quickly coming to realize what @anorth and the PL leadership team have been looking to accomplish all along:
Ultimately, this doesn't get to the crux of the issue: RBP will continue to decline, and 10x'ing creates no incentive to add RBP, which means we'll soon need another FIP to "fix" that (and more FIPs to fix the problems that emerge after that). This plan will fully decouple us from PoP/PoW and make us an entirely PoS token. As @nothingjustaminer pointed out,
Meanwhile, while they first convince you (and then ultimately make you comply you through "force[d] equalisation") to put more tokens into what is increasingly looking like a Ponzi scheme, they'll continue to linearly vest and sell their tokens on the open market.
Frankly, this push to 10x everything (first through FIL+, now even without it) is starting to reek of desperation. There's a reason collateral is already hard to come by -- lenders are waking up to the fact that it doesn't matter that they can charge upwards of 20% interest when the token is quickly headed toward zero. Where there is smoke, there is fire. With a plan to 10X all sectors (eventually), we will never see "smart money" (e.g., institutions) enter the ecosystem. They know better. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I strongly object to Option 2 of the Fil+ phase-out: Breach of Trust: The 10x quality-adjusted power (QAP) was presented as a given for 540 days. Many SPs, including myself, made strategic decisions and contractual obligations with investors based on this promise. Gradually decreasing the multiplier within this period would be a breach of trust, undermining the credibility of the Filecoin network and potentially discouraging SPs from making further contributions. Financial Risk: Significant financial commitments have been made by SPs based on the 10x QAP. The proposed reduction would effectively reduce the ROI for these investments, possibly leading to financial losses. SPs that have entered contractual agreements with third parties based on the initial assurances may face even more severe repercussions, potentially even legal action. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We are only cutting the multiplier on new deals. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The statement doesn't explicitly specify whether the reduction in power multiplier applies only to new deals or includes existing ones too. This ambiguity may cause further confusion among stakeholders, so a clear statement regarding this point would be highly beneficial to the community. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@dcasem will edit the FIP as soon as he wakes up tomorrow morning. I 100% guarantee that is the intent of all 7 co-authors of this FIP. No changes to old deals. We should have made that clearer. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The ROI is the token_earns * price, the ROI decrease is caused majorly by the bad price at the moment. In long term, without 10x it will cause the mining cost up , which will leading the token price up, at the end, you earn more. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This has been clarified in the original post and noted in the changelog. Thanks for the feedback @hyunmoon. For the record, my preference is Option 1. The sooner we rid ourselves of this tumor, the better. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
support The power is increased by 10 times, and the pledged currency also needs to be 10 times. Originally, 10 machines + 6500FIL can do 1P power, but now they can do 10P, but it costs 65000FIL. If it costs 25$ each, it will cost 12 million yuan. how can I afford it? Therefore, the currency price must be lowered to switch to FIL+, so the final result is that within one year, the currency price has gradually dropped by 10 times, and the power of FIL+ has increased by 10 times, and a new balance has been reached. The problem now exposed is: after everyone rolls FIL+ together, they find that the final income has not increased. As time goes by, the marginal benefit decreases. 10 times for everyone = no 10 times for everyone, which instead increases the acquisition of DC quota. A series of centralized "authorized" operations such as validator audits have been protested by the community, demanding that FIL+ be phased out within one year and return to a state where everyone is equal. If FIL+ is canceled tomorrow, there will be two situations:
中文版讨论在这: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Ms. Momack, It appears as though you and Mr. JB might be somewhat disconnected from the realities many are facing, despite being in positions where you have a significant impact on those very people. Please consider the experiences of those who contributed to your success—they might be facing serious hardships. It would be beneficial for all if proactive steps were taken to understand and address their concerns. Edit: Used ChatGPT and asked it to rephrase my reply to be more woke :) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@Eliovp this isn't a particularly constructive comment. I know this is a topic that people feel quite strongly about, but please try to address the content of the discussion, rather than attack people. Insults do not progress anyone's cause. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hey @anorth , thanks for swooping in like a superhero, cape billowing in the wind, even though there wasn't a damsel in distress or a city in peril here. It's kind of like we're being told: “While the ship might be veering towards an iceberg, let’s all stay focused on the horizon and assume the iceberg will kindly move out of the way.” Oh, but reality check—that iceberg isn't budging. Many boarded this ship fueled by faith in its proclaimed ‘mission,’ but alas, it appears that a select, secretive society (oh, who could that be?), wielding the captain’s wheel, is deaf to the crew’s pleas and set sail on a precarious path. Encore? I think not... (And, @anorth , this little ditty was composed just for you—still no hard feelings, just a serenade of sincerity.) 😉 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@momack2 The notary mechanism of file+ betrays the core of the decentralized protocol of the blockchain. You are not running filecoin as a company. You and Juan Benet, with the money of miners and investors, have nothing to worry about. Your fairy tales and scams are piled up with the money of miners and every investor who has expectations for filecoin. Can't you see the problems filecoin is facing now? What is real data? Who defined it? . Datacap is sold fairly, can’t you see it? $14300=1Pib datacap is sold in the market, don’t you know? The entire filecoin is ruled by a corrupt bureaucracy, and you and Juan Benet are still living in fairy tales. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
贸然取消fil+可能将fil带入万劫不复，但是公证人制度是肯定不能继续存在了，或者说所有人都可以是公证人，当前的公证人制度非常不合理，还不如彻底放开fil+，所有的非CC扇区都可以是十倍算力，可以考虑加入检索相关的考核，例如扇区通过一次检索后才能获得十倍算力，检索失败的扇区将暂时失去算力等 Canceling fil+ rashly may bring fil to the end of the world, but the notary system must not continue to exist, or everyone can be a notary. The current notary system is very unreasonable. It is better to completely release fil+. CC sectors can have ten times the computing power, and you can consider adding search-related assessments. For example, a sector can only get ten times the computing power after passing one search, and sectors that fail to search will temporarily lose computing power, etc. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Exactly! Canceling fil+ is theoretically the same as making everyone a notary. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Cancel Fil+ is not the end of world, it will cause the price down for a while then the price will up again. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Oppose high-table meetings and establish community councils.If FIL+ is good, why are so many people in the community opposing it? Clearly, the project team does not want to make any positive response, and they are indeed trying to turn a blind eye to certain community feedback until the community completely loses trust in the project. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
cancel fil+ is like the eth difficulty bomb, with the filecoin difficulty bomb. The filecoin community needs to find a solution in a deadline, let's say 1 year. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I am with a group seriously considering becoming a reasonably large scale SP. The ROI without Fil+ does not justify investment. While we all like the idea of Filecoin, the reliance on SP's to source the paying customers is a large dis-incentive to participate. This biz dev requires a different skill set that comes at a cost. Perhaps I am more commenting on the fundamental assumptions which this project is relying upon for it's growth, but, unless I were running a shrinking Datacenter business already paying a sales team, Filecoin without Fil+, or a functional consumer facing gateway, I fail to see how this proposal will increase network size or increase FIL value which would incentivize SP growth. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Have you not seen the consistent decline in block rewards @nate-byrnes? On the current trajectory, there will be nothing more than simple minting (5 FIL/Tb) by some time in 2024, unless we bring back RBP. I wouldn't recommend building a large SP that relies on blockchain rewards (especially if you are relying on Fil+) until these issues are resolved. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'm not passionate about Fil+, but without a realistic incentive to replace it, it seems to me that SP's will continue to fall away from this project. Meaning, in 2024 there won't be much reason to become an SP. I think that the $Fil value diminishment is as likely related to macro economic factors if not more so than the impact of Fil+. I guess this proposal doesn't make it clear to me how bringing back RBP will solve for poor incentives. I read this as Fil+ is viewed as a mistake and this proposal wants to wind back the clock. But, it seems that the assumption is that going back to how it was before Fil+ means that Fil+ was un-necessary. I don't think that was the case. It may have been an incompletely conceived fix for insufficient growth, but I think it was needed, and still is. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We aren't opposed to additional incentives. We can consider anything that is objective, fair and transparent The current system is not. A hard deadline will put pressure on PL/FF to find an alternative. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Bringing back RBP will partially solve for poor incentives: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
FIL+ initially achieved its purpose as it incentivised SPs to attract real use cases to the network, however it very quickly became a financial engineering game and has blown way out of proportion and divorced itself from its original intent. Regardless of the tokenomic impact DSS can no longer support FIL+. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
In fact, when all CC expire, they will all become DC,et go of the threshold of DC, so that everyone can get DC. I think it's a more neutral solution. This is softer than canceling FIL+ directly, and it also solves the problem of DC trading and abuse in the current market. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Transitioning from CC to DC is devastating for the mining revenue per terabyte. This reality is evident as the mining revenue per terabyte has decreased three times faster in the past six months compared to previous declines.
The decline in production efficiency directly impacts SP's annualized returns, and when SP's annualized returns drop to an unacceptable level, it will lead to a situation of no one mining. Therefore, opening up DC is definitely not a wise move. It will only further plunge into a death spiral and accelerate the further decline in production efficiency.Unless the economic model is modified to change the baseline calculation from RBP to QAP. We are left with few options, either to immediately or gradually cancel DC, or to modify the calculation method of the effective network time in the baseline minting part of the economic model (RBP ➡️ QAP). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
How do you propose fixing the problems we listed in our FIP? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I replied to this part of the comment above for information.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@hyunmoon - the community rejected changes to the baseline minting part of the economic model; we cannot keep changing the rules of the road (emissions in particular) and think that investors will continually support the FIL price. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The white paper was written by humans not gods. Because there is no god among us, we could expect no one making absolutely right decision. It’s all a matter of consensus. AFAIK, focusing on the one and ony important thing, let go of the threshhold and complicated restrictions is a optimal way to get more consensus. I feel uncomfortable when people keep saying "useful" storage, it's a biased word, it's distorting the protocol. More people will advocate Filecoin if Filecoin is only a storage network. Less people will like Filecoin if Filecoin only applies to the data that a small group of people think is "useful". Afterall, no one cares what you think is useful, but people indeed care about storage. Focus on "STORAGE", not on "USEFUL" please. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Concerning the whitepaper, do you mean this one (2017) or the previous one (2014)? 😉 This network is in uncharted territory, having integrated so many never before used at-scale technologies. We are all discovering its strengths, weaknesses, and selling points as it continues to evolve. It may be time we again re-evaluate how we think about Filecoin if we are to unlock its potential. CC: @nicelove666 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I tend to believe the original authors are open minded to their concept of Filecoin. TBH it's likely those who receive a stable salary that gave authors the illusion that we were headed in the right direction. The priest's job is to keep God's majesty not being challenged, so does employees to employers. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@nothingjustaminer 100% I would love to know what assets the FIL+ team members hold in their personal portfolios. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Can't agree more! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The overwhelming use case of the "data" stored in FIL+ is currently for "mining" purposes only, we need real use cases for people to advocate for Filecoin. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
My opinion is relatively simple. Filecoin’s mission: it’s mission is not a CC mining network without data. Nowhere i have seen an excel sheet with a calculation how we shall compete with Aws or Google cloud or StorJ whilst we have to store 2 copies of the data, do Pc1,Pc2,C2 making the storage more expensive. This topic has been systematically evaded. Fil+ has been introduced to make it attractive storing data and offset the competitive disadvantages compared to regular services. Secondly this proposal does not have fundamental support. It only enables consolidation of profits by a set of players who have been around long enough without bringing benefit to the network and behaving like parasites to the honest participants. They can keep their fake QaP towards 2028 while they block the entry of new miners / organic growth of the ecosystem. Thirdly i don’t see a need for all this. Given 922 was introduced it is clear that Fil+ is serious now. My guess is that only max 20% of new applicants are real thus making this whole fuss no more then a clear attempt to derail this network. So, from my part this proposal is a clear No. I want to stay with the mission of Fil. For those who wish different i suggest that they start their own “CC” project. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. This mission is not outlined in the whitepaper. It's also not in the SAFT docs, where the Filecoin is described as follows:
Moreover, the Filecoin Foundation is supposed to:
Now on to your question:
A 16 TB HD costs about 30 cents per month per Tb (on a three-year amortization schedule). Sealing is now approaching $0.20 per sector, one time. Hard to believe we cannot compete with what's out there. How is Wasabi able to sell at $6/Tb and pay channel partners 20+% of revenue?
No one is arguing that it should be this. CC can have real data. In fact, given the state of block rewards, that's the only way an SP can actually survive.
It hasn't worked, and it in fact, achieves the opposite, as I outlined here.
Of course, it does; it has more support than any previous FIP discussion. What objective metric are you using or are you just projecting your opinion on all of this?
We actually want QAP (as it exists today) gone by 2025. The rest of what you wrote is nonsense.
Acknowledged. It's more likely, IMHO, you'll be starting your own Fil+ project. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Again: pc1, pc2, c2 , sealed + unsealed copy, it all costs money to store real data. aws / google cloud is “just a harddisk”. How do you want to compete? Stating that a 16TB harddrive costs x is a non argument since AWS buys them x times lower, making competing even more difficult. Show us the numbers please without FiL+ |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Two copies - $.60 per Tb (.30 per Tb as referenced above). Sealing cost is 1x expense, not recurring. Assuming 32 32Gb sectors at $0.20 (if you need help getting this deal, DM me) = $6.40. If you hold the deal for 18 months, that's $.35 per month. So your marginal costs are $0.95/Tb for a sealed and unsealed copy. Everything else is overhead. No one is operating a costly AWS DC. Moreover, S3 is making like 80% gross margin. As SPs, we should be able to beat Bezos at his own game:
When everyone is doing Fil+ (like right about now), from where are you getting a subsidy -- it simply exists to increase the amount of Fil locked up -- no one wins. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We are not going to take customers away from AWS Just like Ethereum isn’t competing with the New York Stock Exchange. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Even with a mere 1x difference, dc-2, cc-1, it will motivate the majority of miners to strive towards dc, unless your goal is to lock up a larger proportion of fil through fil+, which appears to be an overdraft on the future. The fairness, efficiency, and trust issues of the notary mechanism are the most critical problems, and the main reasons for the community's opposition to dc. Finding a more fair and effective method is the key to solving the problem. Unfortunately, I can't think of what that method might be at the moment. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The only fair/effective method is unverified deals/CC -- even if we could eliminate 10X QAP today, there wouldn't be enough blockchain rewards, and we'll all be forced to find a solution to store useful data (the kind that people pay for) in order to survive. We do not need to incentivize real data; the incentive is already very much there. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This line "We do not need to incentivize real data; the incentive is already very much there." - can you help point to some evidence that the network can support large amounts of wide-ranging sizes of SPs to build viable storage businesses today? I agree to a large extent with where you're coming from here, and want to see this be true, but also worry about the health of the network in the short term without having block rewards support operations and bridge the gaps for SPs to scale up. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We're supposedly saving lots of "client data" today. I've also run through the unit economics in several threads that should demonstrate how this could work. Until the necessity is there, it's unlikely we'll see people try. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@dcasem ok - let me ask this a different way then ->
we're already seeing a lot of ecosystem focus on improving the data onboarding / storage story on Filecoin, but i think services are not quite there yet for large-scale adoption. how do we ensure storage oriented SPs make it through an even harder immediately impending economic situation if this or a similar FIP is implemented? cc @Eliovp would appreciate your thoughts here too (since we were sort of here in a slack thread as well). specifically de-scoping the convo around how DataCap could be allocated better / more fairly in this case, just looking at a world where a block reward based subsidy no longer exists in this phase / macro economic environment. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
One single proof that Fil+ has "negative" storage value (and that's enough IMO): SPs are PAYING to store clients' data! Previously, for CC/unverified sectors, SPs are not paying for storage itself, meaning the data stored is garbage (zero value). With Fil+, SPs are literally paying to offer service to clients (instead of getting paid), which fully proves that storing the data onboarded with Fil+ has negative value. The economy sees everything. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@dkkapur Thank you for your point here, which helps me think further. Well, if we just focus the economical relationship between SPs and clients, I still insists that the SPs are providing "negative" value to the clients (though at the same time, they could be providing positive value to the network), which I personally believe, is a distorted model. So with the assumption that Fil+ is well governed, which is hardly the case so far and I hope can be improved very soon, both the SPs and clients should be rewarded for doing something good to the network (and thus the society hopefully). SPs are providing useful storage for the world, and the clients/data-preparers are working to onboard the data. However, the SPs should NOT be paying money to clients. We need more sophisticated mechanisms to match the clients/data-preparers and the SPs. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Ok - but the difference in the two scenarios is then:
Either way, if the SP only engages if they're making a profit right? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Well, in the real world, the SP should be providing service to clients and should get paid by clients (which is also one of the ultimate goals of the network, isn't it)? Yes, the SPs benefit from clients' data. But the benefit should be coming from the network, not the client. The clients should get paid in the sense that they contribute to the network, but should be coming from the network also, not the SPs. We could make it this way, say SPs get 8x QAP instead of 10x, and the client also get some reward from the network or FF. In this way, the result might be the same, the economical principle will be followed and thus we will be in the right direction. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Isn't this the practical outcome of (2) above anyway? The market will set a rate/price, and everyone snaps to that, and over time that may change. What's the actual benefit of splitting the reward between SP and client at the protocol level vs. post the subsidy being given to the SP? Is it a payment over time thing, incentive alignment, something else? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yes, I agree with you that in both ways, the outcome is same. There are two aspects that I think could make a difference: a. I believe that the market works long and prosper only if the deals are made in proper models (the supply/demand relationship, the resource flow, etc.). That's why I still insist we may want the right model even if the two of them generate the same result at present. b. I don't feel comfort with the selling/buying of datacap offline between SPs and clients, which I think may be contributing to the current problems in LDN governing, i.e., colluding). Imagine this scenario, if clients/data-preparers only work with the network and get the data ready to ship, and the network has a way to match the data and SPs (here, the network does not necessarily mean the blockchain itself, it could be contracts, or decentralized management bots), the management would be more elegant and simple. (of course, i have to admit this is a too preliminary idea, and it would need great efforts to make it work) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The existing Fil+ (including 10x Power Multiplier etc.) has, to some extent, affected the health of Filecoin by making it harder for CC SPs to obtain fair incentives. But reducing the multiplier for the DC sector could result in instability in the global network's power and affect the enthusiasm of SPs to package real data. The current source of DC rewards is key to the existing problem. Initially, DC rewards were supposed to come from the Clients but due to a lack of customer payments in the early stages, DC rewards needed an additional source (unrelated to power), so as not to disrupt the previous consensus in Filecoin. Hence, we propose the following solutions:
If you have any suggestions, feel free to comment below. @raghavrmadya @dcasem @steven004 @jennijuju 中文版： |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
It's part of the solution described at the top of this thread:
While this proposal advocates for leveling sector multiplier, it also implies that new CC/unverified sectors will cost 10X. I wasn't referring to you, in particular; if I were, I would have tagged you @jnthnvctr. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@herony-fil thanks for your constructive proposals. There is some open design space here, and I'm fairly confident that there's a pretty good point that could achieve the basic goals of the original proposal (removing human governance from QAP) without causing a large system shock or unfavourable economics. If we find one, the community can have a robust debate about whether FIL+ should continue without the mechanism for doing so being sandbagged by immediate problems it could cause. Comments here are necessarily brief and somewhat ambiguous. I can't tell if @herony-fil is proposing that CC pledge and multiplier are forced to 10x, the SP can chose the multiplier applied to both, or the power is 10x and the SP can independently chose pledge. I'm inferring the second, since it gives fairness without upsetting SP economics by requiring higher pledge. But the main point is that there are options worth exploring here. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yes, we think that the SP can independently chose the pledge from 1x to 10x |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Herony is not a storage sales company. We speculate that the pledged Fils cannot be counted as cost. Rather, the regular interest generated by the pledged Fils should be considered. The cost of sealing 1TB should be the gas fees+the interest on pledged Fils, excluding hardware costs. @dcasem |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@anorth Hope to be helpful to the community and filecoin network |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Overall, I personally do not think it is super urgent to (gradually) abandon FIL+, instead, we need to improve the governing process (I mean a very HUGE CHANGE to the current status). In terms of the problems listed the this proposal: 1&2: the consensus overload and complexity are already there, they will have very limited harm if we keep them this way. 3: I don't think this is a significant issue. 10x power, 10x collateral, if you have a lot of Fil, pledge more, if you don't pledge less, you get what you pledge, fair and simple. 4&7&8&9&10&11: This is exactly what concerns me most. We need way much better governing on Fil+ than current. I filed this amateur complaint here also (filecoin-project/notary-governance#965 (comment)). 5: This could be a problem, but canceling Fil+ would hardly help now IMO. Without Fil+, we could be seeing even less RBP increase due to the high cost and low FIL price. 6: I am not 100% understand the logic behind Fil+ and market price of Fil, so I would not comment on this. 12: I think this is acceptable, if the KYC and DD are done in proper ways. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Forgive me, but I've heard the same thing repeatedly for the last 18 months. Over that time, nothing has changed @brian75235, and the problem is worse. Why do you think it will all of a sudden change now that you've brought it up? Again, I encourage you to try fixing Fil+ rather than talk about it in this tangential discussion. I would love to see what you do differently. Also, all your points have been refuted in other threads. Nevertheless, I appreciate you voicing your opinion. We need to hear from more of the community here. IMHO, there's only one way to save Filecoin: aggressively pursue RBP. Without it, this is a zombie token, as the rewards will diminish below the borrow/interest cost (which will have to go up to deal with the constant debasement of FIL, i.e., negative yield). The only ultimate lender will be PL/FF, and you can have fun minting tokens that will ultimately be worthless to the very end! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@brian75235 thanks for contributing, your original comment is well on topic. However, I agree with @dcasem that details about alternatives like how FIL+ governance could be improved are off-topic here. But would 💯 like to see new discussions on that topic. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Overall, the consensus the majority of us have reached, I think, is that we do NOT want how things are as it is now. Something has to be done to improve, and it has to be a significant change taking place very soon. The remaining question is how do we change. To do revolution: we kill FIL+ now or gradually @dcasem Thank you for your reply and I completely understand your frustrating to see the problem getting worse and worse. Me too, share your growing concerns about the situation. And that's exactly why are here to discuss.
