FIP: Revision to Filecoin's Minting Model for Storage Provider Sustainability

[herrehesse]

Simple Summary

Modify Filecoin's minting model to ensure financial sustainability of storage providers by linking Baseline Minting block rewards with quality adjusted power instead of raw byte power.

Abstract

As Filecoin navigates through its challenging phase, the storage providers' revenue has seen a significant (~50%) drop over the past year and a 2.8% decline in block rewards just last week. If left unaddressed, it will result in the financial instability of almost all currently operational storage providers, especially as we are not yet ready to fully transition towards the stage 3 of the minting model. The primary problem seems to stem from the initial minting model's failure to consider the impact of quality adjusted power (FIP003). Given the circumstances, we propose a revision to the minting model, offering a solution to ensure the financial sustainability of storage providers.

This proposal has received substantial positive feedback on Slack (see here: Slack Discussion), indicating the pressing need and wide acceptance within the community for changes that ensure the long-term financial health of our storage providers. We hope to take this positive momentum forward by opening up further discussions here on GitHub.

Key proposal

• Connect Baseline Minting block rewards with quality adjusted power rather than raw byte power.
• We realise that the proposed solution may be subject to different interpretations depending on the various experiences and backgrounds each network contributor has. Therefore, this proposal aims to outline one path, while keeping the details open for discussion.

Change Motivation

The motivation for this proposal is two-fold. Firstly, it is necessary to address the network's double decline impact, which is a product of the current minting model and QaP and affects all active storage providers. Secondly, by reframing the network's pledge basis, we aim to provide incentives for rapid capacity growth, in turn helping to counteract the network's decline.

Product consideration

This proposal will foster a more sustainable economic model for storage providers. It addresses significant issues faced by the community, thereby enhancing the longevity and stability of the network.

Questions for the Community and Developers:

• Is this proposed technical solution feasible within the Filecoin ecosystem?
• Without implementing such a change, how do you envision storage providers surviving, especially considering the lack of paid deals within the current market?
• Are there alternative models or approaches that you would recommend to mitigate the financial impact on storage providers?
• Can we debate the rate of growth in the minting model in light of current market economics to a healthier/different rate?

Update 07/11/2023

Update for the Community:

We would like to provide you with an update on the discussions held last week regarding the proposal to modify Filecoin's minting model. We greatly appreciate everyone's participation and the valuable insights shared during the deliberations. Based on the collective input, we have reached the following conclusions:

1. It has been acknowledged that there is indeed a pressing issue that requires resolution within the network.
2. Urgency has been emphasised, as we have limited time before the network becomes too unhealthy and unsustainable for storage providers.
3. The proposed solution should aim to halt and/or revert the current downward spiral of the network.
4. The current baseline minting growth rate is currently considered unhealthy and in need of adjustment.
5. We have two main options: either we modify the baseline minting to QaP, or we reduce the baseline minting growth rate.

Taking into account the importance of prompt action, we suggest moving towards a proposal that alleviates immediate pressure on the network's health. Simultaneously, we should focus on developing more sustainable solutions for FIL+ and paid deals. It is crucial not to get caught up in lengthy network overhauls, as they would take too much time to implement, jeopardising the network's health.

We appreciate your active participation in the discussions about modifying Filecoin's minting model. The proposal has received strong support from:

• Storage Providers
  DCENT
  Greater Heat
  Holon
  Seal Storage
  DLTx
  DSS
  Blocz
  Distora

• Developers

• Community members

• Notaries

• Lending Providers

• Liquidity Pool Providers

• SAAS Providers

While some members have expressed concerns about the network's reliance on FIL+ and suggested its removal, we believe completely removing FIL+ is not feasible or timely. The FIL+ team has made significant progress in areas such as retrievals, abuse detection, data-logging en monitoring. Completely removing it would be an excessively drastic change, especially considering the current unhealthy state of the network.

We hope that the community understands the urgency of the matter and the potential implications it holds for the Filecoin ecosystem. We look forward to your thoughts and opinions on this important topic.

ADDED POLL: https://forms.gle/ektZcc7z4WTK8xu88

[scotthconner]

What's interesting in my mind about this proposal is the simplicity of the actual change to meaningfully change the margin-dynamics and block rewards for miners. A couple of independent, neutral observations I've had when playing with this idea:

• Could this also be accomplished by changing the baseline function to be 1/10th of what you'd expect, adjusting for the fact that most raw bytes are feeding network QaP?
• If QaP is what drives the baseline calculation, how does that change the incentives for committing raw capacity? Is it that below the baseline mint, the only thing that would move the needle is FIL+ deals? What are the second orders of that?
• Are there longer term trade-offs or effects by essentially goosing the block rewards now, and how does that play out 3, 5, 7 years down the line as it relates to supply and demand?

[herrehesse]

Hello @scotthconner, thank you for your insights and thoughtful questions regarding the proposal. I appreciate your engagement in this important discussion.

• Yes, changing the baseline function to 1/10th of the expected value, could be a viable approach to achieve the desired block reward changes.

• Regarding the impact on incentives for committing raw capacity, it is likely that below the baseline mint, the primary factor influencing rewards would be FIL+ deals. This could potentially lead to a shift in behavior among miners, as they focus more on pursuing such deals to maximize their rewards. Exactly what we already see on chain today.

• When considering the longer-term effects of boosting block rewards now, it is important to analyze potential trade-offs and impacts on supply and demand. While it is difficult to predict with certainty how these effects will unfold over a period of 3, 5, or 7 years, it is crucial to address the current issues and make necessary fixes. If further adjustments are needed down the line, they can be addressed accordingly, ensuring a balance between immediate improvements and future considerations.

It's worth noting that without an emergency update in the near future, there is a risk of losing a lot of currently healthy block producers. Therefore, it is crucial to take decisive action to address the existing challenges.

[The-Wayvy]

it is likely that below the baseline mint, the primary factor influencing rewards would be FIL+ deals. This could potentially lead to a shift in behavior among miners, as they focus more on pursuing such deals to maximize their rewards. Exactly what we already see on chain today.

We lost 6 exabytes of RBP in exchange for 1 exabyte of FIL+

More importantly we're now the only blockchain that has set up a bureaucracy of humans to manually inspect users transactions.

[Zorlin]

Strong +1. I feel that discussions around solutions (temporary or otherwise) to the network wide issues we're facing more and more are very worth having, and this proposal seems sound to me.

