►
From YouTube: Filecoin Core Devs #54
Description
Recording for: https://github.com/filecoin-project/core-devs/issues/125
For more information on Filecoin
- visit the project website: https://filecoin.io/
- or follow Filecoin on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Filecoin
Get Filecoin community news and announcements in your inbox, monthly: http://eepurl.com/gbfn1n
Follow Filecoin!
Website: https://bit.ly/3ndAg44
Twitter: https://bit.ly/3ObND0x
Slack: https://bit.ly/3HKfFy7
Blog: https://bit.ly/3HFZFNv
Reddit: https://bit.ly/39N4Jmv
Telegram: https://bit.ly/3bkP8Ly
Subscribe to our newsletter! https://bit.ly/3Oy8J9j
#filecoin #ipfs #libp2p #web3 #nft
A
A
A
We
have
a
number
of
items
to
discuss
today.
Hopefully
the
SDM
conversation
will
take
just
about
20
to
30
minutes,
but
I'll
be
your
facilitator
today
and
going
forward
so
get
used
to
seeing
my
face
from
now.
On.
With
that
being
said,
I'll
pass
over
the
night
to
our
index.
Colleagues
I'm,
not
sure
who's.
Taking
that
today,
too,
I
can
jump
in
thanks.
B
Really
appreciate
the
introduction
I'll
go
ahead
and
drop
in
the
chat,
a
link
to
the
FRC
that
we're
discussing
as
well
as
a
link
to
the
pr
that
represents
these
changes.
B
B
One
is
whether
or
not
by
the
defaults
are
not
going
to
change
for
the
present
behaviors,
but
we're
going
to
add
a
flag
that
enables
storage
providers
to
not
announce
to
the
indexer
if
they
choose
to
and
additionally
we're
going
to
add
a
flag
which
enables
storage
providers
to
not
store
sealed
data.
So
this
basically
just
adds
a
layer
of
configurability
for
them
that,
during
the
processes
that
they're
executing
they
can
have
a
little
bit
of
say
in
whether
or
not
for
instance,
deals
are
announced
to
the
indexer.
Should
they
choose.
B
I'll
give
everybody
maybe
a
minute
to
just
kind
of
browse
through
that,
and
if
you
have
questions
I'll
be
happy
to
take
on
my
other
own
chat
or,
if
you'd
like
to
ask
directly.
A
Thanks,
nothing
I'm,
not
sure
if
there
are
immediate
questions
from
anyone
in
the
group,
if
there's
any
it's
a
good
time.
Otherwise
we
can
proceed
and
then
you
can
drop
your
questions
or
take
your
conversation.
So
you
think,
let's,
oh
start
two
minutes
so
one
minute
to
think.
A
No
all
right!
Thank
you.
So
much
I
will
also
be
sharing
the
materials
round
after
the
meeting,
so
you
can
always
reach
out
after
the
call,
if
you
have
additional
questions
or
comments
to
make
with
that
I'll
pass
over
to
Irene
for
be
no
buffapura
discussion
over
to
you.
C
Thank
you.
So
let
me
start
showing
the
screen.
I
have
a
small
presentation
for
you.
Let's
see
this
works
and
by
the
way,
sorry
for
the
law,
horrible
voice,
but
it's
flu
season,
I
got
one
I
can't
I
cannot
share
the
screen.
Lucky.
Sorry,
you
need
information.
Yeah
I
got
the
flu
so
bear
with
my
voice.
I'm.
Sorry.
C
Please
feel
free
to
stop
me
for
any
question
or
even
write
the
question
chat,
because
there
are
other
people
from
crypto
net
that
can
answer
while
I'm
speaking
I'm
hi,
everyone,
I'm
Iran
from
cryptonato
and
I'm,
going
to
you
to
present
a
couple
of
projects
that
we
hope
can
save
Costa
for
storage
provider
during
the
selling
pipeline.
C
Each
project
have
has
some
pros
and
cons,
so
we
are
really
looking
for
for
feedback
for
your
opinion,
which
one
is
the
the
most
impactful
one
more
in
general
like
in
Kryptonite,
we
are
working
on
several
projects
that
we
think
can
improve
the
storage
operation,
not
just
the
ceiling
phase,
but
also
maintaining
storage.
So
please
contact
us
and
read
our
notion
page
that
are
open.
If
you
want
to
know
more,
but
today
we
are
going
to
focus
on
the
product
on
the
product
step,
so
the
ceiling
the
ceiling
phase.
C
C
Then
we
have
the
pre-commit
step
PC2,
where,
basically,
all
the
commitment
computation
is
done.
Then
there
is
this
mandatory
waiting
time
that
is
150
epoxy
around
one
hour,
one
hour
and
50
minutes
where
there
is
nothing
to
do
just
sit
there
with
your
with
some
storage,
but
basically
this
they
are
layers
stored
in
memory
and
then,
finally,
after
the
mandatory
waiting
time,
you
can
read
the
Randomness
from
the
Iran
from
the
diran
nectar.
C
You
receive
the
random
and
this
is
used
to
generate
some
challenges
and
there
is
the
proof
commit
step
that
finalize
the
the
ceilings
proof
commit
step
is
as
to
inside
steps.
First,
you
generate
what
we
call
the
vanilla
proof,
and
then
there
is
the
situ
step
that
are
the
the
proof
that
goes
on
chain
are
actually
generated
via
the
snack
computation.
C
Hopefully,
this
is
this
is
clear
and
we
are
on
the
same
page
here.
So
we
are
proposing
three
different
ways
to
modify
these
and
we
are
targeting
the
to
the
the
the
cost.
Saving
that
we
are
targeting
is
about
the
storage
cost
of
these
11
layers
for
this
storage
for
150
ebooks.
The
first
idea
is,
we
call
it
a
synthetic
PowerUp
goes
in
this
way.
C
You
have
to
do
the
PC
one
as
today,
so
SDR
graph
has
to
be
created
as
today,
but
before
going
in
the
in
the
other
stuff,
there
is
a
new
step.
We
call
it
the
synthetic
challenge
response
where
you
actually
select
a
super
set
of
potential
challenge,
so
some
of
the
notes
in
the
in
each
layer
are
selected.
This
is,
can
be
done
locally.
C
Just
use,
comma
R
like
just
use
the
computation
done
before
you
select
this
super
effective
challenge
and
and
then
you
proceed
to
prove
commit,
and
you
will
proceed
later
on
to
the
next
steps
exactly
as
us
today.
So
nothing
really
changes,
but
the
big
change
here
is
that
during
the
waiting
time
you
don't
need
to
store
everything
as
before
the
11
layers,
you
only
need
to
store
the
Mercury
parts
for
the
for
the
superset
that
was
selected
in
advance,
so
this
impractics
brings
down
this.
C
The
the
the
storage
that
is
is
required
to
six
percent
respect
of
the
current
one.
So
it's
a
significant
reduction
in
storage
here.
Everything
else
stays
the
same,
so
proof
commit
will
happen
exactly
as
today.
C
Second
idea
is
non-interactive
part
Apple.
We
call
it.
This
is
a
bit
different
in
the
sense
that
we
basically
reduce
the
storage
cost,
because
we
remove
the
waiting
time
at
all.
So,
basically,
now
you
do
a
pc1
locally.
You
don't
need
an
interaction
with
the
the
random.
You
don't
need
to
wait
any
compulsory
waiting
time.
There
is
no
no,
no,
this
window
of
epochs.
When
you
are
done
with
your
pc1,
you
can
start
with
what
today
is
the
proof
commit
C1
and
C2
altogethers?
Okay,
so
this
is.
C
This
is
a
simplification
that
it's
really
nice,
we
think,
but
it
comes
with
a
cost.
The.
How
much
you
have
to
prove
now
it's
much
more!
It's
around
10
10
times,
eight
sorry,
eight
times
more
than
today,
so
in
practice,
C2
as
a
cost
that
is
8x.
Why
is
that?
Because
there
are
underwest
views,
this
doesn't
come
from
the
land
anymore,
it's
less
less
strong,
so
we
have
to
improve
an
increased
number
of
challenges.
C
We
have
a
fix
for
this,
but
it's
not
like
a
super
short
time
because
we
can
fix
these
attacks
overhead
using
a
test
Studio
using
testudo.
That
is
a
new
proving
system
that
crypto
net
is
is
working
on
and
that
we
estimate
will
bring
down
the
cost
of
attack
stack,
bring
it
down
to
today,
cost
basically
so
equivalent
to
today,
but
the
the
the
the
small,
the
the
small.
This
is
more
problem
here
is
that
tested
is
not
ready
yet.
C
D
C
So
basically,
it's
the
same
as
today.
It's
like
really.
The
circuit
is
eight
time
Biggers,
because
it's
eight
time
the
challenge.
So
for
sure
you
have
more
proving
time
then
to
comp
you
should
you
could
have
also
eight
tax
at
the
on-chain
footprint,
but
for
that
we
already
have
a
fix
that
we
can
use.
Today
it's
called
a
snack
pack,
you
you
know
it,
so
you
can
just
snap
everything,
so
this
will
bring
the
verification
and
improving
cost
a
bit
higher
band
of
too
much
and
on-chain
footprint
stays
this
down.
C
So
if
I
remember,
we
do
have
numbers
in
the
document.
Maybe
maybe
Luca
can
paste
in
the
chat
in
the
numbers,
but
that
is
the
the
the
the
proving
over
that
it's
the
the
the
The
Higher
One.
Thank
you
welcome,
okay.
So
that's
that's
the
three
ideas
that
we
have.
This
is
a
visual
comparison.
Basically,
today
you
have
these
11
layers
sitting
here
for
150
Apple
synthetic,
but
just
reduce
this
to
six
percent.
C
Only
non-interactive
remover
everything,
but
with
the
cost
of
attacks
no
interact
with
the
studio,
remove
everything
and
bring
the
costs.
I
was
like
back
to
today
same
information
here
in
a
table
for
the
ones
that,
like
more
more
words
than
visuals
and
as
I
said,
the
beginning.
The
the
most
important
things
for
now
now
for
us
is
to
understand,
which
one
you
think
is
can
be
the
most
impactful
in
the
in
the
short
term.
So
please
let
us
know.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
so
much
Irene
I
think
I
see
some
conversations.
Okay,
if
you
do
have
questions,
do
ask.
Is
there
anyone
who
would
like
to
ask
anyone
at
the
moment.
E
Hey
lucky
can
I
jump
in
here,
real
quick,
yes,
you
can
we
I'm
putting
a
poll
into
the
chat
right
now,
based
on
the
poor,
rep
discussion.
We've
circulated
this
poll
across
storage
providers
and
we're
looking
for
more
feedback
as
to
which
option
that
Irene
outlined
for
you
is
the
most
interesting
to
you
and
why
you
can
always
feel
free
to
DM,
Irene
or
Luca
as
to
why
you
picked
what
you
did
in
the
poll,
but
it
takes
two
seconds.
E
Your
feedback
would
be
highly
welcome
and
we're
aggregating
this
across
other
SP
feedback.
So.
D
Yeah
just
another
quick
question:
this
is
really
great.
Thank
you
and
I,
really
like
the
presentation
too
just
quickly.
What
can
you
or
any
of
the
crypto
networks
tell
us
about
security,
I
assume
if
you're
proposing
it
you've
already
kind
of
convinced
yourselves
that
it's
secure,
but
are
there
any
trade-offs,
we'd
be
making
or
no.
C
F
Thanks
Serena,
the
quick
question
I
have
is:
am
I
right
to
understand
that
these
cost
reductions
are
primarily
happening
on,
like
let's
say
the
hardware
Hardware
level
like
storage
and
computation,
and
not
on
the
like
on
chain
level
like
the
cost
and
fill
versus
or
cost
of
the
gas
economy.
When
it
comes
to
submitting
you
know,
except
for
the
PCD
change
which
is
rolled
in
10
minutes
so
pledge
anyway,
the
pro
commit
and
pre-commits
will
stay
the
same.
F
C
Correct
so
the
cost
the
the
computational
cost
of
pc1
stays
the
same
everywhere.
Basically,
the
computational
cost
of
C2
does
not
part
depends.
You
know
if
you
use
the
stool
or
not
for
non-interactive,
then
the
main
save
is
this.
You
know
you
don't
need,
or
you
need
much
less
storage
while
for
for
storing
these
11
layers.
Fourth,
one
for
some
period
of
time.
So
it's
as
you
said,
it's
Hardware,
less
you
you,
the
the
requirement
on
others
is,
is
lower.
C
Then
there
are
two
things
also
that
you
mentioned:
let's,
let's
recap
on
that.
Pcd
proof
commit
deposit.
Thank
you,
but
thanks
Cube
I
forgot
to
mention
it
thanks
for
also
mention
it
in
the
chat.
It's
not
required
anymore.
So
there
is
some
saving
here
if
we
do
non-interactive
power,
of
course,
and
for
non-interactive
part,
but
there
may
be
also
the
the
saving
in
the
sense
that
you
know
the
pipeline
is,
is
simple.
You
don't
have
this
sequential
step,
so
the
pipeline
is
a
bit
more
simple.
C
Maybe
you
can
organize
your
machine
to
work
in
a
in
in
a
more
efficient
way.
This
is
a
bit
hard
to
estimate
in
general,
but
maybe
the
case.
It
may
be
nice
to
consider
that
too.
If.
F
G
G
So
the
reason
we
have
pre-commit
and
then
proof
commit
is
because
we
need
this
round
of
interaction
where
the
search
provider
commits
to
onboarding
a
sector
waits
for
Randomness
and
then
uses
that
Randomness
to
onboard
to
onboard
that
sector
and
if
they
don't
use
that
random
methodontal
onboard
that
sector,
we
charge
them.
That's
part
of
our
security
analysis
for
that
non-interact.
The
two
known
interactive
variants
allow
a
make,
make
the
system
non-interactive,
as
in
the
name
which
which
eliminates
pre-commit
completely
out
of
the
system.
G
We
would
still
have
the
the
current
variant
of
PowerUp
but
like
when
using
the
new
variant
to
the
pre-commit,
wouldn't
wouldn't
be
it
wouldn't
exist
really
and
to
so
you
have
saving
the
the
verification.
Cost
of
the
proof
would
be
a
bit
higher
I
think
on.
The
order
of
I
will
have
to
recheck
the
numbers,
but
I
think
no,
no
more
than
like
one
half
X
to
X
higher
verification
cost
of
proof
itself,
but
remember
that
significant
portion
of
the
gas
cost
of
proof
commit
is
bookkeeping
which
which
wouldn't
grow.
A
F
Okay,
thanks
lucky,
let
me
drop
a
link
to
the
chat
for
everyone
on
the
same
page
and
everyone.
Can
everyone
get
this
cool?
F
So
sorry,
we'll
also
a
little
bit
under
the
weather,
the
so
for
the
SDM?
There
are
a
couple
updates
here.
We
talked
about
this
a
couple
core
Dev
Scholars
ago
and
decided
that
it
would
be
in
scope
for
potentially
an
nv19
sorry,
so
we
want
from
crypto
Tom
and
I,
and
some
of
the
authors
wanted
to
present
a
kind
of
decision
Matrix
that
outlined
exactly
why
the
current
parameter
space
for
the
FIP
has
been
chosen.
F
F
F
This
Matrix
kind
of
I'll
share
my
screen,
so
this
Matrix
kind
of
gives
a
sense
of
our
reasoning
as
to
number
one
why
we
think
presenting
the
FIP
where,
upon
which
the
sector
duration
multiplier
policy
is
available
upon,
commit
replica
update
as
well
as
extension
and
then
allowing
for
sector
commitments
to
be
extended
up
to
five
years
as
an
optimal
policy.
Also
from
the
perspective
of
the
health
of
the
Falcon
economy,
coupled
with
you
know,
storage
fighter
Roi.
F
So
this
we
can
kind
of
discuss
in
more
in
more
in
more
detail,
we
can
go
through
each
kind
of
line
item
but
I
think
at
a
high
level.
There
are
a
couple
things:
there
are
a
couple
of
risks
and
issues
that
the
fit
seeks
to
kind
of
mitigate.
The
first
is
when
it
comes
to
the
health
of
the
macro
economy.
F
What
do
we
mean
by
that
in
general,
that
kind
of
constitutes
the
increases
in
token
Supply
and
decreases
in
the
amount
of
token
locked,
due
to
partially
due
to
the
events
of
like
raw
bite,
power
decreasing
and
potentially
expiring?
So
those
are
our
issues
that
the
duration
multiplier
tries
to
mitigate
by
number
one,
allowing
for
Less
sector
churn
by
having
longer
sectors
and
then
also
introducing
incentives
for
those
sectors
to
be
committed
for
longer.
F
F
But
the
idea
here
is:
we've
seen
a
little
we've
seen
more
support
for
this
version
of
of
the
FIP
than
maybe
previous
iterations
or
duration
multipliers,
and,
as
a
result,
we
would
we
think
that
I
think
Caitlyn
and
others
from
the
foundational
release
a
statement
encouraging
that
the
central
last
call
we
just
wanted
there
to
be
transparency
around
exactly
why
this
version
of
the
FIP
is
the
one
that
we
are
proposing
after
that
last
call
period
happy
to
answer
questions
here.
F
Tom
is
also
here
on
the
call,
but
that
is
the
the
kind
of
that.
That
is
just
the
kind
of
summary
as
to
why
like
where
we
are
now
and
and
what
we
want
to
do
in
the
next
couple
of
weeks
before
including
this
in
mb19.
A
H
Sorry,
excuse
me
if
there's
no
questions.
F
About
what
sorry
Jen
did
have
one
in
the
document
and
it's
scary
in
the
in
the
face,
so
I
should
I'll
answer
it.
Sorry
about
that.
F
So
the
question
the
questions
on
economic
shocks
and
termination
incentives
and
why
there
is
a
potentially
higher
induce
incentive
to
terminate
if
power
goes
quickly.
F
The
reason
is
because
a
lot
of
the
incentive
to
terminate
is
kind
of
determined
by
the
difference
in
initial
pledge,
by
which
I
mean
the
old
initial
pledge
that
you
paid
when
you
initially
committed
a
sector
versus
the
new
admission
to
pledge
you
pay
now,
when
you
commit
a
sector
when
you
terminate
and
re-on
board
that
same
sector
if
power
grows
fast,
that
means
a
couple
things,
but
in
general
that
means
a
reduction
in
your
new
initial
pledge,
because
if
pledge
is
kind
of
proportional
to
your
qap
versus
the
qap
of
the
entire
network,
when
that,
when
that
denominator
occurs
quickly,
you
you,
you
pay,
you
know
proportionally
less
pledge.
F
So
as
a
result,
you
know
that
termination
incentive
might
be
introduced
more
quickly
if
power
grows
faster.
Does
that
make
sense.
I
J
That
makes
sense,
so
there's
also
something
like
that
patch
difference
like
so
like
when
there's
like
an
early
termination,
we
charge
for
like
termination
penalty
for
per
sector
I
would
suggesting
that
quantity
is
not
going
to
be
high
enough
to
even
cover
the
pledge
difference
to
rep.
You
know
also
like
understanding
it's
like
I
would
expect
like
perspective
patch
differences.
J
We're
seeing
I,
don't
know,
maybe
under
five
feel,
like
attitude
feel
even
and
from
my
understanding
again,
it's
like
90
days
of
like
termination
purchase
a
lot
of
way
more
feel
than
that
kill.
F
Them
I
guess
it
depends
on
a
couple
of
things.
It
depends
on
one
when
you
committed
the
sector
initially
and
and
two
when
you're
recommitting
it
again,
so
that
number
can
be
so
right
now.
Pledges
I
think
are
around
0.2
and
they've
been
rising
for
like
a
significant
period
of
time
due
to
the
increases
in
circulating
Supply
so
like
in
the
report,
I
think
I
I
think
other
time
Tom
and
I
can
can
link
it.
We
show
that,
like
term
incentives,
determinant
aren't
really
that
pronounced.
F
The
point
is
just
that.
It
becomes
like
that.
If
we're
on,
like
a
sliding
scale
of
risk,
it
becomes
a
little
bit
more
risky
if
power
grows
very.
Very
fast
does.
Does
that
answer
your
question
or
is
there
something
else
you
want?
You
were
looking
for.
F
A
H
H
H
As
we
all
know,
crypto
econ
fips
are
very,
very
difficult
to
manage
from
a
sort
of
community
governance
perspective
and,
as
we
are
still
in
this
process
of
trying
to
build
capacity
for
this
decision,
making,
we've
outlined
a
couple
of
key
ways
that
we
can
manage
this
step
specifically,
and
those
three
potential
routes
are
going
through.
The
sort
of
soft
consensus
blast
call
process
that
is
typical
to
most
technical
fips
asking
core
devs
to
make
the
decision
across
the
board
as
to
whether
to
accept
or
reject
or
launching
another
fill
pool.
H
All
of
these,
as
you
will
see
in
this
user,
Matrix,
have
very
strong
pros
and
cons,
but
I
think
we
are
kind
of
United
that
Phil
pole
was
not
a
good
Community
experience.
It
also
is
very,
very
work
intensive.
H
There
is
also
no
precedent
for
asking
core
devs
to
make
an
active
decision,
and
in
the
past,
over
the
last
couple
of
weeks
in
particular,
we've
made
proposals
to
see
if
that
would
be
of
interest
and
you've
gotten
some
lukewarm
to
negative
feedback
about
that
as
well.
So
what
we're
hoping
to
do
is
to
see
it
is
partially
an
experiment
if
we
can
complete
sort
of
a
typical
last
call
period
for
the
step.
H
What
that
would
look
like
is
making
it
very
very
clear
what
the
parameters
for
last
call
are
the
two-week
period
and
also
making
it
clear
that
the
kinds
of
feedback
that
will
be
responded
to
needs
to
also
fall
within
a
set
of
parameters
right.
These
need
to
be
unaddressed
issues
they
need
to
be
coherent
and
they
need
to
be
from
the
perspective
of
what
is
appropriate
for
the
entire
network,
not
for
an
individual
storage
provider.
H
This
is
going
to
still
be
a
very
big
lift
and,
at
the
end
of
two
weeks,
getting
to
a
point
where
we
can
say
with
very
little
quantitative
input,
whether
or
not
something
has
been
accepted
or
rejected.
It's
still
going
to
be
quite
difficult
and
we're
hoping
actually
to
work
through
what
that
might
look
like,
as
we
begin
to
sort
of
assess
some
of
the
feedback.
But,
as
vix
mentioned,
it
has
been
increasingly
positive,
especially
from
Storage
providers.
H
And
what
we're
also
hoping
to
do
is
to
also
organize
some
joint
statements
or
some
feedback
from
the
Falcon
Foundation,
potentially
also
from
core
devs,
outlining
sort
of
a
single
position
as
to
whether
they
sort
of
would
prefer
to
accept
or
reject
the
FIP
as
well.
H
So
not
a
super
elegant
solution,
not
the
best
one.
We
hope
to
have
on
a
longer
term
Horizon,
but
the
best
one
we
have
for
now
and
happy
to
talk
through
any
more
of
like
the
decision
making
the
process
Etc.
If
you
have
questions
specifically
but
I,
think
the
primary
takeaway
for
devs
is
really
asking.
H
It
seems
as
if
there
is
a
little
bit
more
cohesiveness
or
homogeneity
and
sort
of
wanting
to
approve
the
FIP.
I
know
that
is
not
universally
the
case,
but
if
that
is
generally
the
sentiment,
we
might
look
towards
implementing
sort
of
a
joint
statement
that
cordovs
can
release
as
a
group,
which
is
a
nice
way
of
avoiding
having
core
devs,
make
a
final
governance
decision
on
this
step
in
particular,
so
I
will
pause
there
and
see
if
anyone
has
any
immediate
feedback
or
questions.
K
Sure
I
was
gonna,
nudge
I
think
it's
really
useful
as
part
of
like,
especially
when
there's
many
different
perspectives.
Like
being
you
know,
I'm
reading
through
the
entire
fifth
discussion,
all
the
time
and
there's
like
tons
and
tons
of
different
opinions
here,
I'm
sure
Porter
is
experiencing
that
and
talking
with
USPS
as
well
and
I
think
the
decision
matrix
it's
a
tool
we've
used
in
the
past
when
dealing
with
you
know
hard
decisions.
K
Sometimes
these
are
security,
issue
decisions
or
technical
decisions
in
like
Falcon
governance
over
time,
and
so
this
has
been
I
think
that's
a
useful
tool
for
us
to
lean
into
when
it
comes
to
synthesizing
the
pros
and
cons
against
these
various
different
strategies,
and
so
that
can
look
like
hey.
If
there
is,
you
know
a
scenario,
five
or
a
scenario:
six
that
should
be
added
here
that
we
can
then
evaluate
across
these
different
facets
that
go
into
overall
benefit
and
impact
to
the
whole
network.
K
I
think
that
that
can
be
a
thing
that
comes
out
of
the
the
last
call
period,
but
we
should
also
be
making
sure
that
as
additional
comments
or
points
that
they
are
like
effectively
captured
and
synthesized
here,
because
there
are
a
lot
of
trade-offs.
Of
course
with
any
like.
You
know,
significant
change
to
especially
things
around
crypto
economics,
and
so
this
is
a
good
way
for
us
to
look
across
many
perspectives
and
facets
and
synthesize
it
into
an
overall
takeaway
of
what
is
best
for
the
network.
K
From
you
know,
a
long-term
Health
perspective
and
I
think
that's
that's
a
way
that
we
can
navigate
through
this
this
time
period
and
process
is
making
sure
that
that
gets
added
here
so
that,
at
the
end
of
our
last
call
period,
we
have
Clarity
and
and
have
used
this
this
tool
to
make
sure
that
we
kind
of
kind
of
move
move
forward
from
a
unified
perspective.
K
As
a
network
understanding,
you
know
the
the
trade-offs
of
that
that
that
decision,
and
so
that's
that's
kind
of
like
I,
think
a
way
Caitlyn
to
do
exactly
what
you're
suggesting,
while
also
making
sure
that
that
we're
able
to
you
know,
take
in
the
different
perspectives
that
come
with
it
because
I
do
you
know,
people
are
gonna
talk
about
their
specific
situation
and-
and
you
know
their
slice
of
the
pie,
but
especially,
you
know
as
we're
thinking
about
you
know,
what's
what's
healthy
for
file
coin
overall
and
for
all
of
the
communities
and
individuals
involved
in
it,
we
definitely
need
to
be
able
to
have
a
broader
system
in
which
we
weigh
those
things,
and
so
that
that's
like,
maybe
my
my
knowledge
or
suggestion
here,
is
that
we
make
edits
and
improvements
and
refinements
to
the
decision
Matrix
as
a
way
of
of
collectively
synthesizing
those
perspectives
and
so
yeah.
H
Yeah
I
think
it
sounds
good
to
me,
I
think
also
for
codes
and
say
it
might
be
worthwhile.
Looking
into
this
really
is
very
top
of
mind.
So
I'll
have
to
think
about
this
to
make
sure
it
makes
sense,
but
we
could
put
together
also
like
a
very
quick,
even
just
a
notion
like
a
little
dashboard
or
something
that
sort
of
summarizes
all
of
the
existing
comments.
We
don't
want
to
ask
storage
providers
to
you
know
you
have
to
register
your
approval
or
dismissal.
H
The
FIP
again
new
Etc
they've
done
this
a
lot,
but
my
my
biggest
concern
still
with
this
approach
is
making
sure
that
we
have
a
legitimate
way
to
declare
this
is
accepted.
This
is
rejected
at
the
end
of
that
two-week
period.
Once
again,
we
have
these
timing
constraints,
which
I
think
are
kind
of
the
nature
of
the
difficulty
of
crypto
econ
fips,
but
yeah
Molly.
H
We
should
continue
to
use
it
at
the
decision
Matrix
just
for
the
actual,
like
structure
and
if
yeah
anyone
has
those
additional
Pathways
that
they
want
to
suggest
all
ears,
but
I
think
I
think
we
understand
sort
of
the
depth
of
constraints
here
pretty
well
so
far,
so
yeah.
K
Is
you
know
if,
if
this
does
a
good
job
of
highlighting
all
of
the
different
facets
of
a
decision,
like
you
know,
even
with
very
complex
decisions,
what's
optimal
often
does
just
kind
of
jump
out
at
you
by
by
looking
at
the
overall
picture
of
things,
and
so
that's
that
is
a
useful
tool
and
sometimes
a
surprising
tool
in
terms
of
identifying
the
the
best
overall
trajectory
and
so
being
able
to
say,
come
back
to
this
at
the
end
of
the
the
last
call
period
and
be
like
cool
like
you
know,
we've
been
updating
and
synthesizing
points
into
this,
and
you
know
overall
weighing
all
of
these
factors
against
each
other.
K
You
know
this
is
what
that
looks
like,
but
that
requires
making
sure
that
each
of
the
the
facets
do
a
good
job
covering
all
of
the
things
that
that
will
matter,
and
so
things
around
you
know.
Data
onboarding
and
access
to
Collateral
are
things
that
absolutely
you
know
are
an
important
facet
that
that
should
be
accounted
for
in
the
decision.
Matrix.
E
I
just
want
to
quickly
add
a
little
bit
of
color
from
deal
making,
SPS
and
I
do
think.
The
challenge
is
short-term
versus
long-term
thinking.
You
know
this
fit
is
designed
for
the
long-term
health
of
the
network
and
that
can
be
really
challenging
for
deal
making
SPS
to
stomach.
Sometimes
they
have
a
very
short-term
viewpoint.
For
example,
like
you
know,
their
biggest
concern
about
the
SDM
is
about
collateral.
E
They
have
a
limited
amount
of
credit
and
they
just
see
a
you
know
this
fixed
data
point
and
how
that
will
translate
into
their
actual
behaviors
mind
you.
You
know
Stefan's
team.
We
are
working
on
creating
more
options
for
collateral,
trying
to
raise
the
availability
for
borrowing
so
in
in
a
future
where
collateral
is
no
longer
constraint.
E
My
hypothesis
would
be
that
this
would
be
viewed
very
differently.
I
do
think,
there's
also
some
sensitivity,
given
that
we,
you
know,
we've
now
been
discussing
this
with
the
storage
provider
Community
for
call
it
nine
months.
You
know
seven
months
now,
nine
months
with
fit
36
included,
and
you
know
I
I
do
think
they
just
want
to
know
that
they're
being
heard
and
there's
some
empathy
from
us
on.
E
You
know
if
you
know
guiding
them
towards
a
longer
term
Vision
and
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish,
based
on
their
their
short-term
pain,
points
and
concerns.
So
you
know
with
any
decision
metrics
or
conversations
or
threads,
that
anyone
on
this
group
is
conducting
with
storage
deal,
making
SVS
I
I
just
encourage
you
to
take
an
empathetic
approach
and
that
language
will
go
a
long
way
because
they
do
have
this
overwhelming
feeling
right
now
that
their
voices
aren't
being
heard.
E
I
do
think,
there's
a
lot
of
storage
providers
within
the
community
that
see
this
as
good
and
beneficial
to
them,
but
with
the
bulk
of
like
the
the
regular
participants
on
a
day-to-day
basis.
There
is
some
frustration
there,
so
just
go
into
that
when
you
post
and
have
engagements
with
anyone
within
the
GitHub
discussion.
H
I
had
wanted
to
also
add
a
comment
to
the
discussion
right
now
or
in
the
next
day
or
two
outlining
how
we
want
to
move
forward
with
this,
because
the
feedback
I've
been
getting
from
some
large
storage
providers
too,
is
really
that
they
really
just
want
to
know
how
we're
going
to
move
forward
so
that
they
can
plan
around
it,
and
it
would
be
helpful
if
we
could
collaborate
on
the
actual
language
to
make
sure
that
it
does
come
across
as
empathetic,
and
it
does
seem
geared
towards
making
sure
storage
providers
still
heard,
because
I
do
from
my
perspective,
I
think
their
concerns
have
really
driven
a
lot
of
the
conversation
around
SDM,
but
so
I
think
they
are
heard.
J
Talked
to
a
couple
storage
provider,
you
know
different
size,
different
Focus
as
well.
A
lot
of
them
has
just
raised.
It's
like
they
would
appreciate
if
the
courthouse
can
help
the
network
get
stored
and
like
making
a
decision
like
fast
and-
and
you
know,
stored
it
now,
moving
towards
it,
because
it's
more
important
for
them
to
know
what's
going
to
happen
in
and
network,
and
how
is
that
gonna
impact
their
business
and
sure
like
even
some
of
them,
are
not
a
the
biggest
biggest
fan
of
SDM
or
they
have
some
counselors.
J
However,
and
they
still
understand
you
know,
and
we
are
all
trying
to
do
the
best
for
the
network
here,
they
just
need
heads
up
to
have
time
to
adapt
to
the
new
model
for
the
network
and
plan
their
business
like
or
according
it
accordingly.
So,
like
dragging
a
lot
of
conversation
for
too
long
can
potentially
have
like
bigger
damage
and
impact
in
this
situation.
So
so
yeah
so
like
I
agree
with
Casey.
It's
like
we
can.
We
should
work
like
more
classes
relatively,
like
you
know,
with
a
different
ecosystem.
F
F
Does
it
make
sense
for
some
kind
of
last
call
period
to
be
entered
sooner
rather
than
later,
because
I
think
the
the
main
concern
is
one
of
the
one
of
the
big
concerns
is
like
drawing
out
the
like
kind
of
creating
a
longer
term
a
longer
process.
That's
a
little
bit
more,
a
nebulous
in
terms
of
outcome
right.
H
Yeah
I
mean
I,
think
we've
been
talking
about
moving
towards
last
call
relatively
soon,
I
mean
to
be
completely
honest
with
you
that
it
is
hard
to
extricate
the
the
feedback
you
are
getting
as
one
person
from
what
is
the
sentiment
of
the
entire
whole
when
you're
not
constantly
working
with
storage
providers
per
se,
but
to
reiterate
Jennifer's
Point.
What
I
have
heard
consistently
is
that
at
this
point
they
have
the
sense
that
you
know
this
is
this
may
be
a
foregone
conclusion.
H
I,
don't
want
them
to
feel
that
way,
but
if
they
do,
they
seem
to
be
more
concerned
with
having
knowledge
about
what
will
happen
so
that
they
can
plan
around
it
rather
than
negotiating
the
specifics
of
the
process
at
this
point.
So
to
your
point,
yeah
I
think
it's
important
that
we
enter
last
call
sooner
rather
than
later.
I
think
that
was
the
plan
all
along,
but
I
think
this
gets
us
back
to
initial
flag
of.
H
We
are
going
to
have
to
navigate
this
process
to
try
and
mediate
between
giving
them
a
decision,
but
not
really
having
tools
to
get
to
hard
consensus
on
this,
and
one
way
to
do
that
without
asking
for
a
single
group
to
step
in
is
to
have
core
devs
release
a
statement,
and
this
may
be
a
good
way
to
have
them
publicly
summarize
what
Ford
FC
is
sort
of
the
major
trade-offs
of
this
fifth
really
kind
of
leaning
into
the
issues
that,
as
peace
have
been
raising
over
time,
giving
a
cogent
singular
as
a
group
answer
as
to
whether
or
not
it
should
be
accepted
or
rejected
and
sort
of
kicking
off
the
last
call
period
and
having
that
follow
shortly
after
I
think
this
would
be
a
good
way
to
guide
that
process.
H
But
again,
this
is
just
a
suggestion,
and
some
of
you
may
not
be
comfortable
with
that
or
may
want
to
talk
about
that
a
little
further,
but
I
do
want
to
recommend
it
as
something
we
should
coordinate,
because
I
think
it
will
help
address
a
lot
of
these
open
issues
that
that
are
very
difficult
to
address.
So.
K
Great
I
mean
I,
think
Caitlyn,
the
you
know
when
it
comes
to
like
statement
overall,
like
you
know,
I
think
having
core
devs
also
go
through
refined
decision.
Matrix
make
sure
we
have
the
right
set
of
facets
there
and
then
lean
into
that
is,
like
you
know,
hey
summarizing
these
things
being
able
to
even
continue.
K
You
know
adding
adding
points
through
the
last
call
Process,
because
I'm
sure,
even
as
this
enters
last
call
they'll
be
kind
of
like
continued
points
being
raised
across
the
community,
because
lots
of
folks
do
have
different
opinions
and
using
that
to
summarize,
like
hey,
you
know
there.
There
is
a
lot
of
trade-offs
here,
but
overall,
like
this
is
what
that
that
picture
looks
like
do
you
think
that
can
be
a
be
that
statement?
K
I
mean
it's
not
really,
it's
a
it's
more
of
like
a
an
analysis
or
summary
of
the
the
overall
landscape,
that's
being
navigated,
here
kind
of
on
behalf
of
the
community,
to
help
us
move
towards
like
a
cohesive
decision,
so
that
people
can
actually
plan
around
it
instead
of
being
in
this
limbo
state,
for
you
know
many
more
months
and
that
that
can
kind
of
like
help
us
move
towards
cohesive
outcome,
like
is
refining
that
as
a
courtev
group
and
making
sure
that
it
synthesizes
all
the
important
topics
that
are
being
raised
like
can
that
be
kind
of
the
the
outcome
here.
H
Sure
I
think
so
I
think
we
could
take.
So
we
have
two
decision
Matrix.
Currently
we
have
the
SDM
one
that
Vic
put
together
and
that
one
seems
more
or
less
sort
of
static,
and
then
we
have
the
governance,
one
which
was
put
together
pretty
quickly
and
should
be
more
changeable.
I
think
we
should
still
have
we've
perfectly
happy
to
like
repurpose
these
as,
like
you
know,
core
Dev
tools
or
whatever
and
Grant
access
to
everyone
to
contribute
to
that
I
think
that's
a
great
idea.
H
I
think
we
should
not
just
put
those
forward.
I
think
there
should
be,
even
if
it's
just
like
a
few
paragraphs,
sort
of
providing
a
summary
of
these
points
and
like
what
the
outcome
is.
One
of
the
things
we
learned
from
the
fit36
process
is
that
we
have
a
lot
more
time.
Many
of
us
are
staff
on
filecoin
to
work
through
these
tools,
but
community
members
don't
have
that
time
and
they
don't
want
to.
We
saw
this
at
the
analyzes.
H
They
aren't
going
to
spend
that
time
really
digging
into
these
things,
so
we
should
make
them
available
as
reference,
but
it
also
helps
us
in
the
future
too,
if
we
are
capturing
kind
of
feedback
and
changes
and
analyzes
as
we're
going
through
this
process,
to
know
that
this
is
not
going
to
be
a
step
process
for
future
crypto.
E-Concepts
hope
it
is
an
experiment
to
see
sort
of
how
these
constraints
change
as
we
try
new
things,
and
it
ends
up
giving
us
really
good
information
in
the
future.
H
If
we
want
to
make
changes
or
do
something
new
so
think
we
should
use
these
I
think
we
should
also
have
like
a
something
a
little
bit
more
just
on
the
discussion
post,
here's
what
core
devs
are
analyzing,
here's
a
link
to
these
tools,
but
here's
sort
of
the
outcome
we
want
community
members
to
lead
with
and
I
think
Porter
could
be
really
good
too.
At
helping
with
that.
A
Great
thanks
thanks
Molly.
Are
there
more
comments,
otherwise
can
pass
that
over
Jennifer
I
know
you
wanted
to
touch
base
on
Envy,
18
and
19
quickly?
Do
you
think
we
can
do
that
in
10,
5-10
minutes,
I.
I
See
you
then
I
feel
like
you
know,
everyone
is
really
you
know
had
on
workout
fevm,
so
just
want
to
share
some
like
Photo
updates,
whatever,
as
also
like
community
members
as
well.
So
first,
like
all
the
other
fips,
and
that.
J
Will
be
included
in
being
18.
Again
is
only
going
to
be
if
evm
surrounded,
we're
gonna
launch.
This
huge
new
feature
to
the
Falcon
Network
and
all
the
flips
are
in
last
call
right
now
and
I
believe
most
of
them
are
hoping
to
move
out
of
last
call
the
early
next
week.
So
if
you
do
have
like
domain
expertise
or
fevm,
and
you
want
to
help
us
to
review
the
design-
and
this
is
your
chance
and
do
let
us
know
if
you
have
any
feedback,
we
want
every
VM
be
as
good
as
possible.
J
So
please,
please,
please
go
go
to
the
fifth
report
and
reveal
them
from
the
engineering
perspective.
The
ref
fvm
team
is
like
doing
some
last
set
of
like
feature
changes
because,
like
we
are
also
doing
amazing
hacksaw
for
space
force
warp
is
global
hexa
and
we're
receiving
a
lot
of
feedbacks
from
the
developers
themselves.
So
there
are
some
bugs
being
discovered
from
others
as
well.
J
So
if
you
are,
you
know,
if
you
want
to
help
us
like
hardening
the
same
and
make
sure
we
don't
screw
the
screw
it
up.
Please
there's
a
new
developer
focused
test
net
called
hyperspace,
and
we
are
constantly
deploying
the
latest
code
into
that.
So
please
join
me
as
help
us
testate.
All
the
evm
ecosystem,
tooling,
are
supposed
to
be
just
working.
Fine
osvm,
which
is
really
cool,
and
you
have
any
that's
to
you
know
ensure
that
you're,
serum
developer
experience
can
be
as
good
as
it
can
be.
J
So
do
do
help
us
testing
and
get
and
tell
us
if
there's
any
feedback
so
right
now
use
ESB
has
been
working
really
hard
to
start
preparing
all
the
beauty,
actor
work
and
that's
being
done
in
the
past
seven
months
from
staging
them
into
a
landable
state
into
master
and
Alex
North
has
been
doing
a
lot
of
heavy
lifting,
but
also
very
software,
like
views
on
those
code
to
make
sure
we
we
have
like
landed
the
protocol
like
safely.
We
could
use
more
help
out
reviews
more
All
Eyes.
J
We
are
never
going
to
tear
down
and
I
know
a
lot
of
the
forest.
Forest
friends
here
have
a
lot
of
like
environment
experience
as
well.
So
if
you,
you
can
help
with
reviewing
the
code,
you
still
let
us
know,
and
that
being
said,
I
I
believe
we
are
still
on
track
on
the
cold
free
snacks.
J
You
know
sometime
next
week
and
the
worst
is
like
early
the
following
week
and
I
will
give
another
update
on
the
precise
calibration
upgrade
Epoch
I
mean
upgrade
Epoch
next
week,
but
so
far
we're
still
looking
at
early
March
as
our
midnight
launch.
So
yeah.
That's
that
and
a
quick
note
on
only
19
in
case
you
haven't
seen
it.
Yes,
we
are
starting
to
planning
the
scope
and
the
timeline
of
going
to
be
90.
Talking
I
know,
there's
a
lot
of
lips.
That's
queuing
up
already.
J
We
are
going
to
make
a
small
change
here.
There's
a
lot
of
work
going
to
each
Network
upgrade
a
lot
of
coordination,
and
we
have
since
then
pointed
someone
called
like
Network
upgrade
coordinator
to
help
store
the
whole
process.
So
far,
like
a
lot
of
things
are
in
my
brain
and
I'm,
hoping
to
onboard
more
people
to
help
us.
You
know
Drive.
The
upgrades
for
the
network,
so
casely
has
currently
offered
her
support
and
help
here.
So
Kitty
is
going
to
be
our
boss.
J
Our
shipping
me
19
for
the
Falcon
Network,
so
that's
very
exciting.
We
are
going
to
use
this
opportunity
to
document
all
the
process
that
we're
taking
all
the
consideration
consideration
that
we
are
taking
as
well
from
a
lot
of
you
know:
engineering,
governance,
marketing,
Community,
Management
communication,
all
those
perspective,
so
we
are
also
keep
in
mind
that
you
know
again.
J
If
evm
is
a
big
change
to
the
network,
so
knock
on
the
wood,
but
it's
possible
that
we
need
to
stay
actually
reactive
to
the
potential
incident
that
may
go
on
to
Falcon,
post
mb18.
Again,
don't
I
hope
that
never
happens,
but
we
are
going
to
stay
reactive
in
that.
So
in
the
case
of
there's,
any
emergency
upgrade
needed
for
me.
19
I
will
still
you
know,
step
in
and
you
know
help
coordinating
that
process.
J
But
if
everything
is
just,
if
only
90
is
just
a
normal
upgrade,
then
Casey
is
going
to
help
story
in
the
process.
If
you
have
interest
in
being
a
network
upgrade
coordinator,
do
you
let
me
know
my
hope
is
to
onboard
at
least
two
to
three
folks
to
share
the
knowledge
with
me
and
so
DM
me.
If
you
are
interested
in
that.
A
A
No
all
right,
thank
you.
So
much
colleagues
for
joining
us
for
core
deaths.
Number
54.
I'll
be
sharing
around
the
notes
and
the
recording
and
all
of
the
materials
that
we
discussed
today.
Otherwise
I'm
hoping
to
see
us
again
in
March
and
please
do
take
care
and
stay
safe,
bye,
guys,
foreign.