Allow storage providers to set *negative* prices for verified storage deals #258
Replies: 19 comments 5 replies
-
|
this is great! it shouldn't apply to verified deals only. a miner should have the possibility to pay as much as he wants for normal deals and retrieval deals too! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Love the Sarcasm Patrick. Another joke on the table trying to justify storage providers "paying" "clients/other storage providers" 🤦🏻♂️ |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@f8-ptrk if you want the privilege of getting DoSed by estuary, i'm gonna need about $3.50 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
i doubt that 3.50 is enough to be a bargain when trying to DoS our miner out of a cloudy cloud thingy.... :P |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Great advice！ There's a real need for incentives because it costs a lot to upload real data to filecoin. That's a problem if we just think about the reward of the storage providers . Data side and notaries should have a reasonable return for their efforts. Then the ecosystem will be healthy. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Technically, this is an add-on feature, since it does not remove anything from what the Filecoin miner's can do at this moment, but providing more flexibility for the ecosystem to innovate. I even think it is also good to set the same rule for other prices, as @f8-ptrk mentioned, for normal deal and retrieval deals. In the real world, there are many cases like this, e.g. advertisement, or a market promotion activity. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
a notaries expected return is exactly 0. and as soon as it becomes public that it isn't a notary has been a notary for the time being! there should be a mechanism in place to invalidate all data caps a notary has give out as soon as a notary is convicted for treason! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We need such practical functions, and the data side is also valuable. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Is there any plan to implement this any time soon? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
There are some open implementation questions in actors that need more consideration (and are currently lower priority for the actors team to review than other FIPs currently in PR). Ex - for a negatively priced deal - is the negative price delivered to the storage client up-front (as a one-time bounty for the deal), or "vested" out of the payment channel over time (as it currently is when the storage client pays the provider)? If the latter, what happens on deal termination (it wouldn't make sense for the client to stop getting their bounty if the storage provider terminates!)? Are there any incentive misalignments or attack vectors for a storage provider to self-deal and cheat the Network in this new construction? If others are excited about this idea, would love a slightly deeper dive proposal on how to handle some of these edge cases within the deal making spec in an incentive-aligned way! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
BlockScience created a doc and causal loop diagram exploring some of the potential economic implications of this Issue. We explore how negatively priced deals (NPDs) might affect network dynamics if they are inside or outside of the Filecoin protocol, specifically:
This is a high level qualitative analysis meant to provide intuition around the dynamics. Sharing here in case it's of interest to inform discussions and/or design decisions. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or want help forking the diagram to create your own. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks for the analysis @burrrata ! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I can understand that we want to onboard as much data as possible, it will look good from a marketing perspective, and it bring in more clients, and we get to have freedom to change the price to whatever we want etc. But come on - a Storage Provider paying for data!?
We are expected to do all of the above, just so we might and I say MIGHT more win blocks. I'm strongly against this! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I think that Filecoin as an open protocol should not set limitations to what kind of prices a storage provider wants to set (even negative prices if the Storage Client wants). But, personally I think there are way more important FIP's to focus on currently, that would be better for on-boarding valuable data, then spending a lot of time to implement this FIP. The governance around FIL+ should probably mature more also, before negative prices can be allowed, IMO. I also want to bring up another potential attack vector, or scenario that I think should be explored more in depth wrt negative prices: In the event where we have a Futures Market for Storage via the Filecoin Virtual Machine, are there any potential exploits / edge cases w.r.t having the ability to set negative prices at the protocol level as well? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Closing this issue! Given the relative cryptoeconomic complexity of this issue, strong disapproval from storage providers, and other, higher priority FIPs, this issue does not appear to be one which will benefit the Filecoin community in the near future. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hey @kaitlin-beegle - can we actually make this a discussion instead of closing the issue entirely? I think this level of protocol flexibility could still make sense with out of band incentive schemes that drive the price of deals negative. Agree it needs more design work - but think that is ok for a discussion issue that may grow in importance with programmability and computation capabilities baked into the protocol. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Of course! Thanks for the update, and for transferring! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi @momack2 @kaitlin-beegle I want to bring this up again according to the current market sentiment. Nowadays, in reality, SP "paying" or "profit-sharing" with client on verified deals is common in the community, and One example of implementing SP pays client is https://www.bigd.exchange/ , however the usage is complex, need to wrap FIL in polygon network, smart contract etc. If negative pricing is possible, this whole flow will be much simpler and the fund can be released during the entire life cycle of the storage deal give both parties peace of mind. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
If thoughtfully designed, I expect the changes outlined in #313 and #298 to make this possible. The main way it will do so is by allowing other market actors to take the place of the built-in storage market, and implement whatever deal policies they like, including negative pricing. FIL+ data cap will still require continued commitment to the data, but the data cap allocation could be made conditional upon the SP's acceptance of a deal in some marketplace, including a negatively priced one. I am more motivated to work towards this open platform for marketplaces than to work on improving the built-in one, which I think will become less relevant in the long term. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@kernelogic as one of the operators of SlingshotV3 I must point out that this line is quite a mischaracterization:
The the rules you linked do not explicitly encourage this practice. Rather the current iteration of the program is an invitation for SPs and DPs to explore the market dynamics in an environment reducing the potential for abuse. This does not translate to a project-endorsement of any particular scheme, including the one described in this discussion. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
the client doesn't make the deals anymore - the evergreen engine offers the proposal and makes the deal so evergreen would get the money for negatively priced deals. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Ah you are right. I didn't think this through. no bueno. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
The Mission of Filecoin is to create a decentralized, efficient, and robust foundation for humanity’s information. As such, one of the core goals of Filecoin is to create strong incentives for capacity committed to the network to be utilized in storage deals for valuable data. To achieve that, Filecoin clients and storage providers should be able to propose and accept negatively priced deals - aka deals where the storage provider pays the client to store their Filecoin+ data.
Right now, demand from storage providers for verified storage deals (made by clients with FIL+ datacap) is very high, since it confers a 10x multiple in block rewards proportional to the verified deal size (which helps storage providers quickly achieve and maximize profitability). However, access to these verified deals is constrained by the number of new storage clients onboarding data onto the network. To compete for this high-value resource, miners should be able to offer not just FREE storage and retrieval for verified deals, but NEGATIVELY PRICED storage/retrieval deals.
Negatively priced deals (that share the 10x multiplier returns from FIL+ data with the storage client) will help attract new high-value clients to the Filecoin market, thereby increasing the network's utility and the overall number of FIL+ deals available. As @jbenet mentioned in his EthCC talk, this is a super exciting opportunity that is uniquely available in Filecoin. Instead of having to build these auction/incentive systems outside the deal-making structures of Filecoin, we should simply encode the ability for storage providers to set a negative ask price.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions