►
From YouTube: Fil+ August 23, 2022 Notary Governance Call
Description
The August 23 community governance calls to discuss the Filecoin Plus program.
Slides and Links: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1RClcfFYKgcwNVe3tWgPVn_G0-iXwaTluYtGALbnMw94/edit?usp=sharing
Agenda
Update: Fil+ Enterprise
Update: Trust and Transparency
Update: App Outage
Discussion: Template Modifications for LDN (593)
Discussion: Datacap limit increase (594)
Discussion: Notary self reporting (602)
Update: FIPs (0036+0045)Community Discussion
Slides and Links: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1RClcfFYKgcwNVe3tWgPVn_G0-iXwaTluYtGALbnMw94/edit?usp=sharing
Github: https://github.com/filecoin-project/notary-governance/issues/596
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
All
right
well,
good
morning,
good
evening,
everybody,
this
is
the
august
23rd
2022,
notary
governance
call,
and
this
one
is
a
very
full
discussion
topic.
If
you
have
not
seen
in
the
slack
fill
plus
channel,
we
have
posted
these
slides.
It's
more
helpful
for
you
to
follow
along
in
that
slide.
Deck
is
also
copies
of
all
the
links
to
the
issues.
Sometimes
we'll
have
those
up,
as
we
go
sometimes
just
to
make
it
transition
a
little
bit
easier
to
watch.
They
might
let
you
do
that.
A
So
as
a
quick
reminder,
all
the
slide
decks
are
in
the
fill
plus
channel
and
slack.
So
with
that
we
have
kind
of
a
modified
schedule
for
today.
Typically,
the
way
we
run,
these
calls
is
quick
introductions
make
sure
we
give
you
a
chance
to
check
in
if
you're
a
storage
provider
or
notary
introduce
ourselves,
then
we
spend
some
time
on
metrics
we're
cutting
the
metrics
out
of
this
call.
A
To
give
a
lot
more
time
for
discussion,
we
have
quite
a
few
issues
that
we're
hoping
to
put
on
your
radar
as
well
as
get
feedback
from
you.
So
if
you're
curious
for
the
metrics,
those
links
are
always
in
the
deck.
You
could
check
the
starboard
dashboard
in
the
registry,
but
the
big
call
out
there
wasn't
any
significant
change
from
last
week.
A
So
with
that
friendly
hello,
my
name
is
kevin.
I'm
joined
by
deep
and
rg
or
jeff
galen
is
going
to
be
out
of
the
office
on
a
well-deserved
break.
So
just
as
a
quick
heads
up,
if
you
slack
galen
in
a
dm
this
week,
it
might
take
a
couple
of
days
before
he
gets
back
so
feel
free
to
see
me
on
anything
that
might
be
urgent
and
I'll
be
happy
to
help
run
that
down
in
his
absence.
A
A
So
just
doing
this
is
a
really
effective
way
for
us
to
answer
your
questions
and
get
back
to
you
so
totally
optional,
but
just
makes
the
calls
a
lot
more
effective,
we're
going
to
be
posting
the
link
in
slack
right
now.
This
is
to
the
air
table
log.
This
is
where
we
track
kind
of
attendance.
This
measures
towards
the
notary
sla.
This
is
helpful
for
any
storage
providers
that
are
on
the
line
that
may
want
to
get
involved.
Later
you
can
say,
hey.
A
A
If
you
don't
see
it
there,
you
can
also
grab
it
in
the
deck,
but
please
take
the
time
to
fill
this
out,
because
this
is
where
we're
going
to
be
pulling
that
information
from
to
actually
link
everybody
back
to
this
call
and
make
sure
that
we
have
just
a
really
clear
login
for
who
is
on
this.
So
here's
the
link
right
there
in
the
chat
go
ahead.
Oh
that's
the
wrong
link!
Sorry!
A
Here's
the
link
right
now,
so
you
have
a
reminder
on
the
call,
as
well
as
that
link,
so
go
ahead
and
fill
that
out
and
we'll
take
it
out
so
with
that.
Here
is
the
agendas
that
we
kind
of
have
lined
out
for
today
we're
going
to
start
with
three
updates.
This
will
be
us
kind
of
briefing
you
the
community,
to
keep
you
well
adverse
into
what's
going
on
so
the
first
is
I'll,
be
briefing
in
kevin
z's
absence,
while
he's
enjoying
a
well-deserved
break
on
the
phil
plus
enterprise,
giving
you
some
links
talking
about.
A
What's
going
on
and
what's
happening
on
that
part
of
the
program,
the
second
is
rg
will
be
walking
you
through
a
trust
and
transparency.
What's
going
on
in
that
side
of
the
house
and
what
you
might
expect
to
see
coming
deep
will
walk
you
through
the
recent
outage.
We
saw
on
the
registry
app
just
kind
of
high
level
of
what's
going
on
where
it
is
now
and
then
you'll
see.
The
next
sets
are
discussion
points,
so
these
are
issues
five,
three,
nine,
nine,
three,
five,
nine
four
and
602.
A
We
intend
for
these
to
be
much
more
conversation
based.
So
this
is
your
chance.
If
you
had
any
issues
in
the
github
you
wanted
to
raise
and
escalate
those
and
make
sure
you
have
the
time.
That's
why
we've
allocated
a
substantial
part
of
this
call
to
that
portion
and
then,
lastly,
deep
will
be
walking
us
through
the
two
fips
that
are
outstanding
that
are
going
to
impact
the
community.
The
intent
is
to
not
just
put
these
on
your
radar,
but
also
make
sure
that
you
might
be
tracking
for
any
feedback
as
they
go
through.
A
A
Now
we
can
kind
of
go
through
in
an
organized
way.
So
with
that,
let's
talk
about
the
fill
plus
enterprise
program.
So
again,
if
you're
curious
to
get
involved
or
know
what's
happening,
there
is
a
slack
channel
that
handles
all
the
communication
for
the
phil
plus
enterprise.
It's
this
fill
plus
enterprise
working
group.
It's
a
public
channel.
You
don't
have
to
be
invited.
Just
select
that
you
can
learn.
You
can
comment
and
a
lot
of
the
work
that
kevin
z
is
doing
takes
place
there
at
a
very
high
level.
A
A
Wow
storage
providers
have
signed
up
to
participate
in
that
pilot,
so
we
have
a
very,
very
diversified
group
and
we're
really
happy
to
see
that
so
props
to
you
on
the
25
that
have
signed
up
kevin's
been
holding
regular
working
group
calls,
and
the
point
of
those
calls
is
around
discussion.
I
think
one
of
the
big
topics
that's
come
up
recently
is:
what
does
the
approval
process
look
like
when
the
notary
gets
the
application?
A
What
is
the
notary
looking
at?
What
are
the
fields
that
they
should
index
on?
What
is
a
good
approval
versus
a
bad
approval?
How
much
time
should
it
take?
So
that's
really
been
kind
of
the
draw.
You're
gonna
see
five
links
here
on
the
right,
and
I
listed
these
out
just
to
make
it
really
simple.
If
you
wanted
to
just
quickly
see
what
topics
are
coming
up,
and
these
are
essentially,
the
big
working
groups
focus
so
who's
a
lead
storage
provider.
That's
looking
at
this.
A
If
you
click
on
this
link,
you'll
be
followed
to
this
github
issue,
and
you
can
see
all
the
information
that
kevin's
like
listed
out
on
like
what
a
lead
storage
provider
looks
like
same
thing
on
like
how
does
the
data
cap
go
out?
We
make
that
process
any
more
smoother.
What's
in
the
application
for
people
that
are
requesting,
you'll
see
this
come
up
a
little
bit
more
frequently
on
some
other
teams.
Right
now
is
how
do
we
make
this
application
process?
A
Is
quick,
effective
and
pulls
out
as
much
information,
so
you,
notaries
aren't
having
to
constantly
ask
for
the
same
set
of
information.
Hopefully,
we
can
just
get
that
in
the
first
round.
What
does
the
sla
look
like?
How
do
we
expect
people
to
write
back?
What
should
be
the
notaries
timeline?
What
should
be
the
root
key
holders,
the
whole
member
of
community?
So
all
of
these
are
listed
in
that
working
group
again,
if
you're
curious
to
get
more
involved.
This
is
just
an
update,
not
a
discussion.
A
C
C
Scores
they'll,
be
rolling
on
the
next
few
months
and
so
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
you
know
your
organization
or
you
as
a
client,
don't
get
bumped
down
on
that
risk
or
just
because
someone
else
is
faking
to
be
you,
and
so
just
like
they'll.
Take
a
couple
of
minutes
of
your
time.
Just
these
scan
three
issues.
C
D
D
The
main
thing
that
happened
was
that
the
underlying
node
that
we
used
so
we
use
like
chain
access
effectively
as
a
service
from
a
different
team,
had
a
change
in
how
they
were
handling
header
tokens
and
like
actually
allowing
you
to
connect
with
network
and
then
that
changed
and
we
weren't
notified
before
it
changed.
We
only
realized
after
because,
when
we
reached
out
to
them,
they're
like
oops,
didn't
think
this
would
break
people,
so
we
made
a
modification
we're
waiting
for
them
to
make
a
better
longer
term
update.
D
So
there'll
probably
be
a
second
slight
outage
for
a
couple
hours,
while
we're
ready
to
move
to
like
the
next
version,
but
for
now
it
should
be
working
and
stable.
I
know
some
of
you
had
issues
even
yesterday.
I
just
want
to
flag
that
the
changes
that
happened
here
should
have
been
in
like
the
last
working
day,
europe
time.
D
So
if
you're
waking
up
to
this-
and
you
had
problems
with
this,
then
please
check
it
out
again
today
and
let
us
know
in
slack,
if
it's
not
working
and
for
those
of
you
that
are
going
to
bed,
go
to
bed
and
check
it
out
tomorrow
and
let
us
know
if
it's
not
working,
but
hopefully
at
this
point.
It
should
be
up
and
stable
and
working
as
expected.
B
C
So
right
now
we
have
two
issues
open.
We
briefly
discussed
them
in
the
lost
governance
call,
but
just
wanted
to
reiterate
on
those.
So
what
the
first
one
is:
a
template
for
ldn
exceptions.
So
in
this
case
the
you
know
the
applications
that
are
currently
in
the
pipeline
that
have
encrypted
or
private
data,
but
you
know,
are
not
part
of
efil.
C
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that
you
know
we
are
able
to
update
the
application
for
that,
so
that
notaries
in
the
community
has
more
information
and
sufficient
information
to
make
an
informed
decision.
So
right
now
we
haven't
seen
much
discussion
on
this,
so
we
are
hope
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
community
is
okay
with
it.
We
are
hoping
to
close
this
issue
soon,
so
if
you
do
have
any
updates
or
concerns,
please
go
to
the
github
issue
and
make
your
comments
deep.
C
Okay,
awesome
yeah,
it's
the
first
one
that
gary
just
posted
the
second
one
is
about
increasing
limit
of
data
cap.
This
got
a
little
more
traction
where
we're
essentially
proposing
to
increase
the
current
limit
of
five
pips
to
25
pips,
and
if
you
look
at
the
discussion,
there's
some
back
and
forth
and
some
reasoning
behind
why
we
want
to
do
it.
The
main
reason:
the
reasoning
is
around
efficiency,
both
from
the
for
the
governance
team,
but
also
for
notaries,
just
in
the
kyc
process.
C
D
What
that
first
allocation
could
look
like
going
from
like
a
50
heavy
buyer,
100
debbie
by
to
a
250
or
500
tabi,
byte
allocation
of
data
cap
and,
what's
going
through
my
ad
right
now
is
maybe
we
should
modify
the
like
the
ldn
scope,
even
to
say,
oh
for
the
allocation
rates
like
let's
do
like
you
know.
Currently
it
says
lesser
of
half
of
a
week
or
five
percent
of
the
total
data
cap
requested.
We
could
add
another
modifier
to
that.
D
I
think
we're
we
need
to
make
this
trade
off
between
the
likelihood
that
we
block
a
client
or
like
end
up,
resulting
in
designing
a
bad
user
experience
for
somebody
looking
to
onboard
versus
ensure
that
we
give
them
just
enough
to
get
data
for
the
notaries
to
say.
Yes,
this
is
trustworthy
and
useful.
D
C
C
I
think
one
of
the
other
things
that
we
were
considering
and
I
think
one
one
of
the
things
that
I
want
to
touch
upon
more
was
there
was
a
question
about
why
we
selected
25
instead
of
30,
and
that
is
just
based
on
you
know
the
kind
of
requests
that
we're
seeing
from
the
open
issues
that
do
have
more
than
five
pips
a
request.
So
again,
I
think
that
is
not
a
hard
kind
of
you
know.
C
That's
through
a
proposal,
so
if
people
feel
that
that's
too
much
or
too
less
we're
more
than
welcome
to
alter
that
as
well
so
yeah.
But
I
do
think
that
you
know
the
concerns
around
trust
and
safety
are
valid,
but
I
do
think
that
in
the
medium
long
in
the
medium
term,
the
benefits
that
we'll
get
in
efficiency
will
be
a
lot
more,
especially
seeing
the
trajectory
of
how
things
are
moving.
C
We
are
getting
about
like
20
applications
a
day
now
so,
and
we
just
hope
we
we
expect
this
to
increase
multi-fold.
So
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
prepare
for
that
increase
in
traffic
in
the
next
couple
of
months,
but
yeah.
I
would
love
the
any
voices
in
the
community
on
this
in
these
two
issues.
If
you
have
anything,
please
raise
your
hand
and
we
can
meet
yourself.
A
All
right,
I
just
put
in
chat
this
new
modification
that
just
came
through
in
the
governance
repo
and
essentially
what
this
screenshot
is
showing
and
what
the
link
is.
If
you
want
to
follow
it,
it's
a
flag
from
the
community
saying:
look
if
you
are
a
storage
provider
and
you're
going
to
have
any
kind
of
say
in
like
how
this
application
is
handled.
Who
are
the
notaries
that
are
coming
on
board,
and
this
is
just
general,
it
should
be
fully
disclosed
and
you
should
essentially
like
self-select,
almost
like
in
an
american
trial.
A
A
And
essentially,
what
we'd
like
to
talk
about
and
deep
will
probably
add
some
clarifications
after
I
finish
is
what
would
that
look
like
what
would
be
the
level
that
we
would
want
storage
providers
to
essentially
say
I
want
to
recuse
myself
or
self-select
out
and
have
some
consensus
around
that,
so
I'm
not
really
involved.
I've
disclosed
how
much
I
know
about
these
people.
D
Yeah,
I
think
one
thing
that
I
did
want
to
say
before
I
dig
into
the
topic
itself
is
like
something
at
this
level
of
conversation
we
could
also
theoretically
have
had
in
the
discussion,
but
do
you
think
there's
a
enough
thinking
here
that
it's
worth
like
talking
about
now,
even
as
a
proposal,
I
see
a
hand
from
who,
I
think
actually
submitted
the
topic,
so
maybe
we
can
let
them
speak
to
it.
First.
E
E
So
before
we
get
started
so
my
name
is
karina.
Carolina
english
and
a
lot
of
you
have
been
curious
about
who
I
am
thanks
for
reaching
out
through
dm.
I
feel
like
I
was
being
you
know,
very
warmly
welcomed
and,
as
you
can
see
in
my
name,
I'm
no
notary,
not
sp,
just
your
regular
community
participant
here
so
well,
yeah
as
part
of
the
community.
I
believe
you
know.
E
Our
eventual
goal
is
to
include
more
data
into
the
fico
network,
notaries
aspects
and
the
officials
you
guys
are
doing
like
a
great
job
to
better
improve
the
reputation
of
viacom,
appreciate
all
the
efforts
and
the
proposed
the
prospect
of
firecoin
is
to
store
data
data
that
is
beneficial
to
humanity.
If
that's
right,
you
know,
and
this
focus
must
be
on
the
authenticity
of
the
data
I
think
it's
like
for
me.
It's
not
really
accurate
to
say
to
include
more
data.
E
In
fact,
the
better
term
for
me
would
be
like
more
real
data
into
the
file
called
network
which
lead
to
my
question
here.
Currently
there
is
a
general
agreement
that
you
know
notaries.
They
cannot
approve
applications
which
applied
by
themselves,
but
there
is
no
regulation
for
projects
in
which
they're
indirectly
involved
such
as
you
know,
working
together
with
other
sp
in
the
same
project.
E
Like
I
mentioned
in
the
last
last
time
in
the
government
call,
I
don't
know
if
any
of
you
record,
like
some
people
with
both
sp
and
notary
status,
or
I
mean
sorry
about
the
word,
I
would
say
not
very
trustworthy
in
their
judgment
at
the
moment
like
even
if
the
data
is
legit,
the
fact
they
are
also
involved
in
ssp
can
be.
You
know
very
suspicious
for
me,
because
the
potential
interest
is
in
the
project.
E
I
would
say
like
for
me.
I
believe
that
banner,
a
better
community
transparency
and
the
credibility
of
the
application
or
even
a
more
direct
way
to
say
it
like
the
price
of
file,
requires
notary
to
self
circumvent
on
projects
engaging
ssps,
and
I
don't
know
how
you
guys
think
about
this.
To
be
honest
like
for
me,
I
don't
see
any
risk
on
improvement
and,
if
any
of
you,
you
know,
have
any
different
opinions.
Please
join
me
here.
D
F
Yeah,
although
I
understand
where
this
is
coming
from
when
my
company
like
decent,
has
a
customer,
for
example
a
university
of
amsterdam,
and
they
want
to
store
data
on
our
network,
how
do
you
see
this,
then?
Should
I
be
wary
in
helping
them
getting
the
data
kept
posted
or
are
you
saying
I
should
not
be
sealing
their
data
because
maybe
they
would
just
require,
or
did
I
store
their
data
and
yeah?
E
F
E
D
B
I
I
like
the
direction
that
this
is
going
in.
I
wonder
if
so,
when
k-ray
introduced
it,
it
seemed
to
be
more
about
disclosure,
and
I
would
like
that,
as
sort
of
a
very
least
a
first
step
right.
I
think
that's
an
expectation
we
have
actually
that,
if
you
are,
if
you
do
have
a
relationship
with
the
the
project
that
that
you're
either
supporting
or
or
promoting,
then
you
would
you
would
notify
that.
