Removing Restriction to Access to Multiplier and Allowing Unrestricted Minting of Datacap (FIP-0078)

[anorth]

Edit: FIP draft https://github.com/filecoin-project/FIPs/blob/master/FIPS/fip-0078.md

This is a new discussion topic for the FIP currently in draft at #803 by @The-Wayvy, @Fatman13, @ArthurWang1255, @flyworker, @stuberman, @Eliovp, and @dcasem. This forks the discussion from "Motivation for a Scheduled Reduction in the Quality Multiplier of Fil+ Deals and Example Timelines" #774 which shares many motivations but started off with a proposal for a very different mechanism. I and other FIP editors hope this new channel will enable clearer discussion and debate of this proposal separated from competing/alternate proposals as it finishes the governance process.

Creating a new discussion topic should not be taken as rewinding any discussion or process. The changes in scope here have already been discussed at some length in #774 and anyone interested in the history should start there. Some specific comments and threads leading to this proposal are highlighted here:

• Initial suggestion by @nicelove666 subsequent thread
• CryptoEconLab analysis of scenarios from @kkarrancsu, specifically "Option 3"
• Similar suggestion by @herony-fil
• Clarifying design sketch by @anorth, and subsequent discussion

Current FIP abstract:

The Fil+ program intended to compensate miners for storing non-random data on Filecoin. It was hoped that these datasets would increase the utility of the network and thereby attract paying users. Fil+ did succeed in accelerating the development of data-onboarding tools. It also attracted users to experiment with storing their data on Filecoin, and it is possible that even after subsidies run out some of these users will pay miners enough to have their data continue to be stored on Filecoin. However, the notary system used by 3/4 of Fil+ programs is inefficient, not objective, and riddled with perverse incentives. This proposal removes the permissioned, off-chain pathways to the 10x multiplier, and makes it available to all actors who stake the required collateral.

[f8-ptrk]

can the authors please acknowledge again that they stand behind this proposal. this has gone a long way from what was originally discussed and PR'ed.

Fatman13 (@Fatman13), flyworker (@flyworker), stuberman (@stuberman), Eliovp (@Eliovp), dcasem (@dcasem), and The-Wayvy (@The-Wayvy)

[The-Wayvy]

I support this proposal.

[Fatman13]

I generally support all variants of the proposal that is helping the network transitioning back to a permissionless one, which allows the network to stick to its core value of decentralization defined here. That being said, I have my own preferred variant when it comes down to a multiple choice. As the proposal goes through a "decentralized" governance process, i think it would be great that network stakeholders can have variants to choose from (including maintaining status quo).

• The network is not dependent on any one party, e.g., not dependent on a company, foundation, or other organization to continue operating.
• No centralized parties can control, stop, or censor the network, its operation, or its participants.
• Users and providers are not controlled or governed by powerful intermediaries (unlike markets like Uber or Airbnb).
• Refers to the decentralization movement of 2015+, including IPFS, Bitcoin, Ethereum, and more.

From the mission statements above, it is very intuitive to me that powerful intermediaries like f+ controlling / censoring the network needs to go (or stop meddling with the consensus at the very least). It is very unfortunate that Filecoin network in its current structure is nothing like decentralization movement of 2015+ of Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Again from Filecoin mission...

• The network is not dependent on any one party, e.g., not dependent on a company, foundation, or other organization to continue operating.

One of the most important things is that network stakeholders could actually collectively making big decisions for the network in a decentralized way.

[f8-ptrk]

Fatman13 (@Fatman13), flyworker (@flyworker), stuberman (@stuberman), Eliovp (@Eliovp), dcasem (@dcasem), and The-Wayvy (@The-Wayvy)

#788 stands in direct opposition to #803. please make a decision what proposal you are standing behind and close the other one to, for example, avoid unnecessary governance overhead - what proposal do you want the community to consider for chain inclusion right now?

if both proposals should be considered, be it in the long run, please clarify how this should work out.

[The-Wayvy]

I support both 788 and 803.

I also support a variant on 803 where we give everyone access to datacap and also cut the multiplier linearly or by halving.

IMO:

All three options accomplish our goal without any unacceptable trade-offs.

The FIP-editors should just merge one of them and get it over with.

[anorth]

We can and should merge the PRs, but this is just a step toward each of the proposals going into the final phases of governance. Nothing technically prevents both from passing Last Call, but clearly if they did then Core Devs would not have a clear mandate of what to implement and so would probably appeal back to a governance process to resolve it. I think this is a pretty unlikely outcome though, so no need to solve it prematurely.

[The-Wayvy]

Hey Alex @anorth

What needs to happen for FIP-0078 to enter last call?

[EVS2024]

Just to confirm, does this proposal support the SPs who use random data can get（mint） unrestricted datacap?

[The-Wayvy]

Yes

[flyworker]

I think it is better to keep one FIP instead of keep multiple, so it there is no huge difference. This one sounds good to me.

[MegaFil]

This proposal would cause filecoin network to fall back to the beginning, completely failing to address the junk data while killing any remaining faith and confidence in the market.

This FIP looks smart but is essentially stupid, and that will change the vision of filecoin. If the proposal can't say no to junk data, we think this discussion is worthless.

[The-Wayvy]

胆小鬼寄生虫

[The-Wayvy]

你是Slack上的 Filecoin Protector

作风一摸一样

[Eliovp]

@MegaFil
When evaluating decisions, it's important to look at the collective feedback.
If the majority (clearly), have concerns about a particular idea and you stand alone in supporting it, it's advisable to engage in self-reflection.

Sometimes, support for an idea may be driven by personal gain rather than its true value..
@cryptowhizzard (this one is for you as well ;-))

Some individuals may struggle to accept contrasting opinions, making dialogue with them somewhat challenging (as is clearly reflected in all of these github/slack discussions.

Essentially, fruitless under the banner of dictatorship ;-)

[MegaFil]

@Eliovp You may need to figure out who is in the minority? Otherwise you'll make a joke out of it.

[Eliovp]

If I would make a list of all the leechers, greeders(not a real word I know), the ones here just for personal gain, well, then yeah, we would definitely be in the minorty here ;-)
I'll make a joke out of that :)

[Chris00618]

This suggestion has been discussed before in the Fil+ Governance proposal and it didn't seem to be well-supported.
Regardless, we'll take the idea that voting is the best way to go, and none of us like being represented by anyone.

filecoin-project/notary-governance#974 (comment)

[The-Wayvy]

@anorth @jsoares

I think people already said what they wanted to say in 774 and on Slack.

We haven’t had a new comment in a week.

Can we get this is into Last Call?

[The-Wayvy]

@kaitlin-beegle @anorth @jsoares

IMO

Soft consensus has been reached on the need to change Fil+.

We should start quantifying support for this specific proposal among different constituencies.

[jsoares]

There is no particular tooling, and I don't know that there is consensus on either question, but I suppose that could be determined.

@kaitlin-beegle Would it be appropriate to include this in the agenda for next week's core devs call?

[The-Wayvy]

I’d love to see ranked voting on the different options that have been presented.

Including option 2 from 774 and some others

[kaitlin-beegle]

@jsoares yep! Already on the agenda :)

[The-Wayvy]

@jsoares @kaitlin-beegle @anorth

Can you tell us what you talked about in the core-devs meeting?

[cryptowhizzard]

Well, again to reiterate from my side, I don't support this proposal. I think giving datacap to someone storing junk is just plain stupid and it not according to the mission of Fil+. Datacap should be granted to data that brings value to the network, i.e. data from respected organizations to show them that decentralized storage is a valuable option for them so the Filecoin network can benefit of that in the near future from a commercial standpoint.

[The-Wayvy]

I think Fil+ is plain stupid.

You oppose this proposal because easy access to DC has been your competitive advantage.

[cryptowhizzard]

Your accusation is incorrect and has no factual basis.

[joshua-ne]

I am wondering what is going on with this FIP? Will it be included in the next upgrade, or are we expecting some community voting or anything?

[Fatman13]

To summarize...

• Despite FIP-0078 being the most popular FIP ever, PL don't think consensus has been reached among community.
• The nucleated fil+ governance team and other former PL tooling teams need fil+ to live to monetize (ex, 1, 2, 3).
• PL is determined to push the "actual storage being used" narrative to investors even though the market is clearly not buying it.

On a side note, community funded FEVM based voting tool is being actively iterated and developed.

[fhmd4k]

Very disappointed with PL, even casting a vote is very difficult.

[joshua-ne]

• PL don't think consensus has been reached among community

I'm wondering why it is not in the voting process yet. We really should have a vote on this, which is not technically difficult to do.

[Fatman13]

To summarize...

A totalitarian voting design is being proposed where a guild of 7 people can overrule the voting result of the network stakeholder, which is in complete violation of Filecoin mission. I.E. if network stakeholders voted yes, the aforementioned guild of 7 people can just flip the voting result and say no.

Besides, the proposed voting composition is also questionable, which includes non-stakeholders like clients and core-devs...

Again, on a side note, community funded FEVM based voting tool is being actively iterated and developed.

[anorth]

Actually a voting process is techically somewhat difficult, when you include clearly defining it and allowing appropriate time and space for disussion of the voting constituencies and rules and ways to measure them objectively. We all wish we had it sooner, but we don't, and it's coming, and part of the reason it's slow is to leave room for discussion like @Fatman13 's above (which is in the wrong place for having any effect). We'll get to vote on this when we have a mechanism for doing so that's reasonably likely to be taken seriously by everyone involved.

[Fatman13]

We all wish we had it sooner, but we don't, and it's coming

Maybe it will come out when the network has already reached high percentage of DC rendering the "incentive scheme" effectively void... missing the 天时 (heavenly timing) and critical momentum 😂

[The-Wayvy]

If Juan wanted to poll miners and holders he could have gotten an app built very quickly.

We all know that he doesn't like this FIP

[flyworker]

2024 is coming, we need to conclude it, #774 was stated on [Aug 3, 2023], it has been 6 months since then.

Next step or close, do we want to keep it open for 12 months?

[jaychoucc]

@anorth

[jaychoucc]

support this proposal.