[BS] DOT #1541 - Polkadot Storage Phase 3

OpenSquare

Discussions

13zn...P5ju

End

active

Description

https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1541

Polkadot Storage has a new long-term plan to improve their storage system. They have completed 90% of phase 3 and are testing it in a private testnet. They will soon move to a public testnet and work on integrating it with the mainnet. Here are some of the new ideas they have for phase 4:

Jam Integration: They want to use their storage for Jam DA resupply and let any Jam Service use their long-term storage.
Light weight proof system: They want to offer a cheaper and lighter proof system for users who don't need strong guarantees.
Replication: They are working on moving from full replication to something like Erasure coding for better efficiency.
Legal: They are exploring responsibilities and liabilities when dealing with toxic data.
Economic model: They are researching the best numbers for slashing, storage costs, retrieval costs, and pricing to be competitive with centralized solutions. They also want to allow the use of restaked DOT.
XCM: They want to expose the storage so that other parachains can store data.
Marketplace model: They are thinking of the storage layer as a marketplace that gives access to all forms of competing centralized and decentralized storage.

Overall, they want to turn this into a proper storage product and build applications on top of it. They are excited about the potential and attention on storage lately.

Appendants

5d ago

🟢 6 • 🔴 1 • ⚪️ 3
Vote #1: AYE
10 available members.
No CoI reported. DV delegation exercised.
https://polkadot.subscan.io/extrinsic/26041646-3
https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1541#6

Cast your votesingle

Votes·10

12Hi...E9N3

12His7t3EJ38tjdBbivUzWQeaNCLKfMqtKp1Ed3xHMyCE9N3

Abstain

# 3

Please see my comments below in the discussion section, due to several concerns I'm currently holding about the project my initial vote is to Abstain pending clarification and further developments.

13ED...KQbF

13EDmaUe89xXocPppFmuoAZaCsckaJy3deAyVyiykk1zKQbF

Abstain

# 3

12s6...nE8h

12s6UMSSfE2bNxtYrJc6eeuZ7UxQnRpUzaAh1gPQrGNFnE8h

Aye

# 1

Based on the notes from Pierre Aubert from Parity, we decided to support this proposal.

14Gn...YLEh

14Gn7SEmCgMX7Ukuppnw5TRjA7pao2HFpuJo39frB42tYLEh

Aye

# 1

The support for this team in the ecosystem is remarkable and they have been working for some time. AYE for them to continue doing their work.

15fT...yBzL

15fTH34bbKGMUjF1bLmTqxPYgpg481imThwhWcQfCyktyBzL

Aye

# 1

I initially abstained, changing my vote to aye in support of the open endorsement from Parity. I hope a useful decentralized storage solution comes out of this investment.

14gM...deVb

14gMJV95zwxUsFEZDSC8mtBVifS6SypKJkfBKANkMsLZdeVb

Nay

# 2

1. Not sure about utility and use case scenarios of this project 2. Why not other candidates like crust, peaq 3. High cost.

1ZSP...vx6w

1ZSPR3zNg5Po3obkhXTPR95DepNBzBZ3CyomHXGHK9Uvx6w

Abstain

# 3

I believe the team from Eiger is strong, however this project is structured as contract development rather than being designed as a sustaining business. That has positives and negatives, but I wonder if the design decisions line up with what is needed for success in the future. I would like to see a comparison with other decentralized storage designs and an indication that teams are interested and willing to build on this design. I do note that Pierre has signaled that will be coming.

12Kt...DCoJ

12KtA8mtfsK1CyQb4utLiwG3ao22z77w2cM2GqnaL2RiDCoJ

Aye

# 1

I'm voting in favor. The team is building core infrastructure that extends Polkadot's protocol by adding native storage functionality. They aren’t launching a token or offering a service. They are simply writing the code to enable others to build on top. By using DOT exclusively, this work directly increases the utility of the network without introducing new economic layers or profit motives. That alignment with Polkadot’s values is worth supporting.

167Y...TY9F

167YoKNriVtP4Nxk9F9GRV7HTKu5VnxaRq1pKMANAnmmTY9F

Aye

# 1

Find the price steep, but trust the delivery team, this will also enhance Jam when it launches with a longer term storage solution.

1xzc...1bX6

1xzcLSwo7xBFkJYZiL4EHaqFpuPTkH641E3V43W4cuk1bX6

Aye

# 1

We support this proposal based on the comments of Pierre Aubert from Parity.

Discussions·4

131M...PwQB

Hey everyone, when reviewing this proposal please take into consideration these thoughts by Pierre Aubert, Vp of Technology at Parity. https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/1541#hZnT7Vhz6uxvLWWNY2mU

12Hi...E9N3

Hi @Eiger , the link you've posted is broken FYI.

12Hi...E9N3

My main concern with this proposal, and the previously rejected one, is that I'm starting to see a trend with teams that a providing very fundamental on-chain services to the ecosystem which are almost completely bankrolled by either DF grants and/or the treasury in their building phase. Once they've got a product rolling and then become embedded in the ecosystem, the treasury is continuously drained further and is charged for services provided. Since the initial investment from the treasury is so high, and I'm assuming that some of the cost involves purchasing equipment, is there a plan or consideration for either repayment of the initial funding or** at least **a 5 year costing breakdown for the services to be rendered in the future?

131M...PwQB

https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/1541#hZnT7Vhz6uxvLWWNY2mU

@The Ionian Fixed the hyperlink, the url text was correct so it could be copy pasted.

I think your point is fair but I wouldn't say it applies in this case. We are writing the code, building the infrastructure but we are not providing a service, we can't make money off this. We are extending the protocol, adding storage to Polkadot and we are not creating a new token so we don't have a way to make money, we want DOT to be used exclusively so it adds to the utility. Storage providers will charge for their storage but we are not them, we are just writing the code.