But
I
would
like
that
to
be
a
more
a
more
a
firmer
rule.
B
B
Okay,
cool
thanks,
hey!
This
is
greg
with
seal
I've,
always
just
in
the
back
of
my
mind,
have
always
thought
of
in
an
sp,
also
being
a
notary
approving
data
cap
where
they're
now
storing
that
data.
I've
always
seen
that
as
a
conflict
of
interest.
Definitely
it's
almost
like
you're
on
both
sides
of
the
table.
I
would
use
the
analogy
when
I
was
in
the
ip
office
at
berkeley
lab
right.
I
was
selling
license
deals
to
companies.
I
couldn't
also
be
on
their
side
of
the
table.
Take
equity
from
that
company.
B
D
No
worries
at
all,
I
think
for
me
the
way
like
I
generally
like
really.
I
agree
with
the
sentiment
of
this.
I
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
think
about
it.
I
think
the
main
thing
that
I've
struggled
with
on
this
topic
over
the
years
has
basically
been
that
it's
extremely
challenging
to
do
this
correctly
and
the
reason
I
say
that
is
because
you
know,
even
if
we
did
this
carl
and
we
had
a
bunch
of
people
that
were
like
yep,
I
can't
sign
this.
D
That's
just
one
tier
of
like
validation
that
hey
like
yes,
indeed
like
you're,
not
going
to
fake
it
or
lie
about
who
you
are
etc.
It's
still
really
really
easy
for
somebody
at
that
point
to
go
and
continue
to
make
deals
under
the
table
or
like
change
their
understanding
of
how
they're
working
with
things
like
it's,
it's
a
very
simple
path
to
abuse
that
system,
and
it
doesn't
require
that
much
effort,
and
that's
that's
the
main
concern
I
have
is
that
like.
D
Oh,
like
you
know,
it's
they're
still
distributed
across
sps
and
then
there
we
have
now
the
new
challenge,
which
is
how
do
you
identify
when
sps
have
relationships
to
each
other
and
like
what
is
happening
behind
the
table
on
like
oh,
like
these
are
actually
the
same
people
just
under
different
company
names
or
different
under
under
different
hoods,
and
so
that's
where
now
we're
building
a
new
level
of
rigor
on
like
well.
Are
they
in
different
data
centers?
Are
they
in
different
locations?
How
do
we
prove
that?
D
Can
be,
can
we
see
what
the
data
center
looks
like?
Can
we
use
the
peer
id
to
make
assumptions
on
their
footprint
physically
and
then
use
on
change
statistics
to
make
assumptions
on
their
actual
presence
in
the
network,
and
so
these
are
all
like.
I
think
the
philosophy
is
correct.
I'm
struggling
to
see
how
we
implement.
F
Yeah,
I
think,
first
of
all
the
self-dealing
should
continue
to
be
disallowed,
but
for
this
disclosure,
I
think
disclosure
is
fine.
However,
because
we
are
such
a
small
community
on
the
most
of
the
notaries
are
also
sps
if
you,
like,
10
notaries,
sign
this
application
and
you
disallow
them
to
seal
any
of
the
data
in
the
application
that
will
discourage
the
notary
to
perform
any
work
at
all.
G
Yeah,
so
this
is
where
I
think
the
like
building
a
platform
will
actually
be
part
of
that
next
step,
because
then
you
don't
you
don't
only
track
the
the
notaries
and
the
allocation.
You
actually
can
start
tracking
clients.
So
from
the
platform,
you
select
the
client
and
you
allocate
their
cap
to
that
client,
and
then
you
have
a
way
of
like
controlling
that
that
type
of
of
relationship.
G
The
thing
is
that
right
now
we
can
actually
we
can
actually
control
and
and
know
to
which
entity
that
data
cap
went
to,
because
you
can
change
just
a
single
letter
on
the
name
of
of
of
a
storage
provider
or
a
notary
and
then
like
you,
just
lose
track
of
it.
So
this
is
where
I,
I
think
we
need
a
platform
to
hold
all
of
those
transactions,
and
I
actually
think
that
firecoin
has
some
type
of.
G
I
don't
know
if
it's
ready
yet,
but
they
had
they
have
like
some
type
of
payment
channels
and
that
that
kind
of
of
mechanisms
within
the
five
coin.
I
don't
I
don't
know
if
it's
red
yet,
but
we
can
maybe
contact
the
the
technical
thing
there
to
see.
If
that's
ready
for
implementation,
then
we
can
that's
more
like
to
be
more
like
a
long
term,
but
then
we
can
use
that
payment
channel
and
select
entities
by
a
fixed
name
or
or
a
string
or
whatever,
because
right
now
we
can.
G
We
don't
have
a
like
a
way
to
actually
track
that.
So,
even
if
it's
a
good
proposal
when
even
if
it's
a
good
like
way
of
handling
things,
we
won't
be
able
to
do
this.
At
least
I
don't.
I
don't
see
we
doing
this
right
now.
We
already
have
to
deal
with
a
lot
of
complexities
and
we
don't
have
enough,
like
resources
on
on
the
software
side,
to
track
and
analyze
that.
G
So
that's
where
I
I
think
we
we
gotta,
think
more
into
how
to
how
to
build
a
platform
to
hold
those
those
information
and,
like
start
like
having
a
more
structured
way
of
handling
transactions
and
clients
and
notaries
and
storage
providers,
and
all
of
that
within
a
platform
yeah.
That's
my
take
on
it.
D
E
Okay,
I
will
keep
it
short
so
of
all
the
concert
in
they
raised.
I
think
I
don't
agree
with
him
like
here
is
like
a
small
community.
Everyone
knows
everyone
a
lot
aspies.
They
are
engaging
as
another
reason
as
well,
but
I
don't
know
how
the
revenue
gonna
be,
but
if
I'm
the
notary,
plus
sp,
if
I
decide
to
sell
this,
you
know
data
set,
I
would
actually
send
the
data
sample
to
other
notaries
to
verify
it,
and
actually
they
say
to
me.
I
don't
think
that's
a
big
problem
in
this.
D
Should
just
be
where
you're
claiming
is
basically
should
just
be
able
to
identify
and
prove
that
to
other
notaries,
you
shouldn't
need
the
same
set
that
are
making
deals
and
that's
that's
fair,
yeah.
Let's
take
the
conversation
to
get
up.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
points
that
were
raised
both
around
challenges
with
implementation
and
incentives
that
this
was
created.
I
think
the
general
feeling
is
that
people
agree
with
the
philosophy.
D
D
I
don't
see
the
slides
up
there
in
mind,
but
I
can
start
chat.
Oh
there
we
go.
Thank
you
very
much
so
for
those
of
you
that
have
been
following
along
there's,
two
tips
that
I
think
have
become
relatively
interesting
discussion
topics
a
lot
of
attention
over
the
last
three
weeks,
or
so
I
highly
recommend
that
you
all
check
them
out.
They
will
have
significant
implications
to
falcon
plus
and
the
falcon
plus
community.
D
So
please,
please,
please
check
them
out
and
let's
discuss
what
they
mean
for
you,
and
so
oh
I
guess
I
made
a
couple
of
changes,
but
the
I
need
you
to
refresh
the
slide
at
some
point.
Okay,
for
that
for
them
to
come,
maybe
they'll
show
up
nope.
Maybe
something
happened
in
mind.
No
worries,
not
critical
I'll
talk
to
them
anyway,
so
basically,
on
the
the
first
one
I'll
actually
talk
about
the
the
first
one
here
on
the
slide
first,
which
is
decoupling,
falcon
plus
from
storage
marketplace.
D
But,
along
with
this,
there's,
also
a
lot
of
suggestions
in
the
fip
around
how
we
should
change
the
mechanism
for
the
way
in
which
data
cap
flows
from
a
client
to
a
storage
provider
so
specifically
not
needing
the
construct
of
a
deal
or
storage
deal
with
the
existing
actor
as
a
dependency,
but
instead
using
a
different
term
and
a
different
concept
on
chain
yeah.
I
think,
don't
worry,
I
think
it's
on
my
side.
D
D
But
it
also
has
some
trade-offs
with
regards
to
safety
and
and
how,
like
quickly,
the
system
can
move
and
the
tooling
that
can
be
built
around
it.
So
please
check
that
out
if
you're
interested
specifically
calling
it
out
for
sps,
notaries
and
clients
so
and
and
of
course,
community
members.
So
everybody
in
this
call
should
take
a
look
at
the
recommend,
like
the
the
link
for
that
one
and
then
the
second
conversation
is
around
sector
duration
multipliers.
D
So
that's
more
actually
I'm
going
to
pay
some
links
to
this
as
well.
So
you
guys
are
aware
in
a
second,
but
that
one
is
around
the
construct
of
finding
a
way
to
incentivize
deal
making
for
longer
effectively
on
the
network,
and
so
the
the
challenge
here
is
effectively.
The
the
recommendation
is
linearly
scale,
both
the
collateral
and
the
rewards
for
sector.
Based
on
how
long
it's
sealed.
Thank
you
kerry
for
dropping
the
links
in
chat.
D
This
means
that
for
like
a
deal
that
theoretically
could
exist
for
five
years,
we'd
have
five
times
the
amount
of
collateral
up
front
and
then
the
expected
quality
adjusted
power
would
also
be
5xed,
so,
instead
of
it
just
being
a
10x
multiplier
would
be
a
50x.
That
was
the
original
proposal.
I
think
those
parameters
are
now
being
changed
to
become
lower,
but
they're
still
linearly
scaling,
and
so
anybody
in
here
also,
but
especially
calling
out
to
the
sps
this
one.
D
So
if
you're
listening
to
this
and
you're
an
sp,
I
would
highly
recommend
you
check
this
out,
because
it
will
affect
your
economics
and
it
will
affect
your
roi
over
time
and
in
some
cases
I
think
it
will
make
it
better.
But
in
some
cases
it
may
not.
So
please
engage
with
this
and
share
your
honest
thoughts
in
the
discussion
when
you
get
a
chance.
D
If
you
have
any
immediate
questions
about
this,
let
me
know,
if
not,
I
think
it's
best
to
talk
about
this
stuff
directly
in
the
github
topics,
because
there's
a
lot
of
people
involved
in
these
conversations
that
are
not
in
the
like
active
members
of
this
call
or
active
members
of
the
field
plus
community
and
so
yeah.
Please
check
them
out
and
share
your
thoughts.
D
A
All
right,
we
are
at
15
minutes
remaining
on
the
call.
This
is
a
good
chance
for
anything
that
you
wanted
to
flag
from
the
community
from
the
notaries
from
storage
providers.
We
have
no
ldn
applications
to
discuss
so
I'll
post.
This
link
right
here
just
one
more
time
if
you
were
late
but
turning
the
floor
over
if
there's
anything
on
your
mind,
raise
a
hand
and
the
floor
is
yours.
H
H
H
H
So
if
you
look
at
application,
326
and
327
for
project
bearded,
it
was
a
total
of
six
point,
nine
petabytes
of
data
cap
and
we
require
a
data
cap
app
or
an
increase
of
data
cap
for
application.
Three,
two
seven,
and
by
the
way
I'm
sal
guys
from
seal
storage
here
in
north
america,
let's
introduce
myself
so
we
require
an
increase
for
that
application
to
3.1,
thus
making
it
an
entire
10
p
petabyte
data
cap
for
both
326
and
327.
So
the
reason
why.
H
So
what
essentially
happens
where
it
would
fill
into
a
32
gigabyte
sector,
and
this
is
just
sort
of
a
high
level
diagram,
so
it
kind
of
makes
sense
as
to
what
we're
talking
about
here,
but
when
we
put
that
into
a
16
gig
sector,
we
end
up
with
this
white
space
because
it
doesn't
fill
up
the
entire
sector
itself.
So
there's
no
actual
data
in
that
white
space,
but
that
is
counting
towards
our
data
cap.
H
So
what's
essentially
happening
is
that
we're
under-provisioned
in
a
sense,
so
we
require
this
further
increase
in
data
cap.
I've
asked
the
notaries
to
approve
this,
and
the
notaries
have
asked
us
to
bring
this
to
the
table.
Just
so
there's
you
know,
there's
some.
You
know
everyone's
aware
of
what's
going
on,
and
my
understanding
also
is
that
we
also
saw
this
issue
during
slingshot
as
well.
So
it's
not
something
that
should
be
new
to
the
community.
D
I
think
this
is
reflected
in
a
general
gap
today
that
exists
in
the
way
data
cap
is
calculated
and
like
this
is
something
that
would
be
covered
by
the
latest
sip
as
well,
where,
instead
of
it
just
being
the
actual
size
of
the
data,
it's
like
the
size
of
the
the
the
inflated
piece
along
with
like
what
fills
up
the
sector,
and
so
in
general.
I
think
that
as
a
community,
we
should
also
think
about
how
we
want
to
calculate
data
copy
utilization.
B
B
Data
gap
is
allocated
against
the
entire
sector
kind
of
just
realized
that
late
after
all,
the
car
falls
was
was
generated
but
yeah
kind
of
as
an
exercise.
I
did
go
back
and
look
at
like
some
of
the
slingshot
restore
stuff
we
did
earlier
in
the
year
and
I
saw
exactly
the
same
behavior.
I
said:
okay.
Well,
this
touches
us
it's
kind
of
how
it
works
so
yeah.
It's
probably
improvement
needs
to
be
done
on
how
datacap
is
allocated
against
the
entire
system.
B
Yeah
we're
using
the
standard
graph
split
program
and
kind
of
why
we
ended
up
doing
16,
gig
sectors
or
car
files
in
the
first
place
is
the
data
set.
We're
working
on,
has
40
million
files
in
it,
and
we
kind
of
found
that
you
know
when
we
tried
to
push
for
a
30,
31
gigabyte
car
file,
using
so
many
millions
of
small
files.
B
A
G
Yeah,
so
why
are
you
guys
suggesting
then
to
I:
did
you
already
create
a
new
request
for
data
cap
or
or
is
it
something
that
galen
suggested?
I
guess
the
last
meeting
about
like
editing
the
already
requested
data
cap.
So
are
you
did
you
create
a
new
dedicated
request,
or
are
you
looking
to
change
the
existing
one.
H
Hey
alexander,
so
we
we
dropped
the
link
into
the
chat
there
for
four
three
two
seven.
I
think
it's
still
to
be
determined.
The
idea
was
to
bring
this
forward
to
the
to
the
you
know
to
the
community
here
to
the
northern
community.
You
know
ensure
that
there's
no
disagreements
or
anything
with
what
we're
proposing
and
then
work
out
the
next
steps
with
with
biocoin
foundation.
G
Oh,
what
I
don't
know
my
guess
would
be
that
just
creating
a
new
request
would
be
like
the
right,
the
right
way,
at
least
from
from
my
point
of
view
and
will
probably
be
faster
than
trying
to
like,
like
change
the
how
the
process
works.
So
I
don't
know
I
would
just
go
for
a
new
idea,
but
that's
that's
me.
A
Nice
carrying
forward
we
had
two
requests
come
through.
I
think
we
have
time
for
one
more
and
that's
coming
from
dean,
so
this
is
application
497.,
I'm
going
to
link
it
into
the
chat
for
everybody
and
rg.
I
think
that
you
were
on
this
one
for
some
input,
so
we
have
them
to
kind
of
answer
some
questions.
Dean
the
floor
is
yours,.
A
F
And
hello:
everyone
thanks
to
the
affair
offshore,
for
giving
us
this
particular
speech
in
this
meeting
as
the
company's
chef
straight
to
officer,
I'm
honored,
to
be
here
to
talk
f3,
the
cisco
is
my
college
worker
ice
engineer
in
f3.
Hash
f3
is
coming
to
becoming
a
platform
for
computing
power
and
any
fuse
transactions.
F
So,
and
please
allow
me
to
introduce
a
brief
pdf
which
enables
you
know
more
details
about
f3
and
first
I
and
introduce
a
fair
coin.
It's
very
easy.
Everybody
know
it
fair
coin:
utilize,
ivf's
technology
of
the
top
and
feist
dividing
date.
Storage
protocol
is
highest
market
cape
after
the
rsvist
endurance
of
each
show.
We
know
and
zinc
embrace
the
uam
where
we
are
coming.
Everybody
knows.
Finally,
the
bitcoins
network
features
stable
global
eco
ecology,
that's
as
I
once
mentioned,
and
so
what
we?
What?
What?
What
do
we
do?
F
Well,
what
about
f3
harsh
absolute
is
established
in
singapore
in
2021.
It
is
provided
with
range
of
stories
focused
on
empty
market,
which
includes
karma
memo
and
key
power.
Amp
define
empty
platform
with
technical
background,
analytics
experience
management
team.
It's
our
mission
to
build
a
global,
nft,
plus
faircoin
warp,
3
infrastructure
and
obama's
team.
We
we
have
a
lot
of
teams.
All
are
younger.
F
The
average
age
is
not
not
more
than
30
years
old
and
we
have
a
lot
of
experience
in
blockchain
and
cloud
storage.
A
colleges
after
that
talk
about
business
stories
and
hash
primitive
trading
platform
is
impenetrable
and
insert
decision
raised
hot
per
training
platform,
f3
amps,
to
provide
global
users
with
most
stable
cloud,
computing
power
and
user
friendly
free
function,
trading
platform
and
based
on
nft
and
f3
hospital
and
great
great
card.
F
A
A
C
Yeah,
are
we
just
short
in
time
so
dean?
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
so
you
mentioned
that
you
know
the
company
was
established
in
2021
and
I
think
the
biggest
concern
here
is
the
the
amount
of
requests
I'm
just
looking
at
the
application
again
and
we
requested
five
pips
of
data
and
so
we're
just
not
sure
right.
I
think
the
number
of
followers
is
great,
but
I
mean
the
more
we
look
on
the
website,
it's
very
hard
to
find
out
the
exact
side
of
the
data
set.
C
So
I
think
that's
the
biggest
concern
we.
I
think
the
service
is
great
and
we're
excited
about
it,
but
we
do
that's
more.
That's
my
concern
personally.
So
if
you
could
shed
more
light
on
like
exactly
how
do
you
like?
What
is
the
actual
amount
of
data
that
you
have,
and
you
know
the
number
of
copies
and
sp
distribution?
I
think
those
are
the
concerns
right
now.
F
I
got
yeah,
I
very
express
only
21
minutes
cry.
I
just
want
to
say
that
there
are
five
components
about
the
days.
First
is
client
days,
we
have
over
10
thousand
clients
who
have
purchased
everything
in
our
platform
and
every
purchase
will
have
the
crisis
time
quantity
and
the
address
of
the
voyage.
The
second
is,
the
designing
data
series
is
the
product
date.
Last
is
our
middle
date
and
the
social
day,
so
the
details-
and
actually
it
is-
I
I
just
want
to
express
to
you-
please.
C
Okay,
okay
yeah.
I
think
I'll
definitely
post
more
questions
if
I
have
any
in
the
issue,
but
I'll
just
give
the
community
maybe
like
a
minute.
If
you
have
any
questions
based
on
the
presentation,
you
can
also
I'll
just
post
the
issue
as
well,
so
that
all
the
community
members
can
go,
and
you
know,
look
at
the
issues.
A
B
A
A
C
Now
I
think
the
one
thing
that
I
I
did
flag
this
in
the
group,
but
I
would
really
encourage
all
the
community
members
to
also
add
any
comments
that
you
usually
post
in
slack
to
the
github
as
well.
I
think
it
just
really
helps
us
as
the
governance
team
to
track
things
and
also
you
know,
keep
make
sure
that
you
know
everyone's
voice
is
heard,
because
not
everyone
is
in
slack,
but
github
is
kind
of
you
know
where
we
want
to
make
sure
things
exist.
C
A
All
right
with
that,
thank
you.
Everybody
is
a
quick
reminder.
The
call
taking
place.
The
second
part
today
is
going
to
be
6
p.m,
pacific
time,
0-100,
utc
and
0-900.
So
thank
you
for
filling
out
that
poll
we'll
post
that
ahead
of
time
and
we'll
see
you
all
in
the
next
call
later
all
right.
Well,
big,
friendly
good
evening.
Good
morning
we
are
kicking
off
the
second
notary
governance
call
for
goodness
august
23rd
2022.
A
Let's
take
a
look
typically
when
we
run
these
calls,
it
looks
like
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
new
people
and
a
lot
of
very
familiar
faces,
but
we
usually
have
four
segments
to
the
call.
The
first
is
just
kind
of
housekeeping
logistics
where
we
kind
of
check
in
the
second
is
metrics,
which
we
are
going
to
omit
this
week
for
time.
So
we're
setting
the
slide
decks
to
the
fill
plus
channel
in
slack.
A
If
you
want
to
grab
those
numbers
or
take
a
look,
the
bullet
points
are
there
wasn't
a
lot
of
changes,
we're
going
to
save
time
for
more
discussions.
Those
discussions
will
come
in
the
community
issues
and
then
we're
going
to
save
time
at
the
end,
for
anything
that
you
might
want
to
flag
on
this
call.
So
with
that,
let's
take
a
quick
look
at
the
governance
team,
so
deep,
galen,
myself
and
rg.
A
We
are
your
governance
team
and
we're
just
kind
of
here
to
make
sure
that
you
have
a
support
for
any
leg
that
you
see
we're
all
on
the
call,
except
for
galen
galen's,
going
to
be
out
of
the
office
this
week.
So
if
you
send
him
a
slack
or
an
email
or
bing
him
on
github,
just
a
friendly
reminder
that
he'll
be
back
in
next
wednesday.
A
So
if
you
need
anything
immediate,
please
ping,
the
three
of
us
that
are
still
here
we'll
be
happy
to
back
you
up
with
whatever
you
need,
if
you're
on
the
call
right
now.
What
makes
it
really
helpful
is
if
we
haven't
talked
to
you
before,
just
having
a
name
that
we
can
respond
to.
So
you
can
see
like
you,
can
right
click
and
change
it.
That
just
means
we're
not
saying
like
hey,
zoom
user,
one,
two
three
and
we
can
kind
of
link
it
back.
A
So
if
you'd
like
to
just
mark
down
that,
you
were
here
if
this
is
a
really
quick
and
easy
way
to
just
put
that
participation
in
now,
you
can
see
who
is
on
the
call
as
we
go
forward
so
with
that
we
have
a
pretty
full
agenda
and
here's
kind
of
what
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
at
a
very
high
level.
We
are
going
to
be
having
an
update
on
the
phil
plus
enterprise
meg.
I
kind
of
briefed
this
in
the
morning.
A
Maybe
I
could
queue
you
up
or
we
didn't
really
talk
too
much
so
I'll
be
happy
to
kind
of
hand
the
floor
over
for
anything
that
you
might
want
to
share
on
this,
and
I
have
the
talking
points
from
kev.
The
second
point
is
rg
is
going
to
walk
us
through
a
trusted
enterprise
update
just
kind
of
summary,
of
what
we're
going
on
more
of
a
presentation,
and
then
we
have
a
quick
summary
from
deep
about
the
outage
that
was
in
the
registry
that
happened
last
weekend.
What's
going
on?
A
What's
the
status,
then
the
next
three
points
on
the
agenda.
They're
meant
to
be
more
of
discussion
so
rather
than
us,
just
updating
you
we're
looking
to
kind
of
share
this
and
get
your
feedback
from
the
community,
so
the
first
is
the
final
time
we're
going
to
be
talking
and
getting
feedback
around
the
ldn
template
modification.
That's
issue,
593.
A
The
second
is
the
modification
for
increasing
the
amount
of
data
cap
that
comes
through
so
talking
about
what
those
limits
are.
Does
this
make
sense
just
kind
of
getting
your
last
input
on
those
issues
and
602?
This
was
a
new
one
that
got
flagged
just
a
couple
days
ago,
and
this
kind
of
talks
about
the
diligence
and
self-reporting
discovery
between
storage
providers
and
notaries.
A
After
that
discussion,
deep's
going
to
walk
us
through
a
couple
of
the
two
major
fips
that
are
in
the
proposal.
These
are
more
just
to
make
sure
that
these
are
on
your
horizon
and
you're
looking
at
them
and
getting
a
feel
for
it.
James
and
chad
will
kind
of
get
to
that
that
check
in
on
the
time
frame.
Thank
you
for
flagging
that
as
we
go
through
it.
So
with
that,
let's
take
a
look
so
meg.
A
Maybe
what
I'll
do
is
I'll
just
kind
of
brief
this
and
I'll
turn
the
flow
over
for
you
thumbs
up.
If
there's
nothing
more
to
add
and
then
I'll
kind
of
give
you
the
floor.
If
there's
anything,
you
want
to
provide
additional
clarification
on
so
fill
plus
enterprise.
The
working
group
is
kicked
off.
There
is
a
channel
in
slack.
If
you
were
keen
to
get
more
information
on
it
and
that
channel
is
fill
plus
enterprise
working
group,
it's
a
public
channel.
You
don't
need
an
invite,
feel
free
to
go
grab
it.
A
So
some
of
you
that
have
been
with
the
program
for
a
while
you're,
very
familiar
with
what
you
may
ask
in
an
application
or
to
suss
out
the
sus
any
kind
of
newer
notaries
that
are
joined
on
board
they're
kind
of
looking
at.
How
can
we
make
that
process
a
little
bit
better
and
as
we
talk
about
this
call,
they
get
into
the
applications,
we'll
kind
of
look
at
some
things
we're
doing
behind
the
scene.
A
There
are
five
big
projects
that
are
in
this
working
group
right
now
and
I'm
not
going
to
open
the
links
up.
But
if
you
wanted
to
open
these
links
up
and
see
for
yourself
or
get
involved,
these
will
each
take
you
to
a
github
repository.
So
what
they're
looking
at
is
there
a?
Is
there
a
lead
storage
provider
that
they
can
take
and
kind
of
look
at
that
model
as
it
goes
forward,
and
we
can
kind
of
get
more
information
on
that
github
issue?
A
How
do
we
make
that
client
data
cap
allocation
as
smooth
as
process
make
that
as
clean
and
effective,
and
as
we
talked
about
those
metrics
drive
that
to
be
an
easier
setup
and
then
the
details
of
the
application
we're
going
to
talk
about
this
on?
That
call
is:
how
do
we
modify
the
application,
so
we're
collecting
as
much
information
right
off
the
bat,
so
you
as
notaries,
aren't
always
having
to
continually
ping
and
ask
the
same
questions
over
and
over
again?
A
How
do
we
kind
of
get
that
in
a
place
where
it's
more
automated,
so
it's
it's
really
easier
for
you
process.
The
slas
just
like
with
this
call
we're
recording
time
participation
activity
in
the
network.
How
do
we
standardize
that
and
make
it
like
as
simplified
and
transparent
as
possible,
and
then,
lastly,
what
are
the
kycs
like?
How
do
we
know
the
customers?
What
are
the
expectations
to
go
along
with
that?
A
So
obviously,
these
are
very
meaty
big
beefy
at
the
heart
of
the
whole
file
point
plus
program,
and
so
these
are
really
unwrapped
with
it.
So
again,
if
you're
curious
to
dive
into
any
one
of
these,
this
link
is
in
the
slide
deck,
which
is
in
slack.
You
could
open
up
these
github
issues
and
reply
back
with
that.
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
meg.
Is
there
anything
that
you'd
like
to
add
from
your
unique
place,
kind
of
kicking
off
this
proposal?
To
add
to
this.
B
B
B
H
D
D
It's
something
that
I
learned
two
weeks
ago,
thanks
to
kz
and
your
work,
and
so
those
of
you
that
you
know
are
like
wanting
to
monitor
the
work,
but
maybe
not
even
like
actively
participate
or
think
that
it
might
have
any
kind
of
implication
on
like
your
future
work,
either
as
business
development
for
far
coin
or
as
large
scale
sps
that
are
interested
or
obviously
in
your
responsibilities.
As
a
notary,
I
would
say,
start
reading
this
stuff,
even
if
you're
not
you're,
ready
to
actively
contribute
to
it.
D
Just
keep
an
eye
out
like
there's
a
lot
to
learn
there
and
there's
a
lot
of
stuff,
that's
going
to
continue
to
iterate
and
evolve,
and
I
think
everybody
will
be
surprised
by
how
interesting
of
a
challenge
this
is,
and
so
please
give
it
some
due
respect.
Make
some
space
for
it
and,
like
absolutely
here,
are
calling
out
notaries
in
the
space
like
this
is
cool
stuff.
This
is
part
of
what
you
signed
up
for
looking
forward
to
seeing
your
engagement.
C
Yeah,
so
I
have
two
updates
on
the
trust
and
transparency
front.
I
posted
these
in
the
field
plus
channel
and
a
couple
of
other
channels,
but
just
wanted
to
flag
them
again.
Here
we've
seen
increased
attempts
by
applicants
that
are
trying
to
scrape
websites
of
legislations
or
applications
that
have
been
successful
in
the
past.
So
this
is
just,
I
guess,
a
flag
for
clients
or
sps
who
work
with
clients
to
just
you
know,
scan
the
list
of
existing
issues.
C
You
can
just
select
the
label
about
looking
good,
or
even
you
know,
just
even
without
that
and
just
see
if
there
are
any
applications
that
sound.
That's
that
that
seem
to
like
be
copying
certain
information
of
a
client
that
you
might
have
worked
with.
I
think
there
are
two
reasons
for
this.
One
is
we're
looking
into
risk
scores
and
we
don't
want
any
kind
to
be
impacted
for
no
fault
of
their
own
as
well
as
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
community
is
aware
of
this
issue.
C
So
I
think
that's
the
first
one
and
the
second
one.
I
think
someone
today
on
the
call
asks
in
the
group
the
requirement
for
kyb
for
business
licenses,
and
I
wanted
to
kind
of
make
it
clear
that
the
governance
team
is
only
asking
for
those
business
licenses
in
a
case
where
it's
very
hard
for
us
to
determine
the
relationship
between
the
applicant
and
the
organization.
C
So
again,
if
you're,
a
client
or
you're
an
sp
working
with
a
client,
please
kind
of
encourage
and
make
sure
that
you
can
be
as
clear
as
possible
about
who
the
applicant
is
and
what
the
relationship
is
with
the
organization.
Otherwise,
we
are
kind
of
forced
to
ask
for
more
evidence,
so
those
are
two
kind
of
main
items
on
the
trust
and
transparency
fund.
Today,.
C
Yeah,
so
I
think
in
that
case
you
know
they
were
the
ones
like
kind
of
pointing
it
out,
because
you
know
I
noticed
that
the
organization
was
like
their
organization,
so
I
just
stacked
them
on
github,
and
I
think
that
was
one
way
and
then
they
just
you
know,
went
ahead
and
just
to
make
sure
there
aren't
others
and
they
actually
did
find
a
few
others.
So
I
think
that
was
a
great
you
know,
because
I
think
one
of
the
good
things
about
showing
up
at
these
governance
calls
is.
C
You
know,
you're,
also
earning
trust
in
this
manner,
and
so
we
know
clients
who
are
around,
and
so
you
know
we
can
keep
some
sort
of
track
and
if
something
comes
up
you
know
for
the
governance
team.
We
can
flag
that.
So
I
think
that
is
kind
of
what
we
do
on
our
side.
But
it
would
be
great
to
get
your
support
as
well.
G
C
C
D
D
So
some
of
you
already
know
we
actually
use
like
chain
access
as
a
service,
as
opposed
to
hosting
our
own
full
nodes
for
the
app
in
the
back
end,
and
so
there
was
an
update
on
their
end
where
effectively
the
bear
token
processing
broke
and
so
requests
being
made
to
the
chain,
weren't
working
and
so
direct
allocations.
Weren't
working
as
well
as
chain
reads:
weren't
working,
so
we
were
seeing
a
bunch
of
like
loading
errors
and
stuff.
We
got
that
figured
out.
D
It
was
a
simple
change
in
the
headers
of
the
website
and
we're
now
working
on
a
better
longer
term
design.
So
there
will
probably
be
another
outage
for
maybe
12
hours
or
so
at
some
point
in
the
coming
weeks.
Once
we
get
that
sorted,
but
just
as
an
update,
everything
should
be
fully
functional.
Now,
on
the
registry,
app
everything
should
be
working.
D
C
So
yeah,
I
can
take
this
one,
so
there
are
two
open
issues
that
we
wanted
to
flag
today.
One
the
first
one
is
about
updating
the
template
for
ldn
applications,
specifically
ldn
exceptions,
so
these
are
data
sets
that
are
either
encrypted
or
private
and
that
you
know
that
that
that
would
not
eventually,
that
would
eventually
be
part
of
e-fill,
but
for
for
the
time
being,
they're
not,
and
so
the
request
here
is
to
gather
more
data,
and
so
you
can
go
check
out
the
issue.
C
C
C
There
are
certain
clients
who
have
legitimate
data
that
they
are
looking
to
onboard
and
it
just
creates
more
kind
of
backlog
for
them
to
create
multiple
applications,
go
through
the
verification
process
again
and
again,
and
today
we're
getting
over
the
past
couple
of
weeks
since
I've
been
observing
we're
getting
on
average
20
new
ldn
applications,
and
so
this
number
is
likely
to
be
increased
likely
to
increase
over
the
next
couple
of
months
as
the
network
grows,
and
so
this
proposal
is
also
in
that
direction.
To
support
that.
D
Just
to
follow
up
something
I
said
this
morning
to
rg.
I
think
there
was
a
comment
from
bobby
in
the
in
the
issue
itself
and
there's
some
conversation
in
slack
as
well.
One
of
the
takeaways
I
had-
and
I
shared
this
in
the
morning-
call
so
I'm
sharing
it
now
as
well.
So
you
all
can
see
it
and
hear
it
live.
D
Is
that
I
think
the
biggest
risk
of
this
change
is
effectively
that
the
initial
allocation
amounts
are
going
to
go
up
drastically,
and
so
we
are
I'm
considering
suggesting
an
additional
change
with
this
change,
which
is
that
we
also
adjust
the
upper
limits
of
like
the
initial
allocations
of
tranches
of
data
cap,
because
this
would
effectively
allow
a
client
to
go
from
getting.
You
know
like
50
tips
or
100
tips,
the
first
time
to
like
250
or
500,
and
so
maybe
it's
good
to
add,
like
upper
bounds
initially
as
well.
D
D
Oh,
I
have
five
television
data
like
data
to
store,
and
it's
like
here
are
my
text
files
and
it's
like
there's
no
way
you
have
like
one
pebby
byte
of
text
files
to
upload
right,
and
so
my
guess
is,
if
you
have
this
25
we're
going
to
get
a
bunch
of
applications
that
are
25
and
so
just
to
maintain
that
level
of
sort
of
safety,
insanity
and
and
give
notaries
a
chance
to
react
sooner.
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
pair
this
hand
in
hand
with
a
constraint
on
the
ldn
initial
tranches.
D
G
C
Yeah,
that's
a
great
question.
I
can
take
the
first
debit,
so
I
did
post
for
an
example
in
the
issue.
I
believe
it's
issue
483,
but
then
there's
other
issues
that
are
open.
So
you
can
see,
I
think,
on
page
six
or
seven
there's
some
issues
that
are
pending
for
different
reasons,
but
also
for
just
the
amount
of
data
cap.
C
D
D
Like
applications
coming
in
that
are
like
two
applications
or
three
applications
and
in
some
cases
you
know
like
10
or
12.,
and
so
this
is
more
about
just
saying,
hey
like
now
that
we
can
afford
to
do
this
a
little
bit
more
safely.
What
is
the
safe
way
to
continue
increasing
these
upper
bounds
and
then
the
other
reason?
D
G
D
I
think
it
depends
on
the
the
application,
like
there's
applications
that
have
been
able
to
display
like
prove
that
they're
trustworthy
or
are
able
to
get
notary
turnaround
in
like
under
one
day
or
two
days,
and
so
in
those
cases
this
is
the
bottleneck
in
the
cases
where,
like
they
aren't
able
to
establish
that
trust,
then
it's
the
other
thing,
and
so
I
don't.
I
don't
think
these
are
mutually
exclusive
changes.
I
think
we
should
this
to
me
feels
more
like
we.
We
know
that
there's
a
bottom
like
in
some
cases.
D
We
are
much
more
comfortable
being
able
to
make
this
change
today,
because
of
all
the
other
things
that
have
changed
in
the
architecture
I
may
as
well
give
it
a
shot,
I
think,
on
average,
we
do
need
to
spend
more
time
around,
like
overall
tracking
of
ttd
for
the
less
trust
or
the
harder
to
establish
trust
cases,
though,
so
I
agree
with
you
that
that
is
the
priority.
This
just
feels
like
relatively
low
hanging
fruit
at
this
point
experiment
with,
if
we
can
do
it
safely,.
G
D
D
C
So
I
think,
there's
like
two
or
two
two
things
here
right,
I
think
one
is
we've
been
playing
defense
for
a
long
time
and
I
think
if
we
really
want
to
like
you
know,
go
enterprise
and
like
if
you
want
to
really
play
by
what,
like
you
know,
all
these
initiatives
that
we
were
talking
about.
We
need
to
like
start
playing
a
bit
more
on
the
attack
side,
and
I
think
what
that
means
is
that
yeah?
Like
that's
fine,
I
mean,
I
don't
think
it's
like.
C
It
depends
on
like
whoa,
like
we'll
reach,
a
point
where
we'll
have
the
right
amount
of
tooling.
To
kind
of
you
know
open
the
floodgates
so
to
say,
I
think
whenever
we
do,
it
that'll
just
happen,
and
that
is
just
part
of
the
process,
and
I
think
we
need
to
learn
from
the
process.
I
think
over
the
of
the
past
couple
of
months.
C
I
think
we've
learned
a
lot
of
you
know
what
kind
of
problems
exist,
we're
starting
to
track
that
trying
to
understand
you
know
like
there
are
some
patterns
we're
already
starting
to
see
in
the
way
certain
kind
of
certain
kind
of
fraud
occurs,
and
so
my
approach
there
is
that's
fine.
Let
it
come
that's.
C
That
does
not
mean
that
if
that
means
that
we,
that
the
type
of
data
cap
is
going
to
increase,
that's
fine,
you
know
we're
not
gonna
we're
gonna
adjust
those
numbers
and
those
expectations,
but
I
think
we
we're
not
gonna,
like
you
know,
let
this
go
out
of
our
hands
just
because
we've
increased
the
amount
of
data
cap.
So
that's
that's
kind
of
how
I'm
approaching
it
from
a
trusted.
Transparency
perspective.
G
D
Yeah
that
makes
sense
alex
in
the
interest
of
time.
I'm
gonna
say:
let's
take
this
to
get
up,
I
think
it
would
be.
I
think
you
should
mention
this
anyway,
like
it's
worth
it.
I
know.
There's
people
in
this
room
that
have
been
impacted
by
this
directly
meg
james,
a
couple
others
watching
the
recording,
please
chime
in
as
well
and
like
it
is
worth
assessing
whether
or
not
it's
worth
the
change.
Let's
have
the
conversation.
Thank
you.
D
A
B
A
So
what
this
proposal
is
going
to
start
to
kind
of
carve
into
where
there
was
some
conversation
this
morning
is
how
that
carves
into
is.
How
does
that
look?
How
are
we
asking
storage
providers
to
kind
of
like
self-report
their
existing
relationships
with
notaries
or
these
interactions
that
may
be
having?
A
So
that's
what
this
issue
is
trying
to
get
to
the
heart
of
it's
relatively
new.
It
was
just
flagged,
and
so
this
is
kind
of
the
initial
proposal,
and
this
is
the
first
time
as
a
community
we're
talking
about
it.
So
we're
kind
of
opening
the
floor
up
to
kind
of
hear
your
thoughts
about
this
thought
process
overall,
as
well
as
some
kind
of
tactical
ways
to
approach
that
and
then
deep.
If
I
could
set
you
up
to
kind
of
add
any
kind
of
clarifications
on
it,.
D
Thank
you
so
just
one
small
correction:
it's
actually
for
notaries
to
do
the
disclosure
rather
than
sps
and
then
specifically
like,
like
gary
said,
like
recuse
himself
from
ldn
applications.
This
wasn't
mentioned
in
the
issue,
but
carol
carolina,
who
was
there
in
the
morning
calls
specified
that
her
intent
was
to
share
this
for
ldn
applications.
So,
tactically,
what
this
means
is,
if
you're,
a
notary,
you're
so
associated
with
the
search
provider
operation,
there's
an
application
for
datacap
and
the
ldn
process.
D
The
the
context
today
is
that
you
technically
still
can
and
that's
because
there
are
multiple
notaries
involved
and
it's
an
open
due
diligence
process,
but
this
is
absolutely
a
no-no
for
the
direct
allocation
path.
The
challenge
that
we've
had
today
is
that
getting
notaries
to
correctly
disclose
their
relationships
is
extremely
difficult
like
when
you
sign
up
to
be
a
notary.
We
ask
you
to
talk
about
the
addresses
you
have
on
chain
and
notary
notaries.
D
Often
don't
disclose
all
the
addresses
and
even
if
they
do
relationships,
change
and
form
over
time,
so
it's
just
really
really
hard
to
track.
You
know
what's
happening
overall,
and
so
this
topic
came
up
a
lot.
I
I'm
gonna
stop
talking
from
the
perspective
of
the
issue
and
I'm
gonna
give
you
my
opinion
a
little
bit
to
kick
off
the
conversation,
but
this
topic
was
extremely
hot.
D
D
25
30,
plus
of
that
data
cap,
now
we're
entering
slightly
trickier
waters
where,
like
enterprise
still
plus,
is
saying.
Okay,
maybe
it's
okay
for
two
replicas
out
of
five:
that's
40!
Now
what
happens
if
that
organization
is
a
notary
as
well,
while
doing
the
bd?
That's
where
I
think
it
gets
a
little
bit
tricky
and
so
so
effectively.
D
Tracking
the
stakeholder
roles
that
an
entity
plays
on
an
application
is
really
difficult,
and
I
think
carlina's
point
was
you
should
be
one.
You
should
either
be
the
clown
representative
or
an
sp,
or
you
should
be
a
notary
and
you
shouldn't
be
both,
and
while
the
philosophy,
I
think,
is
a
fair
one
in
practice,
I
think
it's
really
really
hard
to
execute,
and
so
I'd
love
to
hear
what
what
people
have
to
say
on
that
and
then
maybe
for
the
sake
of
time,
we
keep
this
one
to
about
six
minutes.
D
G
Yeah,
so
I
I
I
don't
think
we
like,
I
said
it's
almost
unless
we
start
building
the
software
that
onboards
the
data
and
and
have
those
everything
about
the
the
client,
the
notaries
and
the
storage
providers.
It's
almost
like
almost
impossible
to
really
track
that
and
build
up
like
the
relationships
we
can.
We
can
do
our
best,
but
unless
we
because
the
only
way
we
can
actually
and
even
even
even
so
there,
there
will
be
like
hacking
mechanisms
to
to
circumvent
that.
G
But
the
only
way
we
could
actually
do
something
like
this.
It
was
if
we
had
control
of,
for
example,
having
a
lotus
implementation
of
our
own
that
actually
handles
like
onboarding,
receiving
and
handling
out
the
data
cap,
transferring
that
between
entities
and
or
not-
and
I
don't-
I
didn't
actually
think
that's
the
vision
of
the
program.
G
So
I
think
I
think
we
probably
need
to
be
more
open
about
it
and,
like
that's
a
that's,
an
open
problem
that
we
can't
really
solve,
because
you
can
just
spin
up
a
new
address
and
that's
it
so
as
much
as
sounds
like
a
good
proposal
and-
and
I
don't
think
it's
like
it's
feasible-
to
really
get
to
a
point
where
we
can
track
and
control
everything.
Every
piece
of
of
this
so
yeah.
G
We
should
instead
think
of
ways
of
like
handling
the
bad
actors
and
preventing
from
getting
getting
to
a
point
where
this
becomes.
So
he
so
did
the
problem
become
so
huge
that
it
actually
hurts
the
the
ecosystem.
But
if,
if
this
is
like,
it
just
happens
in
like
minor
ways
and
why
not,
we
can
deal
with
it
fighting
other
ways,
but
not
controlling
everything,
because
that's
like
that
would
be
really
hard
and
like
really.
D
G
And
another
thing
I
have
unless
someone
else
has
have
anything
else,
is
that
you
would
also
have
to
keep
that
updated
right.
So
you
have
to
like
have
a
system
so
that
you
can
automatically
update
every
address
you
create
and
every
storage
provider.
You
have
a
relationship,
that's
like
that,
wouldn't
be
so
so
easy
to
do.
D
For
what
it's
worth,
I
do
think
we
do
need
some
version
of
that,
though,
like
we
should
have
that,
not
because
we
need
to
block
people,
but
because
we
need
to
make
sure
that
conflicts
of
interest
are
covered
for
the
direct
allocation
pipeline.
I
just
think
that
right
now,
because
there's
just
not
that
much
data
cap
flowing
through
that
pipeline,
it's
not
as
pressing
and
it's
not
as
lucrative
of
a
source
of
abuse
as
other
pipe
as
other
things
might
be.
But
yes,
it
is
challenging
it's
something
we
should
eventually
work
towards.
D
B
H
Yeah
no!
No.
I
just
want
to
say
that,
like
I
am
glad
this
is
a
discussion
topic
because,
as
a
new
notary,
I've
gotten
mixed
reviews
from
other
notaries
like
hey,
I'm
not
supposed
to
sign
this,
because
I
plan
on
storing
it
and
they're
like
oh,
no,
that's
that's!
Okay,
and
I'm
like
that
seems
weird.
So
when
you
mentioned
that
you
know
it
was
previously
actually
okay,
that
makes
sense
now,
but
I
always
thought
that
would
be
weird
for
a
notary
to
approve
data
cap
and
then
seal
it.
H
G
D
D
Just
when
you
thought
you
were
done
hearing
my
voice,
so
I
wanted
to
call
out
two
fips
that
have
become
relatively
hot
topics
over
the
last
three
weeks.
I
know
many
of
you
personally
that
are
in
these
calls
have
been
involved
in
these
conversations,
and
so
I
wanted
to
thank
you
for
your
participation
as
community
members,
not
just
in
falco
and
plus,
but
at
large
falcon
governance.
D
Specifically,
I
want
to
highlight
these
because
they
have
direct
implications
on
program
design,
on
safety,
on
viability
of
abuse,
on
the
way
in
which
data
cap
gets
issued
and
used,
and
so
please,
please,
please
check
these
out
they're,
very
informative
discussions
and
all
of
your
inputs
will
be
valuable.
I'm
going
to
give
you
my
30
second
elevator
pitch
on
both
of
them,
so
you
have
some
context,
but
I
cannot
compete
with
reading
the
the
discussions
and
the
documents.
D
There's
a
there's
a
lot
out
there,
and
so
it's
going
to
take
you
half
an
hour,
maybe
more,
to
read
through
this.
Please
set
that
time
aside,
ideally
this
week,
if
you're
in
this
room
or
you're,
watching
this
recording,
because
if
you're
here
and
you're
watching
this
recording,
you
probably
care
about
it
enough
to
check
this
out,
and
I
see
alex
nodding
enthusiastically
because
I
think
he's
read
through
these.
So
he
understands
where
I'm
coming
from
so
the
first
one
is
proposal
36.
D
This
is
around
increasing
the
quality,
adjusted
power
cap
from
10
to
some
new
number
with
a
multiplier
and
that
multiplies
dependent
on
the
actual
length
of
the
sector
commitment.
So,
for
example,
if
it's
a
five-year
deal,
maybe
there's
a
linear
multiplier
of
5x,
and
so
datacap
plus
a
five-year
deal
would
be
like
50x
the
standard
power
as
opposed
to
10x
or
1x.
D
The
second
fib
topic
here
is
on
decoupling,
the
falcon
plus
model
from
storage
market
actors.
So
specifically,
if
you
look
at
the
way
the
subsidies
paid
out
from
the
network,
it's
based
on
a
multiplier
on
the
block
reward
right,
like
you're,
effectively
getting
more
lottery
tickets
for
the
same
lottery.
This
basically
says:
hey
that
isn't
necessarily
the
best
way
to
do
it.
D
Maybe
we
should
have
a
separate
math
function
that
dishes
out
the
reward
consistently
every
epoch,
every
participant
which
could
help,
especially
for
smaller
sps,
that
are
looking
forward
to
getting
into
the
game.
But
the
recommendation
also
comes
with
a
lot
of
changes
to
how
data
cap
actually
functions
and
I
think
there's
lots
of
pros
and
cons
there
too.
So
please
definitely
check
this
out
effectively
like
tldr
on.
This
is
instead
of
waiting
for
data
cap
to
be
spent
in
a
deal.
D
A
client
actually
pre-allocates
that
data
cap
for
a
future
deal
by
saying
that
this
cid
will
be
stored
with
that
provider
id
and
that's
when
the
data
cap
gets
expended.
So
it's
like
one
step
before
what
you're
traditionally
used
to
giving
the
provider
more
time
to
go
and
seal
it
and
get
the
data
cap
at
that
point
in
time,
and
so
there
are
upsides
to
that.
D
We
can
create
much
more
efficient
ceiling,
pipelines,
better
use
capital,
but
there's
trade-offs
directly
to
clients
as
well,
where
their
experience
may
not
be
as
simplistic
or
the
decisions
they're
making
and
how
they're
expecting
the
onboard
data
might
be
impacted,
and
so
those
of
you
that
are
doing
business,
development,
understanding
the
client
stakeholder
a
little
bit
better.
Think
and
those
of
you
thinking
about
abuse
in
the
film
plus
system.
This
introduces
a
new
vector,
and
so
please
check
out
that
conversation.
Both
of
these
are,
like,
I
said,
very,
very
important.
D
B
D
D
Honestly
I'll
do
my
best,
but
please
take
my
caveat
that
you
know
by
the
time
and
those
of
you
watching
the
recording.
I
have
no
idea
where
the
conversations
will
be
by
the
time
you
hear
this
just
flagging,
but
from
my
understanding,
which
is
between
12
and
36
hours
old.
At
this
point,
depending
on
which
one
it
is
the
the
one
for
the
sector,
duration
multiplier,
there's
been
a
decent
amount
of
pushback
around
like
safety
and
transitioning
of
of
deals
into
the
future.
D
I
think
there's
conversation
happening
on
whether
or
not
the
multiplier
should
be
linear
versus
not
linear
and
like
what
that
multiplier
actually
is.
So
is
it
actually
five
times
for
five
year
or
is
it
like
two
times
for
five
year
and
then
scaling
it
like
decimal
points
like
on
the
way
up?
And
so
those
are
the
open
points.
D
D
We're
like
ten
thousand
percent
in
the
last
year
and
sure
like
every
year,
won't
be
ten
thousand,
but
I
still
expect
like
order
of
magnitude
increases,
given
how
early
we
are
in
the
ecosystem,
and
so
I
think
that
they
need
to
do
a
little
bit
more
math.
There's
some
burden
of
proof
there
that
they
need
to
prove
out
with
their
math,
but
still,
you
know
really
hot
topic,
a
lot
of
sps
in
a
uproar
from
different
reasons,
so
yeah
that's
on
the
first
one
and
the
second
one.
D
The
conversation
is
really
about.
This
fib
has
a
couple
of
different
components
and
and
they're
all
individually,
pretty
complex,
and
so
there's
a
subtle
balance
between
what
needs
to
be
in
the
fib
versus
what
could
come
later,
and
so
the
idea
is
effectively
fvm
is
coming.
There
will
eventually
be
like
a
user
programmable
fem.
We
want
to
enable
people
to
write
smart
contracts
that
can
run
market
actors
individually.
So
like
can
you
like?
D
D
So
a
client
goes
and
gets
data
cap
from
notaries,
but
then
they
commit
to
putting
that
data
cap
up
for
a
deal
and
so
they're
associating
a
piece
of
data
cap
with
a
pcid
and
a
provider
id
it's
almost
like
an
nft
like
you're,
almost
like
minting
like
an
nfd
mag
to
say
that
I'm
going
to
eventually
get
a
deal
done,
it'll
be
verified
and
this
is
what's
going
to
be
in
it.
So
the
upsides
of
that
are
you
know
your
data
cap
is
being
used
efficiently
like
today.
D
D
Like
say
you
send
out
a
bunch
of
deal
proposals
and
they
don't
get
sealed
and
you're
waiting
for
that
data
cap
to
come
back
because
the
deal
proposal
expires,
as
opposed
to
like
knowing
that
it's
been
committed,
and
so
there's
there's
some
interesting
like
pros
for
this
and
then
on
the
on
the
trade-off
side,
it's
harder
for
us
to
effectively
catch
abuse.
In
my
opinion,
the
challenge
is
like
today
say
a
client
gets
away
with
faking.
You
know
an
application
convinces
notaries
to
give
them
data
cap.
D
We
still
have
an
option
to
bring
that
data
cap
back
until
they
seal
it
in
deals
and
as
a
community.
I
think
we
all
agree
that
we
need
to
get
to
the
point
where
we
can
even
bring
data
cap
out
of
seal
sectors
with
this
you're,
introducing
a
different
step
where
it's
really
easy
to
allocate
it
and
put
it
away
in
the
chain,
and
so
there's
it's
becomes
like
very
challenging
to
go
and
remove
it
from
an
allocation,
and
that
has
not
been
outlined,
and
so
that's
my
personal
hesitation
is
effectively.
D
We
need
some
mechanism
where,
just
because
the
clients
swindle
the
notaries,
they
can't
suddenly
have
redeemed
that
100
tubby
bites
and
like
take
their
own
sweet
time
to
go
and
seal
it,
because
now
they're
going
to
reap
those
rewards,
no
matter
what
we
do
as
a
community,
and
so
I'm
requesting
the
fip
authors
and
the
researchers
to
basically
say
hey.
Maybe
we
need
a
mechanism
where
we
can
repeal
data
cap
even
from
like
an
allocated
batch
before
it's
been
sealed
in
deals,
and
so
that's
where
that
conversation
is
at
that
one's
evolved
a
lot.
D
It
was
actually
pitched
in
a
field
plus
governance
call
in
march.
It
looks
very
different
than
it
did
today
and
it's
it's
pretty
active,
I
think,
alex
north
is
driving
that
one
and
even
until
yesterday,
he's
been
posting
like
pretty
major
amendments
and
long
comments
and
so
a
little
bit
of
a
harder
one
to
follow
a
lot
of
complexity.