Currently, I am more of a "reform" person, because I hope facing this BIG crisis, the PL or FF can really step out and make things right. The reasons are:
I totally agree with this. We have a baseline to catch, which I personally feel is asking too much. So I think it would be nice to also considering revising the baseline power growth rate to make it more reasonable and reachable (of course, this is also another topic so I won't go into details, but just remember it could possibly contribute to solve our current problem)
This is also the last thing I want to see. If this were to happen, SPs will starting quit and lead the network to a dead end, everyone lose. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I've been following you in the Fil+ discussion. Curious to see how the discussion progresses. My personal opinion is it will, like so many others before it, go nowhere. But I've been wrong before, and I would love to be proven wrong here.
Thank you.
Again, as you rightfully point out, separate topic, but I think this baseline growth should be revisited when we actually are able to meaningfully reverse the current RBP trend. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@brian75235 looks like your Fil+ issue is closed. Any updates on your reform? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The debate is consuming. We often tend to rationalize our actions after the fact. What's more, for the FIL+ staff and authors of FIL+, after three years of work, it is tough for them to deny their actions and work. This inspired me, it was because tokens and power were highly concentrated, it took community members 3 years to gradually realize that the community and PL’s disagreement in terms of vision and values has reached the point where the entire network is endangered. Why can't the debate today happen earlier? What if we decentralize power and let the huge amount of vesting filecoin be used strictly and transparently under the community's supervision? I think it can make us aware of the problem earlier when we make other wrong decisions in the future, and advance the debate we're having now. We don't intend to underestimate anyone's work. It's actually Filecoin core protocol doesn't need FIL+ and multiplier as subsidy from early beginning, but we community realize it too late. So it's more practical we skip the obsesses of details and numbers that are discussed now, start correcting the mistake(I personally insist Option1) and pushing a decentralizing and transparent evolution to the Filecoin community. If we can make filecoin a more transparent and open framework, we can stop losses and correct deviations in time, and truly let the market test the demand for products and eventually skip the next consensus crisis. The second-best time is now. We don't want to make the same mistake twice. If we do it right, we can call it an upgrade, not a fork. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I am quite surprised that the mechanisms proposed in various comments here that allow all sectors to take advantage of multipliers are not being taken more seriously by the authors. E.g. from @nicelove666 (#774 (comment)) @stcouldlisa (#774 (comment)), @kkarranscu (#774 (comment)) @herony-fil (#774 (comment)). Let’s call this class of proposals “free multipliers”: the SP has a choice of multiplier (1-10x), free from any governance or process restrictions. These proposals strike me as highly aligned against the primary problems stated by the original proposal. There are definitely variants available and details to be figured out, but they strike me as:
I see two categories of objection to the original proposal:
The free multipliers proposal immediately dispenses with the second objection, leaving the debate to be about network goals and whether subsidies etc should exist at all. No core protocol designers have identified any fundamental problems with the idea (yet). CEL have published initial analysis which says it’s basically fine. The worst thing anyone can say about it is that it achieves the stated goals. It’s a gift! Immediate cutoff of multipliers is simple, but doesn’t meet the network stability objective stated in the OP. The authors in comments seem to admit this, but express a view that it’s a necessary cost of solving the identified problems. It isn’t necessary. Because the design space is large, and comments here are necessarily brief rather than fully worked out, there may be some misunderstandings. The biggest one seems to be:
The proposals aren’t to require 10X collateral, but make the multiplier a free choice (between 1 and 10) for the SP, regardless of data in the sector. Please stop attacking this straw man. With free choice of multiplier, cost of sealing any RBP will initially remain the same, and then decrease as some SPs opt in to higher multiples, presumably slightly faster than under the FIL+ system (all those who would have gone through FIL+ still get multiplier, plus it’s open to others). The minimum initial pledge per sector will decrease as the network pledge:RBP ratio increases. The more pledge there is on the network, the less new onboarding needs to put up, since the total pledge is targeting a 30% of supply, regardless of power. Limiting multipliers to 1x would actually increase the pledge that today’s 1x sectors need to put up in the future. As older multipliers and their pledges expire, the circulating supply will increase and pledge requirements will too. And that’s after the initial shock of uniformly unprofitable onboarding removing the circulating→pledge flow that keeps pledge requirements stable today, which would give a sharp supply and pledge increase. Another misunderstandings phrased as objection:
Limiting multipliers to 1X doesn’t either. In fact it is likely to be much worse. By making all onboarding initially unprofitable, RBP is likely to drop much faster, contributing to the reduced block reward (further reducing profitability etc). On the other hand, with free multipliers, CC sectors (with opt-in multiplier) can become profitable. And deal-makers can onboard faster, with fewer barriers. There is good chance that the net RPB onboarding rate would increase since it is easier to onboard sectors and SPs can chose a multiplier that works for their economics. There are some mentions of altering the baseline function, e.g. to switch to QAP. Some changes here might be required anyway, they’re certainly part of the design space and worth exploring. Another objection that’s slightly off-target:
This is a totally valid question to ask, we should ask it and discuss how to improve the basis for Filecoin consensus security. It’s generally poorly understood at the moment, and some colleagues are working on better documentation. However, it’s mostly beside the point here because the proposals end up in basically the same place. Whether multipliers 1x or 10x, the network pledge function targets 30% of the circulating supply, which is independent of QAP or RBP. The total pledge contribution to network security is independent of any multipliers. If all multipliers settled at 10x, then the distribution of rewards to RBP would be exactly the same as if they were all 1x, as would the sector pledge, and FIL-on-FIL and fiat returns. I think this convergence is quite likely. At that point, the concept of multipliers could be removed entirely. Until that point, though, multipliers represent an SP choice over hardware vs financial-capital intensity:
Rational choices would depend on each SP’s relative cost of obtaining hardware and pledge tokens, and revenue mix between block rewards and storage payments. An SP with good paying clients (like @dcasem?) could continually chose min pledge, and have their unit economics improved by the fact that some others pledge higher amounts to improve per-TiB rewards. Their high pledge is the service provider’s advantage. Ironically, I think we might see higher pledges for empty sectors rather than full ones, reversing today’s forced pattern. Nothing is perfect. Would things be simpler with no multipliers? Yes. Although maybe the flexibility introduced by free choice of multiplier is an unexpected boon to more varied SP business models. The free multipliers “looks bad” because the concept of QAP hangs around, though it won’t do much. We can get rid of it later if/when multipliers converge. Incorrect inferences like "all pledge becomes 10x" are easy to make. But it directly addresses the primary motivating problems of the original proposal, appears to have no detrimental effects on network macro economics or security, and is possibly even advantageous to SPs focussed on client-paid deals, because they’ll enjoy lower pledge than if they’re forced to equalize. Please accept the implicit offers here to find the best version of a change that could achieve your key goals, so that we can lift the discussion to focus only on whether those are the right goals. That’s a discussion worth having! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Killing the notary system and making Filecoin permissionless again has always been my priority. This has my support. At the same time, I still support getting the multiplier to 1x over time and keeping it there. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@brian75235 ack, it would probably make sense to only apply free multipliers to new commitments, in order to reduce this effect. CEL's analysis is only when applied to new sectors, not existing ones. There could well be too much shock potential if applied to existing sectors. This is one of the details to be worked out. Even so SPs who are rich in tokens would still let CC expire and re-seal a fraction of them at 10x pledge. This is what's already happening, except rate-limited by the datacap acquisition process. The change would fundamentally let SPs find a pledge:power ratio that suits them, presumably near where the marginal cost of obtaining each is equal. I think the 1x case is perhaps worse. I would expect SPs to still let their (unprofitable) CC sectors expire, except this time have no profitable route to re-onboard any storage.
This is the same for removing multipliers too. Deals are still time-consuming and offer no protocol-enshrined benefits (but SPs can charge for them in either case). This is the fundamental issue about whether FIL+ is helpful or not. A key argument by those who think that it is that, without it, SPs wouldn't take deals. Those who think FIL+ is not helpful believe SPs would increasingly take deals anyway, for the marginal revenue. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@anorth Thank you for your reply and I am convinced that it might be the best to limit the free multiplier to new sectors.
Meanwhile, I am wondering if the analysis report would be published to the public any time soon, when it is ready? As I (and a lot of others may) really want to see the presumptions made for analysis as well as how changes would affect RBP, baseline reward, etc,. About SPs taking deals, though I believe and really hope to see that SPs can make profitable deals with real clients, I am not so optimistic that it will happen any soon. So I guess some form of incentive program should be included. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The report was linked earlier: https://hackmd.io/zp-40inqSny5HMqmTSOKxw |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
cross ref to newer discussion #844 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@anorth didn't comment under your original thread as this's a superficially nice but dangerously consequential proposal.
CC sectors should not use the same Power Multiplier range as real data sectors, because the difference in operating costs between these two is so large that it will directly lead to a large number of power driven SPs directly favoring the simpler CC sectors. Filecoin would move further and further away from its original vision because of reaching the small probability requirement of @dcasem.
Three clear and bad results would be:
Thank you! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We strongly oppose all FIPs that encourage CC sectors, it's fooling all filecoin ecosystem participants and makes us doubt the meaning and value of this storage network . |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Trustless mechanisms for encouraging ‘real’ data are fine When someone proposes one then we can discuss it. CC only is still better than a permissioned chain. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Strongly agree @The-Wayvy that maintaining the status quo at this stage is much better than destroying it. Three years have passed, and from the perspective of users, there has been no breakthrough in the Filecoin network. Perhaps it is due to the delayed implementation of payment, and more importantly, will users still trust this network when they discover that computing power and storage are inconsistent, and RBP is only one tenth of QAP? If no, any action will be in vain, no future. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@Dave-lgtm thanks for your comments. Ensuring that CC sectors have a different multiplier to real data sectors is the whole point of the Fil+ program. The protocol has no internal way to determine what real data is. As far as we know is impossible to give CC and data sectors different multipliers without appealing to some external system like notaries. Any test that were performed within the protocol could be immediately cheated by SPs to pretend they have real data. You can't give "reasonable" multipliers without Fil+ program (although we can hope that that program gets better, faster, cheaper etc). The proposal to avoid notaries by free multipliers is just the same as by removing multipliers in this sense. I think you take issue with the original premise, not the free multipliers implementation. I agree that the consequences you expect seem quite likely to result, at least at first. I am not advocating for winding down Fil+ – I am only saying that if the network were to do it, this free multipliers approach seems like the "best" way. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Please let me know how much fake data the notary has reduced for the Filecoin? Obviously, the notary has only brought more controversy. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I have observed that no one has discussed it for a long time, so this proposal is not passed? It didn't even enter the community voting session? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
There is a new one #803 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
In the blockchain world, what has happened cannot be changed. If it is changed, there will be a risk of fork. Therefore, regarding option 2, I think it should not be supported. Regarding option 1, we can discuss more, but we need to discuss more than just canceling DC. If there is no better solution, how to encourage SP's initiative after canceling DC? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
In the blockchain world, if a project deviates from key principles like decentralization, it risks undermining its own viability and willultimately fail. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
#803 points here for discussion, and I was asked how the unrestricted datacap proposal might interact with direct data onboarding #730. I don't see any interactions. The changes seem orthogonal and compatible. When using Fil+, the direct onboarding workflow requires a client to directly create a verified data allocation on chain by spending datacap. The only difference this proposal makes is that the client can mint their own datacap before doing so, rather than waiting for the Fil+ governance process to give it to them (or refuse to). Unrelated to direct onboarding, but the very simple mechanism proposed here does have a side-effect that when an SP only wants to commit capacity, but do so with a high multiplier, the verified allocation they claim must specify a data CID, which must of course match the committed data. (Before direct onboarding, they would do a full-on deal with the built-in market; after direct onboarding they can just directly commit the data). This would have the effect of giving the sector verified deal weight, and making it not appear to be CC, and therefore not eligible for subsequent snap deal with client data. I think we can easily work around this by detecting explicit commitments to the "Zero" unsealed CID, which is the same unsealed CID that CC sectors use. Even though this unsealed CID is not stored on chain, we can set a flag in sector on-chain info to indicate that the sector data is zero, despite having verified deal weight, and that it's therefore a valid target for snap deals. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The attitude of PL staff is very disappointing. You behave like the religious supporters who denied heliocentrism back in the day. Filecoin community members should all be ashamed of this proposal not being taken seriously. Supporters of Fil+ have repeatedly replaced science with stance, and this unscientific and reckless atmosphere has permeated the filecoin ecosystem. I don’t need to identify who is encouraging this atmosphere. To be clear, "cc is useless" is absolutely a stance not a science. The biggest challenge to Filecoin currently is the distortion of the crypto economic model brought about by Fil+. It's the top priority. Please pay more attention to priority management. Until this vital problem is solved, I don't think any network upgrade is necessary. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I have created a new discussion topic #844 for the proposal currently open in PR #803 "Removing Restriction to Access to Multiplier and Allowing Unrestricted Minting of Datacap". Please take future discussion of that proposal to that new topic. This discussion topic remains the discussion reference for the proposal in PR #788, "Draft of Phasing Out Fil+ and Restoring Deal Quality Multiplier to 1x" |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
interesting |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
PR #788 was merged as a first draft of FIP-0080 (I've updated the discussion title to include that). Moving a post from @Fatman13 here for discussion:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thank you for a polite while direct request. I note that you could request help from anyone here, certainly any other core devs, not just FIP editors. FIP editors don't have an obligation to describe what you should write to improve it, just to point out where improvement is needed. I think you may face a lack of enthusiasm to dive in here because, As for FIP-0078, it's hard to see an immediate path for this proposal to progress, even if the content were improved significantly. I think it's fairly clear there is no soft consensus among either core devs or the community. This is currently the only pathway for FIP ratification – controversial changes struggle somewhat by its design. So doing lots of work improving this FIP is hard to motivate. However, the changes proposed for FIP-0001v2 would give an alternative path forward through polling. When that becomes an option, I think it will be more clear what we need to to do improve this proposal's expression ready for that path. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Good call. 👍
Agreed. 🤝 General direction would be suffice.
Agreed. 🤝
I think this FIP is to date the most popular FIP among community in terms of support and engagement. Most metrics on community soft consensus of this FIP are well beyond majority of other FIPs. What we are trying to achieve is getting the proposal ready for last call in terms of formatting & writing so that one day the "consensus" may be reached by force of the market or other means, we can react quickly with no extra time spent on the process. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
btw, could @filecoin-project/fips-editors please kindly help update the label too? Thank you! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
and others
-
中文版 | Chinese Version
authors: @The-Wayvy, @Fatman13, @ArthurWang1255, @flyworker, @stuberman, @Eliovp, @dcasem
type: Technical
category: Core
created: 2023-08-02
Foreword
This FIP Discussion aims to explain why we want to sunset Fil+. We will discuss the drawbacks of Fil+, general design principles that should be respected, and our proposal for a reduction in the quality multiplier of Fil+ deals.
Background
Filecoin Plus programs introduced a permissioned layer to the Filecoin network in an attempt to maximize the useful storage that Filecoin could support.
A Deal Quality Multiplier was created to subsidize storage providers for participating in the Fil+ program, giving Storage Providers (SPs) who stored these verified data a 10X multiplier to their storage power (a 9X increase over non-Fil+ deals) and increasing their share of block rewards. The multiplier was intended to help subsidize the acquisition of data clients and the building of tools and processes for data onboarding.
A group of human notaries was selected to distribute the DataCap. The program evolved the following categories:
Problem Statement
Fil+ has attracted significant verified client and data to the network and has accelerated the development of tools and processes for onboarding data. However, the impacts of Fil+ (both the power multiplier and the off-chain processes for distributing Datacap) have also endangered Filecoin’s growth trajectory:
Starting in Q1’2022, Fil+ accumulated significant mining power in Filecoin, accounting for the vast majority of new power added to the network.
The hardcoded superiority of Fil+ deals has killed off regular sectors and deals. Doubts about the usefulness of data onboarded led to the creation of a new Fil+ roadmap, which requires greater control of Filecoin by the notaries and governance team. The direction proposed by the Fil+ team contradicts the industry’s core value proposition: decentralization and efforts to entrench permissioned mechanisms via the Fil+ and notary bureaucracy have been met with skepticism, dissatisfaction and determined resistance.[1] [2] [3]
We all want useful storage and a meaningful number of paying users on Filecoin, but it’s crucial to reassess whether or not Fil+ will help us accomplish that. The substantial loss of Raw Byte Power, lack of paid storage services, and endless conflict in our community highlight the urgency of resolving this issue. Filecoin’s future is at stake. Now is the time to act.
Design goals
Filecoin’s mission is to provide useful storage. The protocol design should reflect this mission and ensure that Filecoin becomes more useful (with more real data) over time. However, for the use of a blockchain to make sense, the features uniquely enabled by blockchain technology must not be discarded. Our proposal and position on future proposals are guided by the following principles, which are almost taken for granted in Bitcoin, Ethereum, and the wider world of blockchains:
Proposal
Keeping the above principles in mind, we come to our proposal.
As calls for removing human influence from the distribution of block rewards grow louder, the network becomes more useful following the release of the FVM, and the data onboarding tools and processes that Fil+ subsidized approach maturity, we believe the time has come to phase out Fil+.
We are opening this discussion to align on a strategy for gradually diminishing the influence of Fil+ programs on the Filecoin Network, aiming to unburden Filecoin’s permissionless segment, restore objectivity and neutrality to our consensus algorithm, and incentivize the development of sustainable storage services for users.
If a transparent and objective mechanism for evaluating the ‘usefulness’ of data is shipped in the future, the power multiplier can be reconsidered.
We expect the community to develop many proposals on the optimal schedule of cuts to the multiplier. To get the conversation started, we propose two examples below. This discussion aims to get consensus on the need for a commitment to a definite schedule for getting to 1x, and hopefully, the details of how we get there will come up concretely from this discussion.
Option 1:
Stop new Datacap allocations immediately. Eliminate 10X multiplier upon FIP finalization in an upgrade. All new sectors onboarded after the upgrade will have raw byte storage power, effectively removing the deal multiplier. For existing DC sectors, keep the current QAP until these deals expire (will need some technical solutions). Upon sector extension, the 10x multiplier will no longer be applicable after the upgrade.
Option 2:
Decrement the power multiplier on Fil+ deals from 10x to 1x over a scheduled period. For example, decrease the multiplier to 5X for the first 6 months. For the following 6 months, further decrease the multiplier to 2.5x, and so on. For existing DC sectors, keep the current QAP until these deals expire.
In either case, a commitment to a definite schedule for this transition will provide much-needed certainty to network participants about the future of Filecoin. It will remove the primary source of division in our community and enhance perceptions of Filecoin as an open and fair economy.
Both approaches still encourage the onboarding of useful data as the underlying technology for creating alternative revenue streams for SPs improves.
By way of example, let’s assume there are two types of SPs:
Type 1: A CC-only SP which is self-dealing (simply providing security to the network)
Type 2: An SP making paid, unverified storage deals with clients
Over a long enough time period, SP Type 2 will win out over SP Type 1, because SP Type 2 will be making more money with paid storage deals, and will be able to subsidize costs, including pledge collateral.
Call to Action/Open Questions
Changelog:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions