Alex Moser retweeted
This is the perspective, I keep talking about.
WE ARE NOT ASKING TREASURY TO PAY FOR GOVERNMENT.
We are asking to build a product by creating reusable infra, new long term users while generating revenue.
We are asking to build a product after securing a signed institutional user, 2 EOI’s and international interest.
We are not asking to just build and hope for users.
I request you to come out of the mindset that we are subsidising the government.
Thank you.
WE ARE NOT ASKING TREASURY TO PAY FOR GOVERNMENT.
We are asking to build a product by creating reusable infra, new long term users while generating revenue.
We are asking to build a product after securing a signed institutional user, 2 EOI’s and international interest.
We are not asking to just build and hope for users.
I request you to come out of the mindset that we are subsidising the government.
Thank you.
Does Cardano want government and institutional adoption or not?
I've seen a lot of debate around the @trivolvetech PFMS proposal and I think the discussions have uncovered some important topics that speak to Treasury use, adoption and value.
Several people have commented that if a government wants to use Cardano, the government should pay for the development itself. I think reflects a limited understanding of how technology ecosystems compete for institutional adoption.
Other chains actively invest in attracting governments and enterprises.
What's Cardano's strategy?
Institutional adoption requires upfront investment, integration work, specialized expertise and risk-sharing.
Ecosystems should have a strategic interest in helping remove barriers and it seems like in Cardano we've had a long history of upholding barriers for builders (and this just doesn't just apply to government use-cases obviously).
In my mind if a successful government deployment (like PFMS) creates reusable/open-source infrastructure, Cardano stands to benefit greatly from it.
Isn't that the entire premise of investing in ecosystem growth?
Part of the reason Cardano's numbers are what they are is that we have a long history of giving large grants to projects and teams that did not result in sustainable onchain activity or ongoing value for the ecosystem...
We've engaged in a glaring amount of experimental funding and it hasn't worked in our favor.
This proposal with Trivolve comes with a government agreement supporting a state-scale deployment with the government committing to covering ongoing infrastructure, maintenance and Cardano transaction fees.
It's a functioning deployment, creates a credible institutional use-case reference with reusable open-source infrastructure that can support adoption by other states and countries in the future.
For years we've talked about needing real-world adoption on Cardano, well here it is... and we're sitting here debating whether the Treasury should invest in it.
I think it's short-sighted personally, and I encourage DReps to re-think "NO" votes.
2
6
25
1,460
2 more days to go ladies and gentlemen and we haven’t received many proposals yet.
If you like to look into details of Cardano, crunch data and leave no stone unturned, this is a great opportunity you shouldn’t miss out on. :)
And no need to post full research within 2 days - just your plan/intent and how much you’d charge.
If you like to look into details of Cardano, crunch data and leave no stone unturned, this is a great opportunity you shouldn’t miss out on. :)
And no need to post full research within 2 days - just your plan/intent and how much you’d charge.
The Parameter Committee is running the first of its kind Public RFP (Request for Proposal) for Cardano Research!
...and YOU can apply, including setting your own price.
We are looking for a researcher (team) who can answer the question on HOW LOW we can go on the O) parameter under current and planned protocol rules.
Expected deliverables for the work:
- An assessment of the lowest technically and economically sustainable utxoCostPerByte value.
- Analysis of the risks, trade-offs, and limitations associated with reducing the parameter, including economic and/or security concerns where relevant.
- Analysis of the impact of not reducing the parameter.
- Evidence-based recommendations, including potential safeguards or mitigation measures.
Expected content of the application:
- Description of your research approach and methodology.
- Your experience.
- Your estimated time of completion.
- Fixed-price quotation in ada.
Apply here: tinyurl.com/utxoCPB-RFP
Deadline: 4th of November
Ask questions here, in my DMs, or on the Forum post for the RFP: forum.cardano.org/t/public-rfp-r…
0
1
2
77
Alex Moser retweeted
Konnichiwa Yuta,
Thank you for reviewing the proposal in detail. I am taking this opportunity to address your rationale.
1-1) The 9,100 figure does not represent evidence items or cases. Each token does not represent a single case, and the actual number of cases processed through FMS is not publicly disclosed by the state.
For PFMS, the 1.53M figure is calculated just from the first deployment that too in first yr itself. The tx number of 1.53 million is a confirmed floor baseline with the first user of PFMS, calculated from the government’s expected operational volumes across all five stages. This will grow yoy with adoption.
PFMS is also not being built for one state. The first state is already onboarded as the initial user, and we have Expression of Interest (EOI) with two additional Indian states and are in active discussions with multiple other states that are ready to follow once the first deployment is live, along with international interest including INTERPOL, german police and Siberian government stakeholders.
The first deployment takes 15 months as we are building the reusable PFMS core. Once that foundation exists, subsequent state rollouts are expected to take roughly 3 to 4 months each, because the six engines, smart contracts, identity layer and verification layer do not need to be rebuilt.
1-2) The batching policy is based on the discussions with multiple state government’s evidentiary requirements of how the evidence should be secured. It is not a vendor choice and it is published at M3.
More importantly, M3 is not just “100,000 transactions and payment.” Those transactions must come from live sources through the deployed mainnet contracts, after penetration testing, across all five stages, with the verification layer live and the core codebase open sourced. In PFMS design, each record is signed by a device DID and an officer credential, every onchain transaction carries a registry digest, the signer is multi sig, and the M4 report breaks usage down by registered source. M4 then requires 390,000 transactions after PFMS is live on mainnet from live sources over three months across all five stages with continuous daily activity, plus reporting on which stages and registered sources produced that activity.
So the requirement is not simply to produce transactions. It is to prove sustained transaction activity coming from a live deployment of the first user of PFMS.
1-3) PFMS has a materially different scope and economic model.
The 1.53M annual mainnet transactions come from the first deployment alone, based on the first government user’s expected operational volumes across all five stages of the chain of evidence. This number of transaction is a confirmed floor for the first year which will grow YoY with adoption.
PFMS is also not limited to transaction fees. The verification layer creates a recurring revenue stream because verification involves the entire evidence trail, not simply checking one final file.
Using a conservative scenario from the first deployment alone with 290,000 expected cases per year (3.2M evidence with estimated 11 evidence item categories per case), out of which if only 20% of them use paid verification and on average 3 verification requests per life of a case @ $3.6 average per verification request.
That produces about $628,366/year in verification revenue, of which approximately $439,856/year returns to the Cardano Treasury and another $125,673/year supports core Cardano libraries. At that level, the Treasury equivalent payback is roughly 5 years, or about 3.9 years when Treasury + ecosystem library funding are considered together.
The larger point is that this compounds with adoption. The first state is already onboarded. We also have EOIs with two additional Indian states, active discussions with other states, and international interest with Interpol, German Police and Siberian government. Once the reusable core is built, those deployments do not require another 15-month rebuild.
2) Our intention is to not to move ADA’s price with announcements. That is not the credibility PFMS is designed to create.
Cardano is currently a top 15 network by market cap, yet the onchain transaction activity is still relatively low. Our intention behind PFMS for Cardano is to close that gap and be part of achieving the 2030 KPI goals and to do so Cardano requires sustained growth in real mainnet usage, protocol revenue and institutional adoption. PFMS contributes to that by putting a government’s day to day operational activity on Cardano, with the government itself paying the transaction fees. One successful government deployment makes the next one easier, and multiple deployments create a snowball effect in usage, fees and institutional confidence.
We are measuring the impact by whether Cardano becomes infrastructure that governments actually depend on, pay to use, and continue using for years. That kind of enterprise adoption is exactly what will matter to reach Cardano 2030 KPIs.
Should the treasury pay for this at all?
Neutrality is one reason, but it is not the only reason the Treasury is being asked to fund PFMS. PFMS is being developed as an open source solution, available through a public GitHub repository, that could be adopted by law enforcement agencies around the world.
Any single state can not fund an open source product for other Indian states, future international jurisdictions, to specifically use Cardano, or to structure verification revenue so that 70% flows back to the Cardano Treasury and 20% to core cardano library maintenance. None of those outcomes would be guaranteed under a normal government procurement model.
So the Treasury is paying for the part that belongs to Cardano: the reusable open source infrastructure as public good, Cardano integration, wider adoption pathway and an economic model designed to return value to the ecosystem. The state then pays for its own infrastructure, transaction fees and ongoing maintenance.
With an NCL limit of 500M this year, Cardano has spent only 2% on real world impact and adoption. The rest has gone into management, marketing, DeFi, infrastructure development, etc. I say this respectfully that all of these areas have their own importance, but we have also seen that the approval or launch of such initiatives does not necessarily translate into an immediate impact on ADA’s price. It is really high time for all of us, as a community, to look into the real and sustained usage of the chain.
PFMS brings that sustained onchain activity irrespective of whether it is a bull or bear market. Whenever other communities question our onchain usage, PFMS can be one of the major answers to it.
I really hope that you can see the value of PFMS, and I respectfully request you to reconsider your decision.
Thank you. 🙏
Thank you for reviewing the proposal in detail. I am taking this opportunity to address your rationale.
1-1) The 9,100 figure does not represent evidence items or cases. Each token does not represent a single case, and the actual number of cases processed through FMS is not publicly disclosed by the state.
For PFMS, the 1.53M figure is calculated just from the first deployment that too in first yr itself. The tx number of 1.53 million is a confirmed floor baseline with the first user of PFMS, calculated from the government’s expected operational volumes across all five stages. This will grow yoy with adoption.
PFMS is also not being built for one state. The first state is already onboarded as the initial user, and we have Expression of Interest (EOI) with two additional Indian states and are in active discussions with multiple other states that are ready to follow once the first deployment is live, along with international interest including INTERPOL, german police and Siberian government stakeholders.
The first deployment takes 15 months as we are building the reusable PFMS core. Once that foundation exists, subsequent state rollouts are expected to take roughly 3 to 4 months each, because the six engines, smart contracts, identity layer and verification layer do not need to be rebuilt.
1-2) The batching policy is based on the discussions with multiple state government’s evidentiary requirements of how the evidence should be secured. It is not a vendor choice and it is published at M3.
More importantly, M3 is not just “100,000 transactions and payment.” Those transactions must come from live sources through the deployed mainnet contracts, after penetration testing, across all five stages, with the verification layer live and the core codebase open sourced. In PFMS design, each record is signed by a device DID and an officer credential, every onchain transaction carries a registry digest, the signer is multi sig, and the M4 report breaks usage down by registered source. M4 then requires 390,000 transactions after PFMS is live on mainnet from live sources over three months across all five stages with continuous daily activity, plus reporting on which stages and registered sources produced that activity.
So the requirement is not simply to produce transactions. It is to prove sustained transaction activity coming from a live deployment of the first user of PFMS.
1-3) PFMS has a materially different scope and economic model.
The 1.53M annual mainnet transactions come from the first deployment alone, based on the first government user’s expected operational volumes across all five stages of the chain of evidence. This number of transaction is a confirmed floor for the first year which will grow YoY with adoption.
PFMS is also not limited to transaction fees. The verification layer creates a recurring revenue stream because verification involves the entire evidence trail, not simply checking one final file.
Using a conservative scenario from the first deployment alone with 290,000 expected cases per year (3.2M evidence with estimated 11 evidence item categories per case), out of which if only 20% of them use paid verification and on average 3 verification requests per life of a case @ $3.6 average per verification request.
That produces about $628,366/year in verification revenue, of which approximately $439,856/year returns to the Cardano Treasury and another $125,673/year supports core Cardano libraries. At that level, the Treasury equivalent payback is roughly 5 years, or about 3.9 years when Treasury + ecosystem library funding are considered together.
The larger point is that this compounds with adoption. The first state is already onboarded. We also have EOIs with two additional Indian states, active discussions with other states, and international interest with Interpol, German Police and Siberian government. Once the reusable core is built, those deployments do not require another 15-month rebuild.
2) Our intention is to not to move ADA’s price with announcements. That is not the credibility PFMS is designed to create.
Cardano is currently a top 15 network by market cap, yet the onchain transaction activity is still relatively low. Our intention behind PFMS for Cardano is to close that gap and be part of achieving the 2030 KPI goals and to do so Cardano requires sustained growth in real mainnet usage, protocol revenue and institutional adoption. PFMS contributes to that by putting a government’s day to day operational activity on Cardano, with the government itself paying the transaction fees. One successful government deployment makes the next one easier, and multiple deployments create a snowball effect in usage, fees and institutional confidence.
We are measuring the impact by whether Cardano becomes infrastructure that governments actually depend on, pay to use, and continue using for years. That kind of enterprise adoption is exactly what will matter to reach Cardano 2030 KPIs.
Should the treasury pay for this at all?
Neutrality is one reason, but it is not the only reason the Treasury is being asked to fund PFMS. PFMS is being developed as an open source solution, available through a public GitHub repository, that could be adopted by law enforcement agencies around the world.
Any single state can not fund an open source product for other Indian states, future international jurisdictions, