Filecoin Plus Notary Governance, 5 Sep 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Fil+ September 05, 2022 Notary Governance Call

Description

The September 5th community governance calls to discuss the Filecoin Plus program.

Slides and Links: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PpBp3PHS8K3RGdctJ-jedrheRu1bSFJjbanJbmcjGVQ/edit?usp=sharing

Agenda
- 2nd Governance Call Time (Feedback)
- Buy/Trade Datacap (Discussion and Feedback)
- UI: Proposal Status Display
- #608 Proposal : LDN require 90day Github account
- Update: FIPs (0036+0045)
- Community Issues + Discussion

Github: https://github.com/filecoin-project/notary-governance/issues/603

If you would like to attend these meetings LIVE, the Fil+ Notary Governance calendar is available at: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=c_k1gkfoom17g0j8c6bam6uf43j0%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America%2FLos_Angeles

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

Well, good morning, welcome to the september 5th notary governance call here we are going to be taking a look today at a modified agenda just like last time and the big topics that we're going to cover have to do with just quick check in on intros and participation.

A

Then we're going to spend the bulk of the time on the community issues that are ongoing, so things that were flagged in slack and github, some of the fifths, some of the proposals, and then we will have a few minutes at the end for community discussions.

A

This sync was a little bit unusual in that we had no feedback on the github.

A

So if there was something that was still on your mind, we might have a few minutes because the agenda is light as a result, so just putting that out there and if you would like to get something, please use chat and we'll go through it for any of the communications that we see just as a friendly check-in. If this was your first time on the call, the four of us here, deep galen myself and rg, we represent the governance team to help you with any issues that you have, while you're using the fill plus program.

A

So with that feel free to reach out we'll be happy to back you up whenever needed, if you're on the call right now we talk about this each time, but it's very helpful to see who someone is so right now. My name just says kevin. You can't really see what organization I'm with, but if I right click on my image background, I can then edit my rename and then I can put something like foundation and then that way, when we're talking to you, it's really easy to say who we're communicating with.

A

So, if you haven't done so already, please do that now, and it just makes the call a lot easier to communicate with we're going to post this link here in chat right now. This is the link to the tracker. This is what we use for the sla for notary participation for you, storage providers, community members that might be on the call and looking to get more involved. This is a good way to show like hey. I've been coming, I've been a voice in the community for a while.

A

So if you check your chat, you'll see a link to this just go ahead and fill out the governance call date. The time you came be sure to represent your organization. Sometimes if you don't put this, it takes a little bit extra time to track it down and we might miss you. So if you haven't done so already, please go ahead and sign in and we'll get you all set up.

A

So with that out of the way, these are the big ticket items posted in slack that we have on the agenda for today we're going to start out by just giving you a quick heads up about the file. Excuse me phil, plus team summit, that's going on next week. As a result, we may have some delayed comms, we'll talk a little bit about the second notary governance time. Give you folks on the morning a chance to give any feedback on this.

A

If you came, if you didn't come, why or why not share a little initial metrics on who was here? Then we had a post from jen in the phil notary slack just bubbling this up to the top of your radar and deep's going to talk a little bit about this. If you're, using this buy and trade feature of the program, get your feedback on it. If you are, if you are not, there was a proposal that came in from github. Excuse me before I get to that.

A

There was a flag that was happening with the proposals in github when the notary signed so deep's just going to talk a little bit about that ui kind of address any concerns. If you've seen this yourself, then the proposal 608 just came through two days ago, and this we're going to talk about with the github length to see if we can maybe come up with a workaround. So we don't have so many issues with the github accounts and then deep will close us off with updates to fips number three.

A

Six and number four five update where we are and just making sure that you have the latest and greatest on that. If there's anything else, you'd like to see on this agenda feel free to put it in the chat and then, if we have time at the end, we'll allocate time for the discussion sounds good. Here.

A

We go so next wednesday, thursday friday rg galen myself and deep we're all going to be co-located working on a summit to kind of come up with a future plan for the phil plus program, taking a look back at the past year and just all in all deep dive into this to make sure we're giving you the most. So as a result, we may have delayed cons on the 14th, 15th and 16th just putting this out there still very much available, but you might not get an immediate response for something.

A

So if you do have something urgent feel free to tag me, kevin fff in the slack just bubbles it up to the top of my inbox and we'll be sure to help you. If there's any blockages outages or anything you need, but just as a quick reminder on the 14th 15th and 16th coming up next week, rg myself, deep and galen will have delayed comms all right. Let's talk about the second notary governance call.

A

So in the month of august, at the request of the community great feedback, we piloted having the second call two hours later and the thought process was. This helps some folks that might be in asia have an easier time attending the call. So what we did is we've been starting to pull metrics on. Did that drive adoption did people drop off? Did we get new faces that that weren't on the call, and then we're kind of coming back to this period, to see if that maintains or if that drops off again?

A

So this afternoon's call this morning's call. However, it is for your time zone we'll be back at that regular. Sixteen hundred four o'clock, pacific 2300 utc and, I think, zero seven hundred beijing time. So what we're gonna do is anybody who came to those calls in august that might drop off I'm going to be reaching out to them via dms to see like was it the time zone?

A

Was it just a schedule issue that came up and then in the next round of notary governance, I'm going to bake in questions to the application on what times work for you for holding these governance sinks and rather than having just these two times that seemed to work for the community a year ago, we'll make sure that it's current.

A

So if you have any feedback on this, please send it to me: there's also a proposal in the notary governance repo, but we're really eager to try to find a time that works for everybody involved and just to kind of highlight just two metrics that I was pulling before this call. If you look at the notary participation, we hover around 40 notaries that come to this call, which is a great number for about 70 80 of all the notaries that attend each and every bi-weekly period.

A

We have a couple clients that come up just to kind of share their proposals. We have a few storage providers that averages around the six or seven number on these calls communities and others. So what I'm doing right now is I'm seeing what percentage of these notaries come to the 8 a.m? Call the 6 a.m, call who's not attending, and so I'll be reaching out. You folks on the call, won't get the same ping, but the notaries that are not attending hey. Is it a driver on your schedule?

A

Is it something with the calls to try to make sure that we're making this work for everybody? So I'd like to get some feedback so I'll pause talking? If you have any thoughts on the call time how we're doing it? Why you come to the some sessions why you might not come to others? I'd love to hear it right now.

A

Well, I think that's long enough pause to think that there's no verbal feedback at this time, if anything comes to mind, feel free to put it in chat, put it in the repo and we'll get back to it. So with that uh deep did you want to kind of talk about this from jen.

B

Yeah ib game, so basically the you know, there's always questions floating around like data cap markets and specifically every now and then somebody'll be like. Can you come by data cap or is there a secondary market where you can exchange data cap uh and strictly? The answer to this is no because data cap is assigned on a per project or per client basis right. So, if you're a client, you apply for data cap you're, providing an address to the notary. Saying hey!

B

Please give me the data cap at this address and there's no way for you to transfer that data cap and also transferring that would be unethical because it was allocated for that specific use case for that project, where the client had given this uh data to get that and like given information about themselves to get that that, ideally, hopefully, was better to be true to the due diligence process and data cap itself is not a constrained resource right, we're not trying to create a circulating economy here, it's something that gets minted on the fly infinitely as needed and as rg is pointing out in the chat.

B

It's a single use. Credit, so then it gets burnt as well pretty frequently, and so uh it wouldn't make sense uh for there to be a market to exchange that data cap either other than the fact that by definition, it shouldn't really qualify. For that.

B

However, a lot of people when they ask this question are not actually asking about data cap they're, actually asking about quality, adjusted power and they're interested in getting matched with clients that have data cap to make deals with them and that's fair. That's just a market making problem.

B

That's part of the general sub problem of file coin of saying: hey we're going to put you in a marketplace: you're welcome to sort of identify what is the most efficient terms of agreement in the marketplace for you to get your work done, and that may be that you want to use a market making tool to go and make deals, and so what we see, what often people link to is things like big data, dot exchange or using uh an exchange or using some sort of like marketplace to get matched to an sp via an online profile um or bidding systems?

B

You know there are a couple of experiments and auctions there as well in addition to big data exchange, but the idea that you can go someplace public actually share what you're looking for talk about the data cap that you have in the deals that you want to make.

B

That's one thing for sure. The second thing I think that people refer to or could be valid, is sort of enablement of storage providers to drive business development that ultimately results in data cap being acquired for that business development. And so, if you're, a search provider you're interested in increasing your quality address power, you want to onboard data sets at scale.

B

You can participate in programs or participate in on-ramps that help you grow your ability to get deals onto the network and so the while, like calling that a market is probably not right, because it's not uh there's, certainly a library of tools and a set of programs that would aid any storage provider on that journey and should be worthwhile for most search writers looking to make deals.

B

And so I just want to clarify that if you see conversations in the community around markets for datacap, please please please clarify and help educate the community that it's not actually a marketplace for datacap. It's a marketplace for verified deals which is kind of the point of filecoin and that there's several resources for that. Datacap itself cannot be bought and sold and propagating. That would be very problematic both for the the you know, the actual point of data cap, but then also the value of data gap over time, because it is not a constrained resource.

B

It is a infinitely mindable and burnable resource on chain thanks carrie.

A

Thank you deep I'll pause. If anybody has any thoughts, questions comments.

A

All right deep, professor level, explanation, no thoughts, but if there is hit up the chat and we'll uh be sure to address it uh deep, if I could hand this one back over to you, this was flagged in the notaries chat. Just about how we're seeing this proposal link being tagged. There were some questions on it. It might be helpful just to clarify.

B

Yeah, let's do it so I think the actual challenge here has been that there's there's two problems that manifest the same way. The first is that in some cases where the app doesn't actually recognize that you're making a proposal for the same thing, it actually just makes the second notary sign a proposal.

B

This could happen for a few reasons number one. Sometimes the signatures are happening. You know within seconds of each other, or people are on the app at the same time, so the view hasn't refreshed, and so the app session does not actually realize that this would be an approval and we actually end up with two proposals.

B

The second is, for whatever reason the chain scraping that the app is doing missed, that there was a proposal and still thinks that this particular allocation requires a proposal.

B

The second bug is that there was a period in time at which, even though messages were going as approvals, they were mislabeled either they were not showing up. uh So there was no comment at all from the bot here, or it was showing up as a proposed message, even though it was an approval. This one should be fixed, but what I wanna, what I wanna arm the community with the notaries with, is that the the first thing you should do?

B

If you see this and you think it's weird is you- should click the actual link to the message right so that url at the bottom, where it says, check the status of the message? You are welcome to click on that that is public information on what's landed on chain. That will give you an idea immediately if this is an approval, message or proposal message and what the messages parameters are.

B

If you see multiple proposal messages in a row, you'll see that each proposal has a transaction id and the transaction id parameter should be unique across them, and that will also help you determine that. Yes, indeed, these are all valid individual proposals for the same thing, and so we're working on making our stack a little bit more robust on this front to ensure that we're minimizing the amount of duplicate work happening. We're also investigating ways in which we can cancel duplicate proposals, so they're not floating around and causing confusion down the line.

B

I know that this happened with a couple of notaries in the last several weeks, and so we want some way to make that happen better and so we're looking at ways to improve this. But if you do see this right now, that's what you should do. You should take a look and see if these are indeed two different proposal messages, and if the answer is yes, then please post about it in the notary's channel and we'll find a way to take it from there.

B

A

Appreciate getting this flag in slack I'll, go ahead and post that snippet that deep did for the rundown to reply that way, it's like in the record in the notary channel, but just again thanks for flagging this. This was a good good topic for discussion.

A

um This one came in over the weekend. Let me share the link here in chat in case you're, keen to follow along, but essentially at a very high level. What this is talking about is those of you obviously remember about two or three weeks ago, github had an issue where it blocked a lot of the accounts that were using vpn access that had a couple like newer, higher activity on newer accounts.

A

So this proposal, coming through from the community, is asking: is it possible to modify the ldn application, so you can only submit an application if your github is older than 90 days? The pros and cons of this are kind of just talking about it. Con is that if a data requester had not been using github in the past, this could serve as a block.

A

Pro is that this would eliminate some of those issues that we've been noticing in github, where an account might be newer, have a lot of activity all at once and then github flags it to come through.

A

So if you want to take a quick second and look, but we're very keen to get some thoughts on this proposal to see if this was something that the community supports, having that longer period of an ldn application window for github, or is this something that you feel would be a blocker for applicants who may be coming across so kind of pause and see what feedback and thoughts you have.

A

Yeah carolina, I see your hand.

C

Yeah everyone base, so I would like to give like a brief introduction about it. So, as you said like I noticed a talk about how cons have been flagged recently and from my what I saw, I think those flagged accounts was like triggered the github alert system or something I mean it does prevent like potential dc abuse, but it also impacted certain, like normal users, so the purpose. The proposal here is actually like a to better, create a stable environment and also reduce the overhead of community members like especially for the governor's team.

C

I know you guys have been like closed a lot of ld applications these days and there's. One thing I would like to have you guys join the discussion is about the 90 days. um 90 days is not like something certain it's just like the period I feel appropriate. um So I joined vicon by the end of may. It has been like three months now.

C

I mean there are still a lot part that I don't know, but I did understand the fico model and a mechanism so whether it is 60 days or even 70 days, I don't know it. Doesn't matter, um I'm just sharing the idea that I think this can possibly work and we can for sure work on the date like the period about it and um there's also one thing that I'm not sure about, like the whole proposal is under assumption that it's technically possible to add. Github account limiting, and I'm not sure about that.

C

So I need I. I would appreciate if someone could help me confirm that.

C

Are you guys still here yeah.

B

Yeah everyone's here, um thank you for proposing this. um I just wanted. Oh rj go for it.

D

B

Just gonna I had some initial.

C

D

But deep you can go ahead and yeah.

B

Sure so I just want to say that technically an issue can be created in the repo by anybody, and so we can't like constrain the ability for somebody to create an issue. What we can do is make it harder. So the first thing that is possible is that, like right now, a lot of people fill out the the template um directly on github and then there's a validation, bot right that runs and says hey.

B

This is valid, so you can make this part of the logic for the validation bot to say, hey, also check on when this github account was created, and so it's it's theoretically possible. As a checking step.

B

I don't think it's possible as a restricting step, uh but if it doesn't meet those requirements, we can ensure that, like you know, data cap isn't necessarily being signed at least via the tooling, um and so that that is one thing for sure, but I mean philosophically, on the actual thing, there's just two things I want to say number one. I think we see a lot of issues with people.

B

You know more and more applying that don't have github accounts natively, like github, isn't necessarily the the best fit to identify filecoin customers- and it's been pretty common- that, like people have had to create github accounts to apply and been confused by the process, and so I don't know like.

B

I think that this is a little challenging like. Maybe we need multiple ways of doing kyc like we have. uh You know we have some experiments underway on the enterprise plus side, but there's also the there's. We ask people to give us social media accounts.

B

Maybe we can have a threshold there, or maybe it's like a combination of a few things uh which could be interesting, and the second thing I want to call out is: we've been told and we've seen this a lot where accounts, uh especially in china and a few other regions because of github policies and regional internet policies will get banned, um and then people have to recreate applications or recreate a new github account to do work through that github account um and that's been a challenge for phil plus as a community as well, where we've had many people cycle, multiple github accounts, and so even though it looks like a new github account.

B

It's somebody, that's well known in the community like it's a notary, that's been working for many months for many years and I don't have a good way to get around that either like we could always create like a a manual tracking mechanism or something that says you know these are known entities in this ecosystem and it's fine. If it's a new github account, maybe that's one way to go, but I think yeah it would be a little challenging like in general. I think it's a good idea.

B

Maybe we need to combine it with one or two more things to make it more realistic. That's my initial response, um we'd love to hear what other people have to say. I see rg, you want to say something and then alex said something in the chat.

D

Yeah yeah, I agree with what deep said I think uh putting an id restriction might um might be like restricted to many people because uh yeah, like I think, a lot of people. A lot of people create accounts uh just for this, the purpose of applying for ldn and ldns. um It could be interesting, for we can also explore if they have, if they're part of falcon slack to like, if they're willing to share their slack, um username or handle.

D

um I think we can potentially get that uh because, essentially, I think one one of the underlying things here is we're trying to assess their. uh Of course, the authenticity, but also like you, know, they're if they've been engaged uh previously, um and so I think there are other ways to do that, including you know. If they had a presence in the governance call we can. Okay, like you know, kevin's been tracking that so we can do that, and so I think that'll be a combination of things.

D

But um I personally think that the 90 day restriction might be too limiting for the state of the program as it is today. um Also to answer um alejandros, I think uh yeah. We we do agree that you know github is not the best solution, but as of today, we haven't at least come across a better alternative.

D

If there's anyone in the community who has come across a platform, we have two web three um that you think could be useful, we're more than open to take a look um yeah, at least for them to come at the for the foreseeable future, which is at least three to six months. uh We don't see moving away from github right away, because it will require a little bit of process so agreed, but um would love any alternatives. Proposals.

C

Yeah, maybe 90 days it's like a little bit more too strict. I mean we can lower it down. I don't know yeah and there's also one point I would like to mention in the comment section of my proposal: there's people mentioning that they could actually buy github account. So I don't know if that's possible, but if it is, I think you guys should be. You know a little bit aware of that too.

D

Yeah, no, I think we're aware of that. um Buying github accounts is the thing um and yeah it happens all the time so because um you know sometimes when, uh when I as a member of the governance team, I'm doing kyc, I do look at previous, uh commit history or previous contributions, which sometimes can be a good um indicator, but then it's always useful to see like what exactly so. What's where it commits and private repositories or were they public there's ways to verify that?

D

But uh to answer your question, yes, you can buy um github accounts like people do that even up beyond, like you know, for phil plus, like sometimes some companies require you to see like have a history, and so people there's like different ways. People gain systems overall, so yeah. That is also a potential challenge.

C

And I also got another question here like: how do I go? How do you guys think like as a client, to join in um audi an application like, so what kind of way do they get introduction from notaries or from sps, or they just come to a ficon by themselves?.

D

Yeah, so um I can take a first step, but then um deep in anyone else, please fully jump in from what I've learned so far. A lot of it is sp driven, so sps are bringing the clients, but also there are some times where you know, depending on the scale um people do what kind of want to try out. So you might have seen that you know people are storing the original copy somewhere else, but then they want to try out falcon to store additional copies, and so we see a mix.

D

um So we don't necessarily like know if um you know also like we, we've tried to um get sps to declare if they're bringing um a client on board, but there's you know, of course, some concerns on their side as well. They don't want to put their reputation on um kind of on bet, so yeah so, and I think uh overall, my opinion is, you know it is supposed to be like you know.

D

Anonymity is like uh a thing and we don't necessarily um discourage it, but we do of course encourage um like on the way in the kyc process, providing as much information as possible. So to answer your question: it's a mix, um there's no kind of one, one pathway to which clients are coming on board.

C

Yeah, I got what you mean thanks. You know, I think you know for icon. The most meaningful part is like storing the the the most useful data for humanity. That's what I think so, uh actually, when we're introducing this, I would actually doubt if anyone would put their data in filecom without knowing the whole system and everything and the whole process the learning process. It takes time, it doesn't come, you know overnight, and they been they. They just get the content been applied for it.

C

I don't think that's reasonable for me, but of course, as you said, if they were introduced by sp, the whole learning process will be like a shorter and they can get more direct orientation over the whole system, but still it requires time. I still think 90 days might be a bit too long, but like one month two months, it's it doesn't seem that bad to me, you know just some of my thoughts welcome disagrees. This disagreements.

D

Yeah, no, I suppose I think the the intention behind this proposal is definitely in the right direction, and it's good that we get a chance to discuss this here um to understand what the limitations might be from a programmatic standpoint.

D

um So I encourage everyone else in the community to pitch in or kind of come up with more proposals. You know as the case of three or four of us uh right who are kind of thinking about this and we're also doing the operational side of things. So it's always helpful to get a diversity of ideas um and suggestions of what we can do better. So yeah encourage the direction um the specifics might need to be different.

C

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I really got like the last question like if, if, if pl decided to develop their own platform like how long would that be.

D

You mean our own version of github.

C

Yeah not on github yeah, but like a different platform.

D

um I mean I would assume it will take more than six months for sure. um Also like. I think we need really need to assess, because, as of today, um as you know, as the status quo is um we we would have to assess if it's worth investing in a platform ourselves, because you know it'll, there's like many considerations there. So I don't necessarily know if that's the direction we've even considered, um but.

C

Sorry because, in the comments I saw people suggesting maybe a better platform that only works for falcon, and I was wondering how long that will take so that six months is not like something we were expecting too. So, probably not yeah.

D

I mean, I think, the way I see it right.

D

I think uh some of the ways in which we are heading- um and you know we'll deep mention- got the fips I think deal making is evolving and it looked a bit different than it is a year from now, and so we don't want to over index or like right now, like some of the problems that we're facing with github is not necessarily because like, of course, you know it's, um it's not the like, not best suited for the kind of um process that we're going through, but um also the process will evolve uh in my expect, my personal expectation quite significantly, and so I think we I think I would personally like to kind of get a better sense of what that would look like uh before we invest in the platform.

D

um You know, because if you build something internally, it comes with, like you know its own set of um costs, and you know um time to be spent on it in terms of maintenance.

D

So I think I personally think you know given the capacity of the governance team today we are better it's better for us to kind of iron out some of the existing issues than uh spend dedicated amount of resources to developing a new platform. But that's just my opinion, um yeah. If anyone feels differently, please speak up.

C

Yeah thanks, I got what you mean and yeah that's enough for me too welcome to join me in the comments guys.

A

Appreciate you flagging this we'll let this proposal kind of sit for a week get some feedback on it and maybe check back in with this on the next voter notary governance call to see where it stands again. Thank you for raising this.

A

Deep, would you like to speak with a fip update on three six and four five.

B

Yeah totally, um I just wanted to share the link to the issue in the chat as well. I saw there's a request for it um and I think gary's already done it above, but if not, I post it again cool uh on this issue on these issues.

B

Basically, what I wanted to call out is uh there was a implementer's call last week uh so for those of you that are familiar, there's like a file coin, core developer session that happens once every I think two weeks gets recorded, put on youtube and there was one last thursday in which we took a deep dive into a bunch of the existing open, fib proposals, of which these are, of course included in the build up. For this we did a.

B

We did significantly more work uh to figure out like where our heads were at and what we should be representing. uh We also got on the phone with several notaries that were available to get their input and their understanding um and went and did our best to represent that opinion in the fib call.

B

I think the the latest state is that, basically for flip 36 uh there's been a new proposal. That's come in uh that reduces the total duration from five years to 3.5 years, that's being proposed, but so of course increases the minimum from six months to one year and so sectors. Instead of going from one year to one and sorry six months to one and a half years will now go from one year to three point: five years.

B

um They also recommended, or both doing this in a staged manner, uh which I think is a recommendation that came up as well, which is instead of going immediately to the max. We can increase the the sector lifetime upper bound over a period of several weeks, and so the recommendation for that is that we will do that and take you know every four weeks increase by six months.

B

uh You should definitely check out this step because I think the the the part that I am still hung up on as like somebody from the field plus community, like the rest of changes, are relatively positive. But the thing that I think is still going to be challenging for us is how we're going to handle uh sector migration and sector extension.

B

uh So please check out the the picture that I have on. The right is a screenshot of this section of the fip, which is a link that carriage is posted in the chat, but basically the claim is we don't?

B

They don't need to necessarily support sector migration for existing sectors that have verified deals in them and uh in the past there was significant pushback to this, and there was uh the fieldplus community at least what what we represented on behalf of the fieldbus community at the core devs call was hey, ideally, there's no migration for either phil, plus or cc. So no migration at all. But in the case that you support migration for cc, the feedback that we have is that we should also support migration for verified deals.

B

The latest proposal does not align with that, so what they're still recommending is, I think, enabling cc sectors to get extended, but not phil plusseckers, and so I'm trying to figure out. You know how to continue the conversation on this front, but I would love to hear from the community. You know if there are folks that would can chime in on this. I would really appreciate it. The link is in the chat. If you have anything, you want to share right now in person.

B

I would also love to hear it, and I can do my best to represent that in the conversation uh on github but the effectively. The argument is that uh you know by just enabling migration for cc. Things should be all right and there will not be a significant impact to us, sps that have verified deals or phil plus sectors. um I don't necessarily agree with this.

B

I think that it is important for verified deals to also get extended, because getting data cap and getting deals on board and finding clients is not a trivial process, and so for those of you that have done it and are doing it well, we should have some mechanism to support it, but at the same time, there's advantages to making everybody go through the application loop again, because that is effectively the you know when, when data cap was first applied, for it was seen as a single use expiring in a maximum of 18 months, and so we're at least not changing the definition of a verified deal or data cap, and thereby agreements that have been made with clients are not being violated or being extended.

B

So there's there's multiple angles here. I would love to hear what people have to say on this, um if you'd all just hop into github and take a look, that's completely acceptable, I'll, see you there. If you have anything you want to share here, I'm going to pause for 30 seconds here and make sure that people have a chance.

B

Honestly, if you just have a clarifying question on the flip as well happy to talk about it, okay hand from rg.

D

Yeah, I personally think that um you know we. We can't afford uh expiry like expiry of verified deals. I think um at this point uh we're already doing work to understand.

D

You know who are high trust clients and, given the you know, the kind of abuse we're seeing it could be useful to get people to apply again and we can take a note of um you know we can look at on-chain behavior and see who has been a good or like a trustworthy client before, uh but I think there is value broadly um in getting the community in getting clients to apply for verified deals again than just uh and letting the the ones right now expiring.

D

That's from that and my angle is mostly coming from a data cap abuse perspective, uh but yeah those are my two cents uh would love to hear what other people think.

E

Yeah, I think I agree with uh energy here. um I don't think it's like it's the the job of of that ship specifically to hand to handle the uh falcon plus side like that, should be something that that we do and we like figure out ways of um like tracking which um which which uh allocations would expire or whatnot, and if we want to like reach out to the storage providers or our clients involved and whatnot.

E

We can do that on our site, but uh not necessarily get involved into the like the system itself, because the system itself, it's like a whole other thing like separate from the default compose program.

E

So we can handle things or site on on that phone and then leave the the system to do what like what they do and if we want to help uh like stretch providers and and and clients and or not, we can track that on our side and reach out to to them to like uh help get gets new requests and and whatnot and yeah. I think that that's the right approach.

B

Yeah cool, um I think, in the interest of time, I'll continue on to the next one, but please check out the links and and voice any thoughts you have there directly as well. Thank you, rg and alex okay talk about 45, so this is the arguably slightly more directly impacting one for us right now, which is um the decoupling of falcon plus from existing storage marketplaces and, specifically, decoupling the notion of data cap from only being usable when the current storage market actor chooses to use it.

B

Tldr of this is basically when a client wants to use data cap they actually assign it to a pcid and that allocation has properties around midterm and max term that an sp should comply with, and sp can publish deals for that and get a quality adjustment unchained. And this way, if there's smart contracts in the future that enable deal making on behalf of a client or there are other ways in which deal making can happen.

B

We have some way to facilitate that. Overall. This is an interesting change. I don't think it's an urgent change necessarily, but because of the other things happening in the ecosystem, it is one that's been considered for the current network upgrade and overall it is. It should lead to a little bit more flexibility for how verified deals are constructed and made, and I think that's a good thing.

B

What I want to call out, though, is that after the implementer sync last week, we where we talked primarily about wanting to move the conversation of extension of existing sectors, we decided that the best place to do that would be in feb 36, and so the migration topic has now been removed from 45, which is interesting because in 36 the argument is, we don't need to support migration for field plus deals, um and so right now, what we're expecting is basically fip 45 to be a little bit simpler and easier to sort of get through and work for us in that like for the next several months.

B

Actually, nothing really changes other than how we track data caps spend on chain uh and even then, the the estimations we have in the dashboards and stuff will continue to work. uh But they will not be accurate in the near future, and so we'll have to make adjustments and architect things slightly differently from a tooling standpoint, but from a mechanisms and governance standpoint, nothing actually changes.

B

It does enable for new deals that will be made after the network upgrade to be for much much longer than the existing deals, because you'll be able to specify a longer sector duration, maximum, which now could be three and a half years.

B

Assuming you know, feb 36 fast, if 536 doesn't get passed, then no significant changes other than the deal making uh process and like where data cap gets spent in the deal making process which really means for the default user. Nothing actually changes that much.

B

But I urge you to take a look at this one too, just skim through see if there's anything that raises any eyebrows or if you have any questions, please reach out and let us know, I don't think we need to have that much of a discussion on this right now, because we did get a chance to talk about it quite a bit at a previous governance call, but there's any if there's any burning questions or something that is like very top of mind that anybody wants to share giving you the floor for 30 seconds.

B

Okay, I think we keep going. Thank you all right.

A

So with that that'll kind of wrap with like the pre-populated agenda items that came from github, that came from slack, I will uh turn it over if anybody in the call would like to raise anything for discussion.

A

Eric, I see your hand floor is yours,.

F

Hi morning evening, so I'm asking where's the the project beacon has been done. What's the status for right now uh regarding to deep or rg's, what's the status for the project speaker.

B

Oh eric, I think I owe you a response or email is that right, there's some stuff that I think that I suggested.

A

B

Shared publicly have you had a chance to do that, yet uh sure sure there there were some stuff right that we talked about um that I recommended you share publicly in the issue. Have you had a chance to do that yet or not? Yes, I.

F

I already posted it on the github. Perhaps again you can check it. I can post the link here.

B

Yeah, please post a link here for other people. I have the link I will check today in response. Thank you so much.

F

Yes, thank you.

F

Okay, here's the link.

B

Thank you eric any other topics, anything else, any questions, folks.

A

All right and carolina you want to floor is yours. I see your hand.

C

Yeah, so I was wondering about the proposal I made last time like I wish I shared in the governance court too, like about requiring lotteries to self supplement on projects the engaging ssps. I don't think I get enough feedback from the community yet, and I was wondering how do you guys think about it?.

B

Yeah, let me get a link to that issue. Oh you've been in the chat already right, 602 yeah. I think we talked about this two weeks ago.

B

I think carl, the challenge is still the same, which is, I don't actually know how we'll be able to enforce this.

C

I mean like this project is not meant to restrict the activities of the activities of sps the as long as you are not doing two rows in one application. To be honest, I don't really see the risk of this.

E

C

E

C

Have to sign for the application that they're already involved in I mean there are like 50 other notaries left to. We have planned two people doing that.

B

Right, no, I don't disagree at all. I think the challenge is that notaries will just not disclose the nodes that they own or the sps that they they work with, and so you know notice.

F

Because we don't have a way.

B

To confirm you know, anybody can make a new search writer idea on chain, and it's really hard to tell I, if you're recommending this straight up from like just a policy standpoint, and we do best effort like I think that that's reasonable, but I think other than that. It's very very challenging.

C

Like for a lot of applications, I saw them mentioning the uh service providers company, like literally in the application I mean to this proposal. I didn't mean like to have it to prevent all this abuse. You know it's impossible, but even a very small amount, it will work. That's what I think.

D

Yeah I mean we could, but I I at this point I think you know I would like to have a better assess uh like a better understanding of or a better idea. I should say of like how much can we really prevent, because you know after hearing like what deep said and what you said, I mean it is like a like a process changing.

D

It will require, like a bit more of um for the lack of a better word policing on our end, and so I just want to make sure that you know if we are going to put this as a requirement. Even if you know it's, the enforcement might be tricky.

D

um How do we make sure that, like you know the amount of energy we're spending on checking and enforcement is paying off, and I just don't know like if we have a good way to measure that as of today so um yeah I mean I you can always. You know like, of course, like community members can come in and if there's certain applications that you think require that piece of information and community members are more than welcome to ask for that.

D

But I just think um yeah making that a hard requirement- I just don't know if it'll pay off right away. So that's my.

C

I saw like the next round of not reapplication is already on like. Is it mandatory to ask notary to disclose their notes in the neurontic.

D

You mean during the election process yeah. um I wasn't here for the austin order election, so I would not be able to answer that. Yeah.

A

I could kind of speak to that. We are in the process of drafting. What's going to go into this next round of notary elections in the past. You know two one and third election that we had. It was more of a free-form application. What's your website, what's your organization, what's your time of hours that you're putting into it, and we did the kyz kyc excuse me or kyb after it is a secondary line of thought. What we're working on right now is like a very specific check, mark box and drop down list of choices.

A

This is really good feedback that we can definitely start to take into our are looking at. This is like what nodes are disclosed. What organizations have you worked with in the past? These can be baked into that application for full transparency without having to depress too much I'll. Take an action item to write that down when we're starting to work on the election and see how we could implement that in a good way, but it is good feedback for like each notary to disclose each node within realistic possibilities.

C

Yeah, I do agree with that. If you know maybe notaries, they are not willing to disclose all the nodes they have, but at least some of them will be open for the whole community, which people can actually track what they are doing. It can to a certain contact. It can reduce the self dealing. That's what I think and that's what I think, the the important part of pushing this forward yeah. Thank you guys.

A

Thank you, wxy see your hand up floor is yours.

A

You're unmuted go ahead if you're ready.

F

A

So it sounds like we may need a translator. Was anybody on the call that could maybe translate that for english or wants to feel that in mandarin.

C

He meant he can to share the screen, the powerpoint that he has prepared. Maybe you should give him the.

A

Call to believe we have time with four minutes left on the call for a presentation, rather than any kind of like presenting that you may want to have that be better suited into github.

A

But if there's any questions you want to ask, we still have plenty of time for a question or a topic you might want to bring up, but not for a presentation.

C

Do you guys mind if I do some translations.

F

F

A

Just to kind of make sure that we have time um carolina. Would you mind doing a quick translation, because we have 30 seconds left to make sure that I can either write back or help.

C

I think he's introducing their business scope like what kind of stories they do and what kind of like clients they have. It sounds like a very huge company for me.

A

Got it, I appreciate that what I'm going to do is I'm going to drop the link right here now that I've stopped sharing screen to the github repo to sign up. Could you just please invite him to fill out that request for time and we'll be happy to have an intro.

C

I think you got another hand here kevin from uh cabarina.

A

Got it cabrino? We have maybe 20 seconds. So if you have a quick question, the floor is yours,.

E

Yeah sure, well I.

C

Have quick questions I I just missed the deadline for accepting the invitation link from like for.

F

Filecoinplus client onboarding onboarding uh one, so I'm not sure like who should I contact and grant access for.

C

For that, uh for that github.

A

B

We need to resend you an invite.

C

Oh yeah, I kind of missed the deadline that sign.

B

That is a good. Maybe I can do that right now actually hold on. Let me take a look.

C

Okay, thank you.

B

Screen can you qualify? Can you confirm your uh your slack account in chat or in a dm right now.

C

Yeah, damn you.

B

A

I'll help facilitate that well with everybody. Thank you I'll um clean this video up again with the second notary governance. Call that's happening at 4, 2300 utc appreciate all the time we'll see you guys, either in two weeks or on the next call cheers.

F

E

A

All right, hello, welcome back second notary governance, call of september 5th. This is going to be the second call, so as a quick update in case you're watching online. We usually kick these calls off with intros and attendance for those folks that are sla with the notaries we're going to talk about some of the community issues that came through slack and through github, and then just like this morning. We anticipate having a few extra minutes at the end.

A

So if there's anybody on the call right now live that has any issues that they want to flag. This would be a good time to uh to get those up feel free to post in chat and that way we'll make sure to dedicate any extra time that may come up um just as a quick hello.

A

If you are watching you're new, deep galen, myself and rg, we comprise the governance team here to back you up for anything you may need, and if you're on the call right now and you might want to chat- and this is your first time- it's really helpful. If you click on your rename, like I'm doing now, select your name and just put some designator behind it. That way.

A

If we're trying to answer a question you may have, we know it's like a person's name or an organization versus just like iphone as you come through on that, if you're on the call now- and you want to get just a markdown for coming as always- here's the link to the air table where we track like attendance who's coming to what sessions, where you're from kind of pulling metrics.

A

When you fill this form out, it's really helpful if you actually put the organization I come through on the backend and I clean this up, and sometimes I try to match the name of the person to the organization. Sometimes I get it wrong and I'll dm you. So it's really helpful if you just fill that out and we'll make sure that you're here for any kind of credit, you may need all right so with that very quick intros, let's get into what we have on this thing for today.

A

First, we're going to kick off just a quick update on next week's just kind of out of office and bandwidth we're going to take some time on this call a little bit more than the morning to talk about the time that this call is taking place. Obviously around a pilot and we'll talk about that to see what's working and what's not working we're going to talk about the buy-in trade of data cap looks like jenna's on the line jen. Thank you so much for joining us.

A

We might ask you if you have any thoughts on this after deep kind of intros that and talks about it, a little bit we're going to talk about a slack thread that came up about how tags are getting put into github with proposal from the second notary and maybe address some concerns and questions that came up with that process.

A

We had a brand new proposal. 608 come through talking about how long a github account should be open before it's allowed to request ldn. So we'll talk about that and then deep will close us out with the review of the two big outstanding fips, 36 and 45 kind of give us a quick overview of what the status is.

A

What are next steps and what are the opportunities for anything and again, if there's anything you'd like to add to the agenda, we should have a few minutes at the end, just posted in slack or at the very end of this call, we'll just raise hands and go forward. So with that taking a look at next week, deep galen, myself and rg are going to co-locate for kind of a fill summit.

A

The reason I'm putting this on your radar is during that time we might have a little bit of delayed calms, so this is going to be wednesday, the 14th 15th and 16th california time. So, if there's anything that comes up any urgent blockers, you need us probably the fastest way to get a hold of us is.

A

If you tag me kevin in the file coin slack, I will be sure to bubble that and I'll keep that screen up at all times in case there's an issue and I'll communicate that up, but just as just a friendly reminder, you might see a little bit of a delay on our part next wednesday, thursday friday, as a result moving on.

A

So we had this proposal come in in june, and it was this call that we're on right now is taking place at 0-700 for the folks that are in beijing, and there was a request to pilot it hundred beijing time in order to test the attendance to make sure that that was easier. We ran that session twice in august, and this is the first period coming back to the original time. I wanted to come back to that original time to just kind of test. This thesis on how many people are attending. Is it more?

A

Is it less are folks that never came before showing up? Are they dropping off? So this call will kind of be a marker for how that did to kind of plus you into some of the data that I'm seeing and again I'm pulling a lot of this data from this check-in sheet that you guys fill out an air table.

A

So thank you again, for that is we see on average, in a given day we have about 40, or so people that attend these notary governance calls and of those people that are attending 40, so come from the notary community. We have a few clients that usually show up just to kind of present their projects talk about what may be going on or try to request more data cap awareness. We have storage providers that are coming for sa, as well as just interesting community members and folks that designate other.

A

When we take a look at like the breakdown of who's coming to the calls, I only pulled notaries for these figures on the 8 a.m. Call we have about an average taken over the last eight calls of around 24 individuals that come to that call notaries, 24 notaries.

A

When we took a look at like the session that occurred in august for this time frame that we had at 6 pm the notaries that were coming, we had 12. so really good turnout, I'm gonna pull those same numbers after this call and then see. Where do we lose folks and reach out to those people that were on the calls in august in the afternoon, but not on this afternoon?

A

Call now with this new time slot, and then I'm also reaching out to the folks that did not attend these calls in august to see what the blocker may be. Is that they're watching async? They don't have an information need for it right now. Maybe they have something else that came up so echo that back out, but you may see a ping come for me on slack just to dm hey. Do you mind taking this quick survey or hey? Do you have any just sync feedback for ways that we can make this time better?

A

The plan going forward is during the fourth election cycle. Sorry, that's going to come up we're going to bake this into some of the application process.

A

Questions is like hey what time works for you for these notary governance calls and then, instead of just having these two options, we'll see if we can build some more consensus around the notaries which is who we are catering to on this call, so we'll kind of come back, I'd like to pause and ask for feedback from those of you that are taking time out of your lives and day on this call. Now. What do you think about this current time block versus last month being two hours later? Any feedback or thoughts.

G

Greedily and selfishly I prefer this time, but um I'm in a minority. Well, I I don't know whether I'm in a minority, but I I I benefit a lot from being in this time zone. Usually so, I'm happy to defer to um uh key station community.

A

I appreciate that danny. Thank you for unmuting. I did that in the morning and no one said anything and I felt super silly, so it's good that your mic's working just reading out some of the text in case we're looking at this in the future meg's reporting both times worked for her brandon's, also saying both times work for him steven.

A

Thank you, you're, saying that this time works good for you jesse both times work for you, the vibe that I'm getting from the folks on the call is like both times seem to be flexible and that's really beneficial. Thank you I'll reach out to this block that did not attend, as well as the folks that might have attended the past sessions and get their feedback as well. So thank you for taking the time I'll. Let go back on what seems to work the most for everybody else with this deep.

A

Do you mind if I hand it over to you and jen.

B

Yeah totally so every you know every like several months. This topic comes up of like can I go buy data cap or is there a secondary market for data cap?

B

um And I wanted to put this on the recorded line, because I know we've had conversations about this on slack before, but it's never been like explicitly addressed in a governance call, at least to my memory, um and so I'd like to start off by saying no strictly, no there's no secondary market for purchasing data cap, uh and that is because data cap is a non-transferable client address side resource in the in, like in the falcon network.

B

Data cap is created on the fly, so it could have infinite volume created as needed and burned as it's used so having an economy based on that kind of resource would also be like really problematic, both because number one it would go against the ethics of data cap, which is that, like the whole point of it, is that we're you know giving like notaries are doing due diligence and a client or even better yeah, doing due diligence on a specific project being run by the client and so data cap is a resource that that project has access to in order to onboard their data onto the network.

B

So just exchanging it with other clients doesn't really make sense for like how that data camp was created and how is expected to be used. But then also if people were to ascribe a value, it could move in a very dangerous direction, because ultimately it is a infinite resource and as rg's pointing out it's a single use. Credit, not a multi-use like bank account that circulates in the economy. It gets literally removed from the system and results in quality adjusted power for an sp, and so when I see this question, I actually interpret this more.

B

As is there a way for me to get quality, adjusted power and that's ultimately, just a market-making question which is like. How can I get access to verified clients that have data cap so that I can make verified deals with my sp and increase my footprint on the chain as a storage provider? And that fundamentally, is not different from the problem of the open market on filecoin, which is how do you match storage providers to clients?

B

And so instead of this, I would love to reorient the conversation and start around hey. How are clients getting matched with storage providers or how are service providers selling their services to clients either through like platforms like big data.exchange or slack channels like the phil deal market or sp driven business development efforts where, like a storage provider, is actually handholding the client journey and bringing the client on board the network.

B

We're seeing this with a lot of success with picnic hold on several other sp operations in different parts of the world, as well as how that's now getting baked into the thinking around enterprise flow plus and overall, how we want to improve the pathways to data cap, and so, if you see conversations that are buying and trading data cap, please help us spread this education because it it's not feasible, it would be very problematic and instead, let's move that conversation towards helping clients onboard their data, helping sps find clients to work with um jennifer.

B

I know you flagged this. Is there anything you would like further clarified or any thoughts on that from you or others cool? I see a perfect and a no thank you cool any other thoughts on anybody else. Are we good.

B

I think we're good getting some thumbs up scary. Take it away.

A

Thanks steve, I think I'm probably just gonna hand it right back to you. If you want to talk about.

B

This ui, yes, I would love to talk about this ux issue that we've been having um with github. So just so, you folks are aware.

B

You often like see that in some cases there's like two proposals back to back like if a notary goes in and signs it shows up as a proposal instead of an approval, uh there's actually two different issues here that it could be, and so I just wanted to address them both and give you the tools if you're looking at this, whether you're, the client, an interested community member or the notary themselves that signed this on, what's actually happening.

B

So the way the app works is that it loads in a session and every time you're in that session, it has state on like what the world view is of client applications, and one of the things we've noticed is: if we we sometimes get noticed that sign things at the same time are during the same time block, and when that happens, if you happen to do it like very close to each other, so neither of you has had like a forced refresh on your side. um The refresh happens.

B

Every time you finish, like you know, signing a bunch of things. uh It could be that the app doesn't actually know that somebody else has signed it on your end, and so in that case we legitimately do see multiple proposals coming through.

B

The second thing that could be the case is there was a time in which the github app wasn't reading the things correctly.

B

So even though people were signing them at different points, there's a couple week lag where the bot had to be correctly told that it was ready for an approval rather than a proposal and the way you know that is, if you see that the labels haven't changed so in this screenshot, you can see, there's a proposal and then there's another proposal with no label changes in between the way that you know that the app knows that this this the proposal is out, is you'll, see a label called start sign data cap, and that is a good way for you to confirm that.

B

Okay, like there is a proposal that's been registered by the back end, it is ready for an approval.

B

The third thing you should look at is sometimes proposals and approvals, actually don't land on chain correctly, and so that's when you see the label like warn check transaction, that's a little bit conservative on our end, like we use that label much more than we should, but the idea is that hey initially, you know there was a timeout, maybe on the client side, where ledger didn't get the response back to us fast enough or legitimately there might be like an exit code issue uh on the chain so like.

B

If, for whatever reason, that message did not land as expected, and so, if you're in this situation, you see two proposals. What should you do? The first thing you should do is check. If labels change at any point, if they didn't change in between, then I would actually click on the message link. So you can see check this out of the message here. It's a link to a block, explorer called philfox. That actually has the message.

B

Cid, if you click into that, every proposal to a multisig has a transaction id, and what you want to see is that the transaction ids are unique and if you click on two proposals- and they both have unique transaction ids and neither of them looks like an approved message, then you know it's not a ux bug and it's legitimately two proposals, unchained, um and so at that point the labels have to be changed before somebody can come in and sign an approval, because that means for whatever reason the automation did not react correctly, and so please put this in the phil plus channel or the fieldplus notary channel immediately.

B

If you see this on a kind of application that you're concerned about whether that's your application or one that you're looking to sign, we are working on improving the reliability. So hopefully this happens less and less, but I want to make sure that you know exactly how to figure out where the gaps actually are now. What this is also created is hanging proposals like for a couple of the ldns that we closed out during the transition from v2 to v3.

B

We did see that there were some proposals that were floating because the approval never came in.

B

The interesting thing here is that there is a way to cancel a multisync proposal, but our our design, for that is dependent on the notary themselves, who made the proposal catching this and being willing to cancel it. So we are now working on adding functionality to the fill plus registry, app where, if you're a notary that proposes something, you can actually go ahead and cancel the proposal.

B

This will also help with trust and safety in the future, where, if new information comes out about a client application where you're not interested or not supportive of a proposal that you may have signed, we have a way to back out of it. So, in addition to rolling our tooling, that will make it easier to remove data cap from a client address.

B

We're also going to roll out to link to remove extra proposals or unnecessary proposals from client applications um rg, or I will continue to give updates on this uh through here, keeping us on task over the next several weeks. uh So you can expect some more updates in the coming governance calls on this topic, but hopefully that clears it up and you know what to do when you see this and you're confused.

A

Thank you I'll pause for a minute in case anybody had any questions on that or any any thoughts.

A

Super smooth all right, we had this new proposal come in at 608 I'll go ahead and post this into chat in case anybody was keen to follow along, so at a very high level. This is the tldr.

A

Should we modify the ldn application process to make it so only github accounts that have been active for longer than 90 days can initially apply to receive that ldn data cap. The thought process behind this comes from a couple of the issues that we've been encountering with github most recently.

A

As all of you know, about two or three weeks ago, github killed a lot of the accounts that were using vpns that were connected in different ways, and this caused a lot of blowback with some of the more active members of the community that were doing it. The downside to using this process is that, is it going to potentially block folks that might not have had an active github, or is it going to provide this like unnecessary steps that folks are trying to get involved?

A

Another side of the pro side is that maybe this makes this a little bit less of the accounting and fraud that comes through. So with this issue, there's been a lot of discussion on what is the feasibility of using this github program and then how long do we require these accounts, some of the things that were flagged in the morning sink just to kind of catch you up, as we had the author of this carolina actually on the call was some people were flagging.

A

Look github might not be like a true source for using this, like essentially kyc or kyb, because you can actually just go out and buy a github account or use it as a fraud. So there's a lot of considerations that come on this, not just with the time frame, but how we're looking at this?

A

The second thing to kind of flag from the morning call was: can we move away from github it's a very good flag, but I want to throw out caution that on our current road map, it's not something that's going to be happening in the time frame like immediate, so trying to get this github process. Right is probably the first step in the right step to take so we're hoping that this doesn't morph into a conversation of like maybe we're using a proprietary system or maybe we're moving forward on it.

A

Really the conversation should be isolated around. Does it make sense to require these ldn applications to be longer or excuse me? Github accounts will be longer than 90 days. So a lot of good points came from morning just to kind of catch. You up all mute and I'd love to hear what your thoughts are on this.

F

Hi james from picnic, um I think this could be a good start to preventing some of the fraud that happens. There's we've noticed, at least on the picnics. I've noticed a lot of accounts that are brand new and we'll just comment in an ldn. uh That's a little separate, uh we'll also notice that they're brand new uh github accounts now submit ldns and then, on the other hand, also brand new uh github accounts.

F

Now comments on an ldn trying to you know, block its approval, uh I'm mentioning specifically on the sfi data set that picnics worked with. You know just a day. Ldn that's been approved and gone through the ringer of the fill plus process and kyc, but then there's a brand new github account that will just comment and bash the project.

F

So I think this could help that um no, and so it shouldn't be just ldn applications, but just commenting in the github itself potentially um and then the argument that you mentioned kevin with buying github accounts. I believe just that's an extra step that the fraudulent people have to go through, making it harder for them.

F

F

B

Yes, I think the one of the challenges that we're facing basically is that a lot of the client applications that are coming in are not from github native folks right, like we've, had to adjust the process ourselves to teach people how to use like github, and while you can create applications today uh via ui, most of the ldn applications are coming in directly via issue templates. So uh in my head I kind of see this as like.

B

Okay, if we can have a really good non-github native experience, we could like we're gonna, create an account on behalf of someone even and that would have been a good way like have a bot post. But this puts us in a situation where, like we're using github for kyc in a way, as opposed to github for facilitation of an application, and so directionally or philosophically I agree with this. But then I think there should be other alternatives for somebody to prove their longevity of an account, and so that's like in the alien application.

B

There's a field for social media right. uh But why aren't we using the age of someone's twitter account or the age of someone's linkedin like profile or blog posting or site registration, or something right? Because those to me are equivalent, then of saying hey, you have some proof of existence on the internet over a period of time.

B

We also see github frequently banning accounts, especially in countries where, like uh internet policy gets in the way of like um github being set up correctly long term and that's also problematic, because then you have like we have so many situations where, like applications disappear, and somebody has to come back and say, hey, my github account got direct. I have another one now can you help me reinstate this, and this happens not just to clients.

B

This happens to notaries and, like slows down our whole process, and so my my concern with this is that, like we're taking a dependency on something, that's a little bit less well understood and a little bit shakier, at least in my head. But again I super agree, philosophically with with the recommendation here and caro.

B

Has another issue open also, which I feel the same way about which is like philosophically it makes sense like implementation, I think, is a little bit more complicated or has more complexity, and so it's like this one, I think tactically, we could implement as long as we give people alternative options. That's that's my current thinking but yeah. I would love to hear other people's thoughts too danny. I see you have a hand and then stephen would be great to hear from you too.

G

um So I I think we have to separate it feels a bit like I apologize for the the idiocratic um phrase, it's kind of like putting lipstick on a pig here in the the um this is being presented as a way of fixing the problem of um accounts being cancelled, right uh and being flagged, and the solution is to make it accounts registered for 90 days.

G

Well, I don't I don't see that might not fix that problem and it doesn't really necessarily add a great deal to our current current situation and what we're really saying is that a fresh application for data cap will take a minimum of 90 days um for uh someone who isn't a github native um and uh with our current setup, so I'm kind of I'm I'm aligned with deep, although I may be less philosophically aligned with with this.

G

um My, I guess my thought here is the we're gonna hit lots of problems, continuing problems with using github. It's not really designed for what we're um using it for um and I'd rather try and solve those problems individually, while at the same time trying to build up a interface or a ui. So people who don't use github can still apply for, in particular, ldns right.

G

The other part of this is that we do have external mechanisms for very small amounts of data cap and we've sort of ended up in a world where a lot of our work is now primarily on large ldns.

G

So I want to encourages. I don't like this proposal, because it will extend it the time to get data cap by a huge amount, but I do agree that we need to kind of work on another ui or something so we're not so dependent on github users having a one-to-one correspondence with data cap applicants.

A

Appreciate that danny um stephen floor is yours,.

F

uh Okay, um yeah, I think uh the motivation of the proposal looks good, but I'm afraid it um it doesn't work actually and yeah, especially for um yeah for um yeah for rich heller, I'm located here and yeah. From my experience um there are yeah a few reasons. um One is that, as you just mentioned, it's very easy to pay and I could have handles um yeah, uh especially in the incredible um aircraft war, and many people took back the house to get some air drops and there are some very long time.

F

Github registrations and yeah could be, and actually episode uh on the bucket so yeah, it's very easy to yeah to fall on this and yeah. This is one thing, and another thing yeah is that um some customers yeah some clients uh in china yeah. You know that um yeah, uh not everybody in chile can access. Github is because you, you have to use a vpn right. So there are many developers they have this yeah. They have github accounts, but not um every client, so main clients. They have the storage requirements.

F

They don't have yet actually don't have the github accounts and they want to go through the process you to apply one and yeah. Usually uh yet yeah, they don't meet this requirement and I also meet uh one problem: um yeah one uh one client, actually the problem: uh actually he just experienced this: they had, they had successfully applied um data caps before yeah, but one time the kids have switching just blocked his account yeah.

F

It's because he said um there is some syndrome, because github does not support their account to apply this kind of thing, and so yes, that's very strange. So, yes, there are many. Many things actually um may impact this kind of um yeah proposal and it takes effect.

F

So my suggestion is that is because the client is applying the data cap and the notary have this responsibility to check the background.

F

So I would encourage notary to communicate with the client directly and to check their their business or their zero requirement uh instead of we yeah save some embarrass here and to do something like yeah decentralize. The way and actually our telecom application is not decentralized. It's an actually peer-to-peer, um yeah validating process will have this kind of thing. um Yeah. Okay, that's all that's my opinion here.

A

I appreciate that stephen wells said before we turn it over to alexander. Did anybody have any feedback on the points that stephen was making.

A

Well said, alexandria: floor is yours,.

E

Yeah, I guess I guess my my point of uh like the github uh account history, registration date and whatnot like what does that actually does to benefit the the uh fraud and whatnot? I don't think that's a correlation there from uh the date of an account and and like the the accessibility of a fraud and or not so that point already got uh already uh was already addressed.

E

So one other point I uh I was gonna mention is uh one that deep uh mentioned uh when he talked about getting links to social media on the application. I don't know how how well that actually would work, because uh we are just increasing the complexity of an already very complex system, so, for example, uh we would have to.

E

We would have to have other systems that actually know if the the links there are owned by the the applicant and then we would have to have the back end to do that connection. If certain account is actually from from that and and like checking it and and for example, if uh how do we keep that update up to date, if they change handles and if the like, we would have to have some system to do that and um then I think the most like, uh I think, most uh uh important thing.

E

If we are going that bad would be just implementing a new system like developing and implementing a new system so to handle this, and instead, instead of just increasing the because what I'm thinking with this is we we gotta just stop the the like the leak of of complexity to the system.

E

It seems to me that we are just increasing one step further, every time in complexity, and then we are uh having a lot of techno technical depth with that, and now we are, we are having to like back down from a lot of a lot of stuff for from, like our backlog or our ideas and a lot, because we are having to deal with uh issues uh bring forth for uh from those like other stuff that we increased in and added to the uh current current weight.

E

The system works, so I think we gotta be catching there and actually stop stop increasing compliance, the complexity and increasing the the amount of stuff we are doing and instead try thinking like more for that separate system and whatnot. So that's my take on on this.

A

B

We got one more.

F

Hand yeah, I think I agree with alexandra's point, that increasing the complexity just makes it harder and harder to onboard clients onto phil plus uh just a small counter argument.

F

There, though, is that this is just to be a stop gap like measure to just prevent the influx of ldns coming in, like we're seeing recently started to kyc all of these from picnic site and we're seeing like 20 plus ldns, come in a day from and then most likely from new github accounts, but so this would just this doesn't solve the issue of a lot of the other issues that we have.

A

F

It would just be for that one particular case, and then we could build on top of this.

B

I think this makes me almost want to like propose this as, like uh you know, once you move towards more automation and how data cap goes out like for first allocations, especially like this could be like one way in which you become eligible, uh one of many um and and like just becomes like part of like tracking uh from a risk standpoint, even like rg, as you call that to some of the math that you're working on in the background, uh it could just be a vector that we look at yeah, okay, yeah, yeah yeah.

B

You know people might go and make new github accounts after watching this recording anyway, so you're, probably right just in case. You never know.

G

Start your clocks now, like september 6th, if we it'll, be hilarious. If it took us 90 days to agree to this, everyone had said that counts out.

B

I mean yeah, don't say that it might actually take us.

E

Another another point would be the james said, for example, all right you're actually decreasing the influx of of applications to the program, but then you're. Actually you could actually end up.

E

uh You reduce the number of applications, but you, you could actually end up increasing the number of fraud load, uh applications that uh actually end up with data cap and reducing the number of uh real clients that they wanted to uh earn notaries or whatever that they wanted to be like in the program. Because then you actually introduce uh like one one more step that they have to wait and or not, and then you have to deal with that and or not so so.

E

The the persistence of you have to balance the persistence of the uh fraudulent applications and the persistence of like uh valuable uh clients and and uh whoever wants to be onboarding into the uh our program. So you have you have to like take that into account, because you could actually end up with a less less total number of applications.

E

But then you will just like uh reduce the number of valuable clients and, and uh they just turn to be, the persistent fro, follow up for advanced ones, and one also would have crunch on there. So.

E

And- and another point would be that I don't I don't actually, I don't actually think having a github account or or a social media account actually turns you into um more.

E

Like you, you're you're, you may have a business that doesn't even have like uh some of these social media accounts and and all that, so we are basically limiting ourselves to only that like uh and for ldn, specifically like a lot of the big clients and and update, they actually don't pay a much attention to like their social media accounts. It's probably somewhere some someone else or or like it's it's hard to do this like. So I don't.

A

Yeah good points, I think, we've kind of reached that stage in the discussion where we've all kind of like set our thoughts, super well defined I'll, make sure that this video gets linked in, but as always, if you would like to kind of like contribute to that discussion outside of the slack. Please comment in this modification I'll post it one more time in our chat I'll just have it up here if anyone's watching all good points, deep, if you're in a good place.

A

I think the next slide is uh updates on three six and four five.

B

Yeah we'd love to chat about this. So basically um we had a conversation with a bunch of notaries and uh different people in the community over the course of the end of last week, but especially like I had a meeting at the end of last week as well to get a bunch of direct feedback.

B

This was all in the build up to something called a falcon core devs meeting that happens every couple of weeks. This is recorded and published on youtube as well, and so you should check out the recording once that goes live.

B

I don't believe it's been published yet for last week's meeting, but it will be soon and our explicit goal was to identify what the over our oh sorry, the overall opinion was of the falcon plus community and what we wanted to represent on fib, 36 and 545, and so wanted to start out by basically flagging that the main takeaway from those conversations was that people were relatively supportive on 545.

B

pip 36 was more of an open question and that there was a strict preference to not have sector migration for either so like everything would be like new sectors.

B

However, if there were to be sector migration for uh cc sectors in 36, we should have also supported migration for field plus sectors and 45., uh and so from that conversation one of the things that we sort of were recommending was hey.

B

Let's move the migration question out of 45 necessarily into 36, and that way we can have like a conversation where those concerns are coupled and then 45 just becomes about the about, like the evolution of the fill plus mechanism on chain and 36 becomes more focused on adding something to the qap function based on time and so as of day before yesterday or something they they published, not even for announced three days. Four days ago, they published a revision uh where the maximum sector duration time will go from uh one year to 3.5 years.

B

The previous recommendation, if you remember, was five so that number has come down and there's a recommendation to slowly scale up this upper limit, and so we can watch and see what happens in the network over a period of uh several months, basically to figure out whether or not there's any negative repercussions or surprises from a network observation standpoint.

B

Now uh it's worth flagging that this effectively means maximum qap will go up to 35.. Currently, it's 10, where you can only achieve that 10 per data cap, but you could get 3.5x multiplier on a 3.5 year long sector and then further multiply that by 10 on qap.

B

The current proposal proposes that existing sectors could be extended into the future, and so this specifically applies to cc sectors. However, in response to the sort of like, then, we should allow for plus deals to get extended as well. The current flip doesn't actually have guidance for that and instead says probably that phil plus deals would have to start from scratch, and so my call out to you, if you're watching this either the recording or live, is if you're one of those people that believe that phil plus deal should also have been extended.

B

If cc sectors were extended, please join the conversation asap um and we should make sure that, like that is represented, um jennifer am I incorrect. Can you please crack.

F

Is not right, so in fact.

F

That has always been a proposal.

B

Sorry uh jennifer, we didn't really get to hear what you said. um Do you mind repeating that closer to the microphone or typing it out in chat? I'm hoping that maybe I misunderstood something in the draft and that's what you're saying.

B

It's going to be applied to all sectors, okay, cool, so yeah, then meg there's definitely consideration since you're flagging, uh which is that we need to come up with a mechanism on how we are expecting for plus two migrated. I jennifer, I don't actually agree with you. I don't think that that's possible.

B

uh I don't think they have a mechanism to extend for plus deals, because there has to be some way to change the sector duration time for a deal which is different like deal duration, as opposed to secular duration, and I don't actually see anything in this proposal that lets that happen and so sure you can extend a sector that has a football deal in it, but the deal itself will to expire, so the qap will drop for that sector.

F

And deep correct me if I'm wrong, but I actually think if you extend a sector with a deal in it as the way it currently is you're going to stretch that qap for that deal across the three year three and a half year, uh duration.

B

That's what I'm confused about? That's what we need to figure out. I don't know if that's true or not true,.

B

Okay, so clearly, there's some work that we need to do on this. So you need to figure out. What's what what the deal is? um Meg to your point, what we had flagged was basically if there is a way to extend verified deals. We are interested but we'd like to create a governance mechanism for it, and it could be something like we could do something simplistic, because this is likely a one-time thing where it's like.

B

Okay, blanket like approval from like n notaries on like a proposed set and the proposed set could start out as everything every verified deal is eligible, and then we can do like an open round of deliberation on like what do we think should not be so. There's clear cases of abuse, clear cases where we think like fill plus principles are not upheld. Maybe those should be excluded and and not be given the ability to extend.

B

But if it's just sector based extension, then the power like the control in a way is like out of out of our hands, and so we should figure out like how we actually want to do that, because my understanding is with fib. 45 sector gets extended, but it's qap doesn't james, and so that's not. My understanding is actually not what you're saying it's it's different jennifer. Are you saying that the qap would drop on the d-lines.

B

Would be great if we can get this clarified right now, those of you watching the recording apologies, because you probably heard a much more confident me approximately one hour before this time stamp talking about what I thought the reality was, but.

F

Yeah, I think this is exactly part of the problem, like I'm really struggling to follow like it's so long, there's a lot of opinions we get to the end of reading. What is epic, like it's hundreds of pages right and then I'm unclear on on. What's good, for I don't know what problems we're solving for whom what's good for the community, what's good for the network and what are the implications on on on each way we go with this. One of the things I suggested to kevin was: is there a data flow?

F

Can we can we see how this works in a journey for a customer over their life like? Is there some way we can visualize it just might make it easier to flush out the edge cases and then make a decision on it.

B

Yeah, I think that's a good piece of feedback mike, I hope, you're putting that in github, not just talking about it, because I think when things are not actually being added as github comments explicitly and there's no community upvote on it, they're just not being prioritized because there's so many topics right now and so many questions coming in. So if you want attention on something like that, which I agree with you, it's valuable.

B

Please put that in github and then put it in the fill plus channel and be like everybody go upload this or please go look at this and respond to this. I think that is the way that you will get traction all right. Okay, so that would be my concrete recommendation on that topic.

F

Yeah, it has lots of ramifications through the whole program and it's hard to see them it's hard to see them in a in in github in what is a lot of people and a lot of great debate weighing in. But you can't see where it's, what is the summary level and and what really is being proposed on the table. After all of that great input.

B

F

All right I'll add something to github.

B

Cool. Thank you very much.

B

Okay, so we're just having a a flirtative conversation chat at this point, to figure out what the shade of truth is. uh It sounds like you know, I'd like to assume 45 will pass just because, like it looks like there's decent support in the community for it anyway, assuming in a world of 45, we need to figure out if a sector can go from 10x to 35 accident back down to 3.5 x, and that's that's what we should figure out.

B

If a sector cannot go from 10 to 35, then that is, I think, where we have a. We have a gap uh where some of our sps will be hard done by this change. uh Those that have onboarded uh actual deals and now will face uh like a like an inflationary pressure on qap, thereby significantly impacting their returns.

B

However, if it turns out that you know we can extend those sectors, then that it would be great to see that being supported, and then we can also talk about a governance mechanism to even extend the deals themselves.

B

um However, that would then go back into finding a way to do migration, and I think that migration would happen as part of 45 or an amendment to 45, which would probably be challenging, and so we need to figure out what the deal is. A's have.

B

Steve jennifer suggesting, if you have any thoughts on this we'd love to hear them.

E

I I don't see steve here, I don't think he's here.

E

B

He's here this is stephen from ibm force that runs venus.

B

Okay, jennifer question, for you would be if you want to continue this conversation async. Would it be best to do it in 36 or in 45? I assume 36.

E

I guess they're, I guess they're one, that that is the priority for now and when they uh like did they don't need anything merchant? I can recall which one is the yeah, so I think we we figure out that one first and then we go to the other, because then otherwise we would just be confused.

B

Yeah that makes sense my my assuming is 45 is, is actually pretty close to being understood and people are supportive, uh and so that's that's. The only reason why I'm talking about 36. jennifer, you are you suggesting that 36 may not be part of the upcoming upgrade and maybe in the next one.

F

Yeah, I'm sorry um yeah. I just um come back here so uh currently the core day meeting and yeah. Actually yeah discussed uh okay, a lot of uh the proposals we we need to yeah be planned into the next uh upgrade and yeah fips, 36 and also fbp yeah 45 uh are under discussion, but right now there are lots of um different opinions, especially for the um yeah 36., so uh currently um yeah.

F

My personal opinion is that yeah, because there are lots of things here, uh so we really want to have a um yeah an upgrade um uh recently yeah. Perhaps in two months uh we don't want to take a very long time for the guidance and discussion. We think that and for something we need to make a decision and to move on and uh for the yeah and actually the coding meeting is um on the technical side and about governance. uh I would think that.

E

I think you dropped.

B

Yeah we lost them.

B

Hey stephen, we don't hear you.

E

All right so far for the next upgrade. Do you, um I guess jennifer, the hat: do we need the any actions on the 36 or only the 45 like for for the network upgrade or like the decision within the next month?.

E

Yeah, okay, so, but is that included in the upgrade all right? Then we gotta discuss, discuss it, but okay, great okay, but not not right. Now: okay, yeah.

B

So, just just uh oh it's just because the recording doesn't pick up the chat just so you know what happened there. Alex is asking jennifer to confirm if fib 36 is in scope for network upgrade 3017 right now, it looks like core devs are not sure, and so it may not be included in the next upgrade.

B

Sorry anything else you want to add alex.

E

No, no thank you for that. I forgot to actually think oh.

B

Good sweet, so I think kerry, I'm good with uh with pausing here on the topics. uh I think the the sort of call to action for those of you watching the recording or here right now is: please go check out the latest on this discussion so for 45 there's, actually a pr up. We can paste a link to that in chat.

B

Look at that pr that is immediately useful and important and will likely be part of the next network upgrade and will fundamentally impact the falcon plus mechanism in the near term. It won't really make that much of a difference, because there's only one built-in storage market actor, but in the future, it's going to make a substantial difference to how data cap is spent by clients. So, though, the initial processes of like creating data cap and allocating data caps say the same.

B

The way in which it's allocated to data and how it's used in deals will be drastically different, and so please take a look understand. It ask awesome questions. uh The the pull request is a little bit easier to redo meg because it's scoped down to like actually like what the changes are, uh but then it also gets. You know digging a little bit into the code and so, depending on your familiarity uh with software I'd say, take a look at the pull request.

B

If not, then you know the discussion towards the bottom would probably be where to start yeah. Let me share the links right now.

B

This is the discussion alex. Take it away, you have a hand.

E

Yeah, if there's no one else that wants to add anything, I would. I would try like giving some context.

E

I that I think are are the reason this this change is happening is because actually the they're trying to the car devs are trying to decouple everything related to uh they try to abstract things from the core technology, so they can build new new markets and and actually start new initiatives uh somewhat like plus, but you then open a market to like other um technology. They can build upon built upon the far coin.

E

So I guess that's some context there and I had one more point, but I completely forgot so if anyone else wants to add anything yeah and then the the the.

E

If I I um I don't recall if this is for the 45 or 36, but the they want to the the data cap or whatever token like thing to be to the the deal itself so that you can actually start uh creating new markets for the 40d data. So you actually treat that data as the like the the getting them the moves around and and why not so yeah? I don't know if that helps or not, but.

A

Great in the interest of time, let's put a pin in this one. We have one minute left, so I'm hesitant to ask for any like community discussion, because that will definitely make us run over. I think maybe the last flag is thank you for the participation as a friendly reminder, if there's anything that you want to get on these governance calls inside of the filecoin project, notary governance repo every week after the call I'll make a new issue I'll title it. The next sync, so that'll be up shortly tomorrow.

A

If you come in here and post anything that you want to get on the agenda, this has what we're talking about the links. Everything you may need really good source if you're watching this or if you want to see uh not two, I see you on the line I haven't met, but if you were keen to present or talk, that would be a great way to get started. If you wanted to come back to me at the next sinks in the future. So with that I'll kind of maybe stop the recording I'll pause.

A

If anybody has anything feel free to post it in slack or the governance repo, so with that deep rg, do you guys have any closing thoughts before we end the call.

B

No thank you have a good rest of your day.

A

Thanks everyone cheers guys thanks.

E

E