FIP8 Deployment Agenda

Network
#1

Hey all,
The testing of FIP8 are going well. The numbers do match (we’ll elaborate on that in the future), and we tested successfully the transition from the current system to FIP8.

I would like to share the transition plan, that become a bit more longer than expected
The FIP8 deployment involves two contracts: Consensus and Block Reward contract. It introduces new variables that the block reward contract is using. For block reward contract to calculate correctly, it needs have the correct data. That’s why we decided to not change both to Consensus and Block Reward contracts in one cycle.

To make the transition smooth as possible we’ll do this in a couple of stages:

  • First we vote on the consensus contract that introduces the new variables and reduces the cycle to 2 days. The ballot should be finalised around October 7th (awful long with a cycle of one week). Also the delegation would be activated and a substantial amount of Fuse will be delegated to the validators.
  • Second voting for block reward can be open. After this voting is finalised, validators will receive the reward proportional to their stake thus having incentive to block reward. Should be finalised around 5 cycles, so I expect it would be around October 17th.
  • Third vote will increase the min stake to 250K fuse.
#2

Thanks @leonp

Any max stake?

How do you enforce validators consolidating their nodes after the first vote, as until the block reward vote goes through (~10days) it’s detrimental to run fewer nodes.

Is it possible to vote on the block reward and cycle time first (this shouldn’t affect anyone’s rewards) then vote for the consensus/delegation? This way there’s no incentive to keep running lots of nodes beyond their usefulness.

#3

What does this mean? Could you explain this? What is this substantial amount of fuse? Where is it coming from? Who is delegating it to who?

#4

Hey @RB_1010
Max stake will be set to 5M for now
Yeah, 5 cycles is kinda too much, but this is due to the technical timeouts between ballots.

Mm maybe this is possible to do this like you suggested, need to think about it.
But does it got any advantages? If you prefer to not touch your nodes during the transition period, I think that is fine as well.

#5

If it’s OK to keep nodes until the 2nd vote on block rewards then keep things as they are.

Once new block reward is active validators have time to reduce their nodes and ensure their stake is 250k in time for the min stake vote.

It seems a much cleaner way of doing things, rather than cutting nodes before the new block reward is active.

#6

I see. I just wanted to start early with reducing number of validators to make end of cycle of Fuse transfers cheaper. I think we all want this eventually :smiley:.

But it’s possible to do this after both FIP-8 contracts are deployed, so the validator incentives will be aligned. I can do myself some checks on Fuse after the first part.

So for me it’s less important when the validator set will be reduced, I’ll elaborate more about technical nuances of this. The order of voting is a bit slow, but I think it’s the right way to do this. Updated my original post so it would be less confusion.

#7

Agree with reducing nodes to reduce costs.

However, before block reward change is implemented, reducing nodes means a significant reduction in inflation token earnings. Therefore it’s only possible to do reduce nodes after the block reward has changed. Once the block reward has changed there is an incentive to reduce nodes as they are redundant - there’s no benefit to running more nodes than required.

Happy with the voting time length. It gives validators time to adjust and prep for the change.

1 Like
#8

  1. With 105M Fuse available for staking(delegation) in the next month (Oct/Nov 20), should the max stake to 10M rather than 5M to ensure there is enough space for delegation.

  2. After MESA and a better idea of market price, do we need to increase the Min stake to 250K? If the price is $0.15 that would require $37,500 which is a big investment. Should we just stick with 100K min stake (still $15k at 0.15token price)

#9

Hey @RB_1010, Good points
Most of the investor funds will be vested and locked for a time period. We would want to enable for them to delegate the vested funds, but some development is required there.
I personally think that the price can be pretty volatile :slight_smile:, so not sure it’s a good thing to rely on (but it is one of the arguments). What’s for sure that we would like to lower the amount of validators, to stabilise the network and lower the fees.