[DLTX-Github]

We are all in dire need need to consider this change for the Filecoin operation to make sense for any storage provider willing to contribute to the network's goal and vision

[kernelogic]

I am not a big SP but I know SPs are rushing into pledging right now due to the rapid decline of block rewards per TB. I think changing the minting model can make network sustainable for longer.

[jamerduhgamer]

Completely agree with the key proposal as well. As I interact with a lot of the ESPA SPs regularly, I see, hear and feel these pain points especially relating to the decline in block rewards.

However, I think the questions for the community are good points for discussion as we need to know what negative consequences of having this change from raw byte to QAP would cause.

[SBudo]

I'm 100% behind this change!
Even if we introduce this on a temporary basis.
The original idea behind the Filecoin specs document was to, overtime, reduce the block reward reliance for SPs while increasing the sales of storage directly to end customers. The problem we are facing today is that the block reward has started to reduce considerably, but the network is not quite ready to move to selling storage yet, putting a huge financial pressure on all SPs within.

From a financial perspective, the current entry point for any new SPs is way too high compared to the block reward return, making it very hard for anyone without huge financial backing to come onboard. This could lead to an unwanted centralisation of the data in the lomg-term.

FIL loans are getting harder to pay as the interest rate is not reducing, and is deducted directly from the block reward before any revenue can be calculated and potentially converted to FIAT to cover operating costs (which means that the FIL/FIAT price doesn't matter in this scenario). In the next 6 to 12 months, this could lead to SPs having to purchase FILs to cover their weekly interests if the block reward doesn't (this could happen if block rewards were down to simple minting only), leading to more SPs existing the network.

The fact that QAP is increasing is indicative of SPs out there trying to survive by trying to counteract the decrease in block rewards.
The number of active miners in the last 5 months (since we started tracking it) has been steadily decreasing indicating that SPs are exiting the network (note that this value is inclusive of new SP ID created by existing SPs, making this number even worse than what it looks like on the graph below).

[jennijuju]

Even if we introduce this on a temporary basis.

During the SDM/CDM conversation, one of the governance concern raised by SP community is,"Unexpected crytoecon proposals will damage business planning & its stability."

That given said I think any suggestion being its okay to have:

• rushed temporary solution
• land now revert later
  are not viable path.

The community & core devs ought to find the root problem and work on a sustainable solution.

[jennijuju]

FIL loans are getting harder to pay as the interest rate is not reducing

I know some of the defi team was 🤔 some of the economical parameter of onchain lending solution to be reactive to the network dynamics, like block rewards/storage growth - Would that be interesting for SPs?

[SBudo]

Absolutely, very interesting. With the current lending market, the majority of the risks are on the SPs. I would welcome any model that shares the risks

[Zboi04]

I think it would also be viable to create additional sources of revenue for SPs. For example, allowing SPs to receive income from job requestors to process datasets in the Bacalhau Network and/or create an AI model training marketplace for SPs to participate in. Furthermore, developing an on-chain system that allows SPs to attract FIL stake to their "pools" without any interest; this model would be a profit-sharing model very similar to other PoS protocols like Near, Solana, etc., and it would allow SPs to sustainably onboard storage at scale, thus increasing the utility of the Network as a whole (SPs could even be required to put 1%-10% self-stake to total stake to add security while still significantly lowering the entry-barrier and reducing burdens for SPs). I've even been working on an idea that allows SPs to create DAOs within their storage operation/pool that allows stakers to have a vote on all or certain characteristics of the SPs operation (voting on strategies to onboard more storage, ways to increase revenue, changing economic parameters regarding the DAO, etc.); this would allow smaller SPs to add more incentives to grow their operations and further align the incentives of FIL holders and the broader community with SPs. With all that being said, I think tying the baseline threshold to QaP as well as adjusting pledge is a sound solution for the short-term (6-12 months) to give SPs a breather, but it should definitely be temporary. IMO, the best solution is to implement a temporary fix and gradually phase out Fil+ as I think removing Fil+ create more value for the FIL token and cause the monetization of data to happen in network. If we this proposal a permanent or long-term temporary change, I believe this could cause excessive inflation to FIL. We definitely need to be careful on how we implement this proposal.

[liyunzhi-666]

It's time to make some changes.
We can observe that the revenue of SPs is decreasing and the number of SPs is not growing as much as before. In addition, the interest rates of lending institutions to SPs have been high and the price of FIL is also worrying. All these things mean that we need to make changes.

[jcace]

Does anyone know the reasoning behind the baseline threshold mechanic in the first place? I feel like I don't fully understand what it's meant to do, and so it seems like it's not helping us at the moment.

If we were to completely remove the baseline threshold mechanic altogether, so that max #. of Fil tokens are always minted at each epoch, what would be the downsides to that approach?

[Fatman13]

A simpler minting model would definitely attract more investment IMO.

[SBudo]

The original reasoning behind the Baseline minting is that, if the Raw Byte Power doesn't stay above the baseline (which double every year), the block rewards starts to drop. This is designed to incentivise SPs to add more Raw Byte Power to the network to stay above the baseline so the block rewards do not drop.
Keep in mind that the block rewards are made of Simple and Baseline minting

[herrehesse]

@SBudo this only works if QaP did not break the pledge requirements.

[SBudo]

Totally and the push of FIL+ has also made this original reasoning outdated and pretty much redundant.

[herrehesse]

Yes, that is completely accurate.

[NDLABS-Leo]

The earnings of sp are taking a big hit, as I understand, because the earnings of single T are dropping significantly and the gas fees are now very high.
In addition, SPs need to pay fees other than encapsulation, so many SPs I know are not doing growth anymore, and many CC nodes have not chosen to continue after expiration;
secondly, DC nodes need to pay 10x pledge, and many SPs need to borrow coins to pledge, and they need to pay high interest.

[dcasem]

While I understand the perspective informing the current proposal, I do hold some reservations.

Our primary aim should be to elevate the value of FIL. Increasing the supply in the current climate would likely depress the token's price, which would be counterproductive to attracting developers, investors, and new SPs.

Moreover, adjusting new minting based on a somewhat arbitrary multiplier that already redistributes the supply from those ensuring network security via Proof-of-Spacetime to those providing “useful data” (according to a potentially debatable process) seems fraught with risks. It appears to double down on a system that already stirs controversy. Recent issues surrounding FIL+ and an increasingly heated notary system underline this concern. While well-intentioned, the instances of code of conduct enforcement can be perceived as censorship, which goes against the core ethos of crypto - the promise of building incorruptible systems through minimizing human intervention.

As Storage Providers (SPs), rather than chasing more rewards, we should think about how to monetize data, considering that there's proven demand for storage, and look at blockchain rewards as a bonus. With the current state of onboarding and retrieval, the main draw of the network is the cryptographic proof of data possession, and that's a good starting point.

Filecoin is a unique blockchain. But, like any blockchain, security and performance are paramount. If we lessen our reliance on FIL+, we can encourage providers to strengthen blockchain security via more Raw Byte Power. This also allows developers to concentrate on improving chain performance instead of redistributing blockchain rewards. Improved chain performance is key to attracting more projects to build on Filecoin, creating more demand for storage from new users, and contributing to a more balanced and sustainable economic model.

We need to navigate carefully to ensure Filecoin's long-term sustainability. The fundamental principles of economics - notably the law of supply and demand - cannot be overlooked. Increasing the supply of FIL tokens without a corresponding rise in demand could risk further debasing the currency. We should also consider the potential impact of our actions on centralization and resistance to censorship, both important considerations, as this proposal could lead us to the edge of pitfalls that might jeopardize the project's viability.

I look forward to the ongoing discussion and am eager to hear more insights from you all.

[bobdubois]

I'm inclined to following the logic of @dcasem 's comment. Although I agree that SP sustainability is a concern, having Block Rewards coupled with a program that is not trustless by design is potentially introducing a lot more problems. I would suggest looking into proposals to lower the sealing cost.

[herrehesse]

@bobdubois, neither of the proposed solutions would effectively address the ongoing challenges. Simply making things "cheaper" will not halt the continuous downward spiral characterised by:

• Decreasing CC caused by the combination of FIL+ and price levels.
• Escalating reliance on FIL+ as CC has been financially unsustainable for 12+ months.
• Prolonged high collateral requirements (pledge) due to the Quality-adjusted Power.
• The impending un-sustainability of Storage Providers (SPs) to remain viable under these circumstances.

Reducing rewards on a shrinking network is making the network shrink which is reducing the rewards. This self-perpetuating cycle will continue unless significant changes are implemented. Reducing fee's won't help.

[dcasem]

The sooner we realize that the only viable solution to this problem is ending FIL+, the better off we will be. CC will be sustainable once FIL+ is gone. RBP will return and no other major changes to the network's tokenomics will be necessary.

[Fatman13]

+1 to @dcasem 's position on this proposal.

[The-Wayvy]

100%

Begin by lowering the power multiple for FIL+

[cryptowhizzard]

Supported & Agreed

[jennijuju]

@jcace you can checkout the reasoning behind it here https://filecoin.io/2020-engineering-filecoins-economy-en.pdf in 6.1
in which it mentioned it

to encourage consistent storage onboarding and investment in long-term storage, not just rapid sealing. Instead of minting tokens based purely on elapsed time, block rewards instead scale up as total storage power on the network increases.

I totally understand where this is proposal is coming from and am interested in brainstorming potential solutions. My concern w.r.t the idea proposed by the author is that: if we simply change the baseline to be based of QAP, it encourages doing less work and contributing LESS LONG TERM STORAGE to the networks but getting higher rewards.

Thus, the baseline function must change accordingly for making this a viable solution imho.

[ChrisWardJones]

I completely agree with this approach, even if only in the short term whilst a solution to the declining rewards is agreed upon and implemented.

The key issue is that the cost of entry and ongoing operation is far too high compared to returns. The simple solution is to generate FIAT revenues, however the network is not fit for that purpose (yet) as the tooling does not exist which would make Filecoin a palatable alternative to pre-existing and familiar solutions, which consumers need to be enticed away from...... There are solutions to the problem, but that puts the onus on the SP to develop a the required tooling, which adds more time and cost.

So, in short, something needs to be done now whilst longer term solutions are discussed, agreed, developed, and implemented.

[herrehesse]

Yes, fully agreeing with you @ChrisWardJones!

[Alex-SealStorage]

We are strongly supportive of this FIP and recommend emergency adoption measures

[herrehesse]

@Alex-SealStorage We will make sure to move from draft > discussion > official FIP proposal this week.

[alexpeay]

+1 we need to figure out how to fix this baseline issue and this approach is a strong option. Something must be done in this space or SPs will leave.

[distora-w3]

I see the need for a sliding scale. If you have followed anything of the Ukraine war, there is an analogy we can draw from the conflict. So here goes.

We went to war with bullets, and these are our CCs. To win the war, we need artillery shells as they shape the future for a win. These are our FIL+ deals.

If we invest heavily in the shells, we could find ourselves without bullets just when the enemy is up and close to us. It would be best to have bullets and not shells when you are face to face. If you run out of bullets, you might as well go home. The cost of bullets and shells is not the same. You can make some of one or the other and then perhaps divide up your productive capacity on a sliding scale basis.

A general responsible for the trenches will be shouting for bullets. At the strategic level, you know the answer requires making as many shells as possible. But if you ignore your general dealing with the horrors of looking the enemy in the eye, you might not have a strategic future.

This problem can be equated to the old-fashioned radios where pressing a button causes others to pop up.

When you have a complex problem, it can be helpful to consult chat GPT, and the text is below:

“Ultimately, the balance between bullets and artillery shells is a complex decision that requires a thorough understanding of the mission, available resources, and the specific needs of the battlefield. Generals must continually assess and adjust their resource allocation based on changing circumstances to optimize combat effectiveness and achieve their objectives.”

Hidde is right to call us to arms. We have a situation that calls for change because circumstances have changed. If the self-healing mechanisms are not working, then a review of short- and long-term actions is required. Not acting is also an action with costs.

We all want to win the war, but it can get a bit messy from time to time.

[DecentCr8]

Fil+, Yes, Fil+ is at the key of this issue.

Unsolvable governance issues, coupled with the pervasive abuse driven by profit motives, have resulted in rampant corruption. Fil+ has created an unfair market within the Filecoin ecosystem, leading to distorted competition and the rise of unscrupulous players. It can be said that Fil+ has contaminated the entire ecosystem.

This proposal raises valid concerns, but there may be more effective and comprehensive solutions available, like:

1. Immediately cease Filecoin Plus. Incentives for real data storage can be implemented on Layer 2 right now.
2. Modify the Baseline function to establish a more reasonable growth curve, such as a 30% annual growth rate.

[herrehesse]

@DecentCr8 Choosing option one would result in leaving numerous deal-focused storage providers (SPs) in the dark. Moreover, implementing this option would require extensive modifications to the chain, which would take several months to prepare. By the time these modifications are completed, the chain could deteriorate significantly, potentially reaching a critical state where it becomes too late to address the issues effectively.

On the other hand, option two appears to be a suitable solution, particularly if it successfully addresses the ongoing downward trend on the network. Not sure if it is any better than changing RAW to QaP.

[The-Wayvy]

Option 3 is an immediate reduction in the power multiple and commitments to further reductions on specified dates in the future.

[DecentCr8]

Sorry, my suggestion is implementing both 1 and 2.

[jhookersyd]

Holon supports this FIP.

If we don't do something ASAP this network isn't going to achieve its ambitions/might not exist in 12 months.

[dcasem]

Disagree. SPs who don't sell storage might not be here in 12 months, and that might end up being good for the network.

[The-Wayvy]

I propose immediately reducing the FIL+ multiplier from 10 to 9 and committing to a schedule for further reductions until the subsidy is completely removed.

Once we find a way to incentivize the behavior we want directly inside the source code then we can re-introduce power multiples.

[herrehesse]

@dcasem CC won’t be profitable until we hit prices near 35-40 USD. And with the current reduction this number is going up quickly.

Removing all QAP sectors won’t make this much better either.

[dcasem]

You don't understand how the Chinese SPs work @herrehesse. It's usually structured as an investment with yield from rewards. If we can create a path to making that viable again, CC will return quickly. It's better that dollars are allocated to further securing the network via HDDs than "collateral" for predominantly fake data. Simplify things, and people can understand the value proposition -- we have a PoW network that uses HDDs instead of ASICs - far more green, just as secure.

Unfortunately, what we have now with FIL+ is nothing more than a giant ponzi scheme.

If we root block rewards in actual physical costs (e.g. HDDs, other hardware), the price should at the very least quickly reach an equilibrium around mining costs. Just look at BTC as an example.

[herrehesse]

Valid points.

[cryptowhizzard]

Still i am against. I see real value in FiL+ when it is better structured and controlled and i see this tech being equal or better to AWS soon. Take StorJ as example …

[dcasem]

FiL+ when it is better structured and controlled

@cryptowhizzard we need to focus on building a permissionless blockchain. Given the recent issues in the USA around unregistered securities, we should minimize centralization and not leave control to a small group of people (i.e. notaries or PL). Moreover, I think it will be hard to win over cryptonatives if we don't stick to basic principles around decentralization and remaining permissionless, especially around how we achieve consensus in the network.

[wenxinnnnn]

I want to know how the "x10" for FIL+ was defined and why it's not "20x" or "5x." If the goal is only to incentivize FIL+ rewards without considering cost issues, it becomes a major factor in the current problem of CC being uncompetitive. There are two possible solutions: either increase the multiplier for CC similar to FIP56, or decrease the multiplier for FIL+.

[nothingjustaminer]

I want to point out that Filecoin's core value is "DECENTRALISED storage" which should not be distorted by FIL+ anymore. Making a decision to remove FIL+ from the core protocol is a coming back of filecoin’s core value.

It honors those people who believe in decentralised storage and shows the world that filecoin has an honorable community that can get together and make tough decisions.

I expect the coming back of core value will support the market and solve the storage provider sustainability problem which is also what this FIP is trying to achieve.

[vkalghatgi]

Thanks for starting this discussion: in challenging macroeconomic environments it’s healthy to revisit the reasoning that informs the protocol’s incentive design. Some thoughts below:

• There should be a high bar to changing the protocol's cryptoeconomic design. Changes generally should not be enacted solely with short-term interests in mind (not necessarily saying that is the case here as the proposal is at a high-level discussion phase, but this should be our shared mental model)
• In any market-based economy, businesses compete to capture larger shares of available rewards; this same principle applies to the Filecoin economy and its participants, including Storage Providers, with the added benefit that protocol incentives and reward structures are equally open, transparent, and known to all parties.
• Baseline is meant to tie block reward minting to the amount of raw hardware dedicated to Filecoin. Raw hardware is tangible and hard to inflate whereas QAP could have many other factors.
• Filecoin is a network based on disks, compute, and other hardware. Unless that core base has changed, the total network rewards should still be based on raw byte power instead of QAP.
• Some SPs are struggling and we are empathetic to that. In fact, many teams are struggling in this environment, not just SPs. However, the onus is on each team and organization to improve their operational efficiency and be creative with revenue streams to survive. There are many healthy development in the ecosystem which suggests that the situation is not as dire.
  • DeFi solutions are offering healthy interests rates (stFIL) and many SPs are offering competitive reward splits (55-65%) to attract token holders (FilFi)
  • One can now also borrow against their Miners or sell their Miners to obtain more liquidity on SPex and Glif.
  • Continuing improved efficiencies and cost reductions to sealing throughput
• Shifting the common network target to induce a desired level of minting is not without risk either; the network’s storage capacity with respect to the baseline function should determine minting, rather than the reverse.

[herrehesse]

Hi @vkalghatgi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation in this stage of discussion and for sharing your valuable insights regarding the FIP proposal. As the CEO of DCENT, one of Europe's largest Storage Provider, I would like to offer my perspective on a few points where I hold a differing view.

• While it is undoubtedly crucial to maintain a high standard for altering the protocol's crypto-economic design, we must also be attentive when the need for change arises from the core of the community itself, particularly from the SPs/block producers. In my opinion, the proposed change can be seen more as a fix rather than a complete overhaul, as the current downward spiral can be attributed to a design flaw.

• Your emphasis on a market-based economy is entirely valid.

• The challenge lies in the association of block rewards with raw-hardware, while in turn hardware itself is tied to revenue and revenue is tied to token price. This, in my opinion, is one of the shortcomings of the protocol's minting model, especially now with the introduction of QaP disrupting the collateral requirements for adding raw capacity. Let me elaborate: In the case of Bitcoin (PoW), for instance, there exists a self-healing mechanism within the blockchain called "difficulty." This mechanism ensures that block times average out at approximately X minutes, no matter how much calculation power is added or removed from the chain. If the network faces a severe downfall in calculation power, the difficulty will self-adjust, making it easier for the remaining miners to earn rewards and thus automatically rebalancing the network. A similar concept was incorporated into Filecoin with the aim of reducing the sector pledge cost for entities to commit raw storage capacity during network contractions. However, the intended self-healing mechanism is no longer functioning in alignment with original tokenomic intent due to the introduction of FIP003 (Filecoin Plus). The QaP interferes with this mechanism, resulting in a dysfunctional minting model that leads to a reduction in block rewards, thereby further diminishing the viability of SPs. As a consequence, the overall raw network power declines, leading to further reductions in block rewards. This downward spiral must be resolved promptly.

• While Filecoin is a network centered around disks, compute, and other hardware, the minting model must properly account for QaP to prevent this network from succumbing to a downward spiral. Unless corrective measures are taken, the outflow of hardware will continue until only a few EiBs remain.

• It is important to note that all SPs, not "some", are grappling with this issue. I have personally engaged with the majority, if not all, of the major western entities that have invested millions, if not tens of millions of USD, in setting up highly sophisticated infrastructures, placing their trust in this project. Since early summer 2022, most of them have been operating at a monthly loss. The current downturn exacerbates the situation, pushing many of us into a deepening hole that seems insurmountable. Even the few operational SPs that manage to operate with a net positive are unlikely to survive the continuous weekly revenue reductions ranging from 1% to 3%. Attempting to resolve this problem by fully focussing on paid deals is simply too soon, as numerous storage providers have already voiced in their concerns.

• Although DeFi solutions, liquidity pools, and staking mechanisms are all exciting developments that we are actively involved in, none of these measures alleviate the financial impact on SPs to the extent that the current baseline minting model does. Regardless of revenue sharing or low interest rates, the reduced block rewards make it impossible to cover basic expenses such as rent and power, even for entities who are 100% on QaP.

• Admittedly, shifting the common network target to induce the desired level of minting is not without risks. However, given the current outlook for the network's health by the end of this year, we find ourselves compelled to make this adjustment. I also concur with the notion that minting should be determined by the network's storage capacity in relation to the baseline function, rather than the other way around. Unfortunately, we are running out of time and options to address this pressing matter.

To the best of my knowledge, nothing is more critical than the network's health and the commitment of block producers /SPs to this remarkable project. We find ourselves in this predicament because we have exhausted all other alternatives, and we urgently need a resolution for this significant problem we collectively face.

I eagerly await everyones thoughts on the best way forward, considering the following possibilities:

1. Tying baseline minting to QaP.
2. Adjusting the baseline minting growth to a sustainable level.

I believe that by engaging in a collaborative conversation, we can find the optimal solutions to overcome the existing network issues. Thank you for your attention.

[SBudo]

However, the intended self-healing mechanism is no longer functioning in alignment with original tokenomic intent due to the introduction of FIP003 (Filecoin Plus). The QaP interferes with this mechanism, resulting in a dysfunctional minting model that leads to a reduction in block rewards

^^^ This is the problem.

I agree that fiddling with the chain economics could be very risky, but its initial design never took into account FIL+.
The initial arbitrary value set for the baseline was based on the expected RBP growth, but the introduction of FIL+ hindered this, so it would make sense to re-evaluate what the baseline should look like.

I don't think it should be linked to QAP, but we should discuss re-aligning the original value (or the yearly growth) to the impact of FIL+

[HS-DARMA]

Thank you to @herrehesse and everyone that has contributed to this discussion. From our position as a provider of FIL to the ecosystem, DARMA has had the privilege of working closely with over 40 Storage Providers globally since January 2022 to onboard verified client data via our product FAUS (Filecoin Asset Use System). At the time of launch, the estimated network ROI was ~90%+ and the market rate of ~15-20% was a reasonable cost to access the much needed FIL for the 10x collateral requirement when onboarding verified/useful data.

Things have changed drastically since then, with the significant drop in Raw Byte Power (RBP) on the network resulting in a rapid decline in Filecoin rewards. It is clear that there is very little reason for RBP to rise back above the baseline given in the current state of the ecosystem and we empathize with the arguments presented by community members to ease the burden on Storage Providers. We will support Storage Provider sustainability by adjusting our counterparties from a fixed use rate to a revenue-share based rate, eliminating the risk of network rewards falling below a fixed use rate. Any new and existing counterparties are welcome to reach out to us to work out and implement this adjustment. Although this is just one component of SP operational overhead, we hope that this decision will signal and resonate with other FIL providers in the space.

On the more touchy topics of FIL+, baseline curve adjustment/removal, and network rewards:

• Both sides have made great points. Network rewards will only drop from here and eventually Storage Providers that are reliant solely on these rewards will not be able to continue operating. At the same time, the Filecoin protocol never promised a failsafe that would protect all Storage Providers at the cost of overall network health.
• I agree with the comment above from @vkalghatgi that once we make meaningful changes at the protocol level, they will be difficult to undo and may push the ecosystem further in the wrong direction. Would we not be back at square one if network rewards rise 30% but the price of FIL falls another 50% due to more FIL entering the system? What keeps the community from making another change once things get difficult?
• FIL+ heavily distorted proper network processes and there are clear indications that it is a flawed system that detracts from what is supposed to be a permissionless system. A gradual reduction and eventual phase-out of this multiplier will be necessary to encourage more productive actions from participants in the ecosystem. RBP is far more important to the protection and sustainability of the Filecoin blockchain and we must find a way to bring RBP back to the network. If we continue to incentivize FIL+, CC participants will continue exiting and there will be less real hardware securing the network.

Ultimately, the community as a whole must establish a clear route to profitability outside of Filecoin rewards. What is the most realistic timeline and what are the most critical components to being able to offer services that will be paid for in fiat?

[herrehesse]

We are further reviewing community sentiment though a poll. Please share your thoughts on our poll here: https://forms.gle/V4anZXUCLCt9vRbf9

Thank you for your participation.

[distora-w3]

I am a new SP, and I am trying to understand the problem area. To me, it would seem that we can boil down the "problem" into the following issues:

1. The mission is to onboard humanities data, and FIL+ is the incentive mechanism (with all of its messiness) to upload "good data"
2. FIL+ has complicated matters to the point that CC is being lost from the network, with the resultant algorithms shaving block rewards (also, the price of FIL is adding to the misery)
3. Taking the two points above would suggest that we must stop the haemorrhage of CC, reverse the outflow, and arrest the decline in block rewards away from the original trendline

We seem to have two camps:
A] The purists suggest we eliminate distortions and bureaucracy and let the network return to a stable state of its own accord.
B] The current economics are a clear and present danger to SPs and the investments they have made. SPs are likely to quit the network if something is not done. Adjusting to QaP commitments is a reasonable way forward to keep SPs alive and functioning.

Questions for both camps
A] The purist view might be right.

• But how long would it take to bottom out, and could the cost of losing SP's be sustained?
• If FIL+ is not replaced, what happens to the mission of onboarding "good data"?

B] We change the minting models to prevent the exit of SPs, but in turn, we might create a Chimera on steroids with a Hydra and a Cerberus added to the mix.

• Would we push the network crunch down the line to a future date?
• Are the unknown consequences too much of a risk?
• Could a speedier CC rate of decline cause more trouble than it is worth?

My bias would push me towards taking action to save the SPs. (Turkeys don't for Christmas) However, I am old enough to know that rarely one side has all the answers. Similarly, complexity and gut feeling can only get you so far. Data and evidence are the foundations for building arguments that can then be tested logically in support of proposals. Simply put, if I put my bias to one side. Where is the evidence for position A with all of the costs, benefits and suggested replacement or not of FIL+. Similarly for position B what are the arguments, evidence, suggestions, risks and mitigation plans to prevent a rampant classical Greek monster?

Simplified:
Position A. Go back to purity. But explain what happens following an exodus of SPs, talent, tin, compute and disks
Position B. We save SPs, but then what? How do you explain to A that we do not have some sort of deferred armageddon or sticky mess?

In any heated debate, the natural human reaction is to dig in, which is why science moves forward one death at a time. If we can rationally look at each concern, and address each point in turn, then not only as a community do we move forward through better understanding, but actually, the process might uncover better solutions.

[cryptowhizzard]

What you say is valid.

Fil+ however can function when participants do not game the system. The analogy can be compared to bikes. Some solutions here say to remove bikes from insurance because they get stolen all the time. However this solution skips that you have to leave your bikes locked to prevent theft.

The solution here is to be more strict with Fil+. This means 90% less QAP growth, but the result would be that CC would get more attractive again while we don’t make ourselves blind for the mission and purpose of this network, to store data.

[dcasem]

@distora-w3 we've been trying to fix FIL+ for a long time.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." If you stop issuing Datacap, no code changes are required, and the network will heal. Why don't we just try that before we start mucking with tokenomics - where it's much less clear what the outcome will be?

Once we've done that, and if RBP doesn't return (unlikely), I think many of us would be open to pursuing alternatives.

[nothingjustaminer]

@distora-w3
In fact, there is only one camp: Killing FIL+
The disagreement is that part of the storage providers think it’s not possible to persuade PL to kill FIL+ anytime soon

[herrehesse]

@nothingjustaminer that is completely false. Don’t state it as a fact please.

[nothingjustaminer]

guys please, if the purpose was to bailout storage providers we should just ask PL to manually send out cash or the 15% circulation of mining reserve as subsidy hahahaha. How ironic, we’re degenerating to classic central banks

Don’t mess up the protocol, leave the protocol alone!

[herrehesse]

If you think this is a bailout. You did not read any of the above.

[nothingjustaminer]

After these weeks, I sense a split between the community and PL/Foundation. At least on Github, the community's discussion seems not attracting the attention of PL/Foundation. The two organizations did not respond in a timely and clear manner.

Other than that, I haven't seen many Filecoin relevant employees posting independent responses. How many employees in PL works for Filecoin? 100 people? 200 people? Are you not concerned about Filecoin's survivorship? Are there more reasons? Do you need to follow a strict public speech guide? Do you really just tend to keep quiet in this situation?

Both are disappointing. How can you devote your career to a project that you yourself do not bother to care about?

Everyone needs to share your own opinion in this discussion. The opinions can be positive or negative, both help the discussion to continue and help Filecoin stay relevant to DECENTRALISATION.

BTW does anyone know Juan's opinion on this discussion and discussion #725 ? I think his attitude is still highly valued in the community, did I miss anything?

[nothingjustaminer]

Everyone says they are honest so I tend to not trust anyone

[cryptowhizzard]

You say “ Even to a token holder, I feel angry at F+ miners diluting my asset value.” and this is not true. There are also honest players in the system. Getting mad at everyone doing FiL+ is not the right way 😅

[dcasem]

You are far from honest @cryptowhizzard - it's not like you solicited data from a legitimate institution and brought it to the world. You are downloading public datasets off Amazon and reselling them. You are part of the problem.

[cryptowhizzard]

@dcasem I don’t work for free and preparing / sending has costs involved, certainly when doing in a 15PB scale. It’s sad that you equal this to dishonest players who upload just fabricated / inflated and duplicated data and tag that on my name.

[dcasem]

Running a business selling free datasets for 4 FIL/Tb shouldn't be possible. So you argue that you should get 15000x4x4.30 (current spot) = $258K for downloading a dataset off AWS and turning it into a CAR file. Something seems wrong about that to me. I'm sure others feel similarly.

[j1v]

I need to say that I see see this proposal as an attempt to extinguish a fire with gasoline straight from from the fuel hose nozzle

[herrehesse]

Correct. But removing / changing FIL+ is a separate discussion.

[dcasem]

Disagree, as I've stated multiple times. It's highly relevant to the issue at hand.

[herrehesse]

Relevant? Yes. But not similar. It should get its own issue.

[dcasem]

This, in my opinion, is one of the shortcomings of the protocol's minting model, especially now with the introduction of QaP disrupting the collateral requirements for adding raw capacity.

These are your own words. I think it's perfectly acceptable to discuss the root cause of the problem in this issue.

[herrehesse]

Discussion is always valuable, but forcing removal is a separate issue.

[mjroddy]

Hi everyone ( Apologies for the long post)

Thanks all to those that have contributed and @herrehesse for getting this started. I wanted to provide some of our insights from Holon that we have discussed and will hopefully provide some context for those that maybe don't see the problem that Storage providers face currently. Evidently this is a complex problem, my view is that this does require a 'short term solution' for the reasons outlined below and that we should continue to evolve the tokenomics to reach a more sustainable model that is more adaptive to varying environments over time (i.e. the right solution will be a work in progress).

Firstly, it's important this is viewed as a community problem and not just an SP problem. I say community, because whilst SP’s will feel the impact the most, a sustained collapse in SP’s will affect lenders, PL, token holders and the ecosystem more broadly, not to mention onboarding future clients. Filecoin in general requires a bootstrap (I believe that should still be underway) and for things like the saturn network or compute over data to be successful we need more SP’s, not less. Below outlines some of the major issues that should be understood.

Declining Rewards Profile

Obvious and well documented. However, whilst the incentive is mostly there for SP's to maintain their contracts, the current environment does very little to spur on investment from new SP's or reinvestment from existing. It's important to understand that we don't just want SP's to break even here, SP’s need an adequate return so that they can buy equipment that is depreciating to continue on and grow. Fiat revenue lines are crucial but currently not adequate which I will touch on later. Determining that rate of return is obviously the difficult part, it varies across SP’s operating model, location and equipment etc. Regardless, this graph should help visualize what is occuring.

The decline has accelerated post the baseline crossing as we know.

Because of the incentive to move to FIL+, or the disincentive to add CC, there has been a decline of ~500PiB per month in Raw bytes on the network since the start of the year. The rate of decline has slowed in the last month or two but internally our 'base' modeling feels that the rewards profile will end up something below over the next year or two.

That is, by early next year the rewards will likely be half even what they are today. If SP’s are not profitable today, then it’s clear that they cannot survive unless something dramatic turns this picture around. The regulatory landscape, macro landscape and the shrinking Filecoin economy all will make it challenging for SP's to raise capital to survive, likely many will not.

Filecoin Price

This is largely the crux of the issue. Not surprising, the price of FIL is one of the biggest factors affecting the community today. SP’s making a little FIL at the end of the month after all expenses would be ok if the price of FIL was much higher. We have seen a 90% decline in the price, as far as I understand, much of the initial economic engineering did not consider the price of FIL’s impact on the bootstrapping of the network. In many ways we probably overshot any expectations given the size that the network got to.

Whilst not a short term solution, possibly it would be smarter if we considered the impact of the price of FIL in the tokenomics.

From a FIL perspective the decline has been gradual, when we look at the same chart in USD terms, the problem becomes more real, this has not just been a recent problem but one that has been sustaining for some time.

In hindsight, the value being extracted by vesting investors and storage miners in April 2021 was not equal to the 4 Billion odd dollars that was handed out. Especially when you consider that there were only 11.62 PiB of active deals on the network at the time. Again, I do not hope to solve this problem in the short term, but hopefully we can start to learn that the value being extracted by the network should be in some way related to the value being created within it. It’s not to say that those rewards should not exist, as above, the bootstrap is required, rather I’m pointing out a flaw I see in the minting mechanism, in which the price of FIL (value) that is extracted isn’t aligning to the value that is being created.

This is the real issue and should be understood. SP's haven't just faced a declining FIL revenue, they have also had to deal with a 90% decline in price alongside those rewards. Keep in mind that most rewards earned to date would have gone back in as collateral for any SP growing.

Baseline Minting mechanism.

The minting mechanism is complex relative to many other projects, this is not a positive for new investment. Having spoken with many SP’s over the last few months, I think the reality is that many are flying blind and ‘hoping’ the pay-off is worth it in the end.

I think there are several issues with the baseline minting mechanism and I do not want to go into detail on each of these, so a quick summary:

• As above, during bear markets SP’s will be hit by both declining FIL revenue and declining USD of the FIL being earned.
• My understanding is the effective network time seems to accelerate minting crossing over the baseline (encouraging overinvestment, most likely during a bull market when the price of FIL is higher)
• On the other hand, rewards decline at an accelerated rate crossing under the baseline so that when investment is wanted, the incentive moves away.

I do agree with the idea that the baseline minting mechanism helps ensure that more rewards aren’t being minted when the network is underperforming, however we end up in a circular debate given that the price of FIL seems to be the biggest factor impacting the network’s RB growth/decline. Possibly the % of tokens allocated towards baseline minting could be smaller so that the swings are not so large.

Reading @vkalghatgi comments above (appreciated) i agree that the Baseline minting should be tied to raw bytes oppose to QAP. I will leave aside FIL+ for now, the issues are in someway linked and I think FIL+ is likely increasingly causing damage to the network. I have explained this prior here.

If the Baseline function is tied to hardware, it seems odd that we have such a large growth rate. Projecting forward we end up in a situation where the baseline is something like 2,800 EiB as the target by 2030. For context Seagate's EiB shipped in the last 10 years compounded at about 16% per annum. Seagate represents around 40% of the market here. We should also consider that for SP’s to hit this target they would be replacing equipment. I.e. that is net growth after depreciation.

This growth rate moving forward becomes practically impossible to achieve, meaning that FIL baseline rewards become insignificant.

Collateral requirements

Collateral requirements for Filecoin remain high, this is not necessarily a bad thing by itself. But is increasingly becoming an issue due to the lack of FIL in the lending markets, more time by the network should be focused on encouraging the flow of FIL from circulating to SP’s.

The bigger concern though for SP’s is the fixed interest rate vs the declining rewards. Anecdotally new operators hesitant about joining the network are worried about this uncertainty, with high capital costs in terms of equipment and collateral, a reasonable and somewhat predictable rate of return is required logically for new entrants. Uncertainty is the killer her.

The majority of collateral arrangements today are based on a fixed interest rate in the range of 15-20%. Whilst this made sense when block rewards were 100% larger than today and the price of FIL was 10x higher, as the network continues to shrink it is likely that this problem of a high fixed interest rate vs a declining revenue stream will cause real and possibly catastrophic risk for both collateral providers and storage providers.

Most of these agreements don’t work today, and in 12 months time will effectively mean that SP’s would have to buy FIL to pay off their interest. Not exactly an inspiring picture for new SP’s to join…. The revenue share is the right model and a part solution to the 'community problem'.

POSSIBLE PATHS FORWARD

Do nothing, fail to agree

This is a very real option. And the case that businesses not set up properly should fail, In many ways I agree with this.

A counter to this though, is what Filecoin storage Business is set up to be profitable today? Most are very much in the growth phase, most are dealing with the difficulties of running a storage system over Lotus. It is hardly a stable product. FIlecoin, is rapidly developing and in time the need for SP’s to charge fiat or earn extra revenue via COD, Saturn, will be necessary. Expecting that today, given the state of the network is a big ask. In short, we should consider Filecoin in Bootstrap phase still.

If we do nothing, naturally the network will continue to shrink as SP’s fall out. Alot of the projects being worked on by PL, FF and other groups will become less effective with a shrinking number of SP’s. That means at a later date, this tooling will effectively, have to be ‘sold’ to new SP’s to onboard them…. This will be the challenge for Filecoin… In short, we need scale.

I imagine the many presentations around filecoin would be much harder having to justify a fall to say 1-2 EiB, from an enterprise perspective this just means risk and would again make it harder to onboard clients, particularly enteprise. There will no doubt be an equilibrium point where the frequency of rewards to the remaining SP’s will compensate for the lowering block rewards. The argument I’m making is that to find that equilibrium will cause significantly more damage for the filecoin ecosystem longer term. Bootstrap, Scale, Utility.

Modelling Baseline rewards changing to QAP from RB

Firstly, this is a rough estimate the econ team can no doubt provide a more detailed analysis. Shifting the model to QAP, would increase rewards and slow the decline slightly. The Baseline target grows exponentially and compounds very quickly. Which, would likely, leave us in the exact same boat in 12 months.

This might not necessarily be a problem. A combination of SP's being ready for the shift to fiat in 12 months, Filecoin utility improving, lending agreements shifting to lower rates/revenue models and the price of FIL being higher than today would all help in this transition.

However, keeping the minting model linked to the raw bytes is something that we should consider. It provides a direct link to the hardware and thus the consensus mechanism.

Shifting more baseline rewards to simple

Baseline certainly has it's benefits but potentially shifting more of the mining allocation from Baseline allocation to simple would achieve something similar (increasing rewards in the short term). it would also lower the swings that the baseline currently involves and it would provide more certainty to SP's that are looking to reinvest or enter the ecosystem.

More analysis could be done on the amount and this would hopefully be somewhat of a simple change oppose to something that would require significant analysis and testing before rolling out.

*Re-setting baseline and growth rates

This would be another approach. The initial baseline was set at 2.88EiB. 100% growth rates on this as described above starts to compound so quickly that it becomes impractical in a few years.

Lowering the baseline (which would provide an initial bump in rewards) and lowering the growth rate (which would slow the decline) would help support SP's through this period. However, there is more uncertainty in this approach and likely more detailed analysis by the econ team to understand the impacts.

introducing USD feedback to limit/expand minting

Longer term it may be useful to somehow link the rewards to USD as to slow the minting in periods where it clearly is outpacing the value within the network and increasing the minting when more investment is required.

Borrow future rewards and pay back

Further, an approach that looked to 'borrow' FIL from future rewards in tough times and 'pay back' those rewards in good times, would be a way in which you could spur investment when needed without altering the overall FIL in circulation over the long term. Practically, this may be more difficult.

Sorry all for the long post but hopefully this helps in some ways to describe the problems and provide some ideas on how to solve. My preference is shifting more rewards to simple minting to provide more certainty, increasing rewards in the short term and keeping much of the protocol design today the same.

No doubt we need to continue to iterate to get the design right.

[distora-w3]

Thank you, @mjroddy. This thread needed a more thoughtful exploration of the issues at hand.
When a proposal is evaluated for merit, the PETAL method can draw out the areas of concern:

P = Practicality. If the change takes 24 months, our SPs might have expired
E = Ethical. Who have we missed? Are we favouring one "interest" over another? Who "deserves" to be saved? e.g. children in the trolley problem
T = Tried before (have we seen the proposal work or fail in another context)
A = Alternatives. Do alternatives carry less risk or cost less?
L = Logical. Does the proposal stand up to the scrutiny of logic? E.g. AI will wipe us out is a logical fallacy where we have moved from A to Z without explaining the interim steps of A, B, C, D. In the case of AI killing us, we first might have to show that AGI is possible etc. In this context. Moving from RB to QaP will have a number of interim steps, what are they, how quickly can they be achieved, can they be rolled back in an emergency etc etc
Your contribution has started a neat exploration of a number of the items above. When NASA is planning a moonshot, the number of engines and fuel requirements can't be messed up, and as you point out, we are in ascent mode.

[tmellan]

Thanks for sharing, appreciate putting out the detailed analysis.

A few comments:

High level, I think it's good to question network parameterisation. I don’t believe every feature of the current economic design should be set in stone, or that this was the intention of the original design. The nature of the network’s goals are probably best served by being able to adapt at a reasonable pace.

A tension is that the kind of changes discussed are obviously fraught with potential for unintended consequences. As you acknowledge, calling for significant analysis.

On altering the baseline --- a basic point is that changing a target because it’s been missed defeats the purpose of having it. But let's say we're more pragmatic, and consider the possibility that there are changes that could better maximise long-term utility growth. How we think about this rests on how we think about your comment

This growth rate moving forward becomes practically impossible to achieve

QAP has risen and RBP fallen but scenarios can occur where raw-byte growth takes off quickly. There can be many possible contributing factors, for example, changes in cost profile, macro, built-in network resilience dynamics, and possible protocol refinements short of changing network growth targets.

On the point

If the Baseline function is tied to hardware, it seems odd that we have such a large growth rate.

one rationale for the high target is catching up rather than matching.

[mjroddy]

Thanks Tom.

I agree that missing the target and changing it defeats the purpose but to be clear I don't mean "we can't achieve the target because it's too high"... i more mean, "the suppliers would be unable to deliver it even if we wanted it"

Do you think catching up to a baseline target is fine even if the high growth rate over time means any effort to do so would have zero to little impact on minting...I.e the baseline becomes redundant because of that growth rate and we end up with effectively just simple minting?

I agree that this should be iterative and I still think this is largely a price issue. The amount of rewards doesn't really matter if SP's can cover costs at the end of the month.

[steven004]

@mjroddy well said.
And, I just viewed this in the Fil+ design exploration discussion, which is very insightful and pertinent analysis.

[mjroddy]

After writing this I have received some good feedback.

I've come to learn that some of the issues with FIL+ are more rampant than I had thought. In that sense, I can understand that changing the minting mechanism before stamping out those issues only amplifies the problem. i.e. stamping out FIL+ abuse first is probably the right step.

fix FIL+ then evolve tokenomics for a longer term perspective. I still believe that the network needs to be prioritising the bootstrap as the more value add projects (IPC,COD,saturn) come online.

Thanks again for the feedback.

[PHABRIC77]

Just catching up on this FIP proposal. In simple terms, is the issue that the same technical rewards minting schedule is serving a dual purpose? To incentivize both committed capacity and data onboarding? Whilst it might not be straightforward, would a separation of these minting schedules and the reward mechanism be a better solution? Probably too simplistic/impossible a view but I am also reflecting on the multiplier FIPs which also clearly evidenced this tension to a point that seemed impossible to resolve.

[mjroddy]

I guess in many ways it already does this. you get 1x for committed capacity and a multiplier for data? do you mean something else?

[Joss-Hua]

Hope the community's attention can return to this FIP from the governance dispute of FIL+. This is not a competition for gang interests, it has a real improvement effect on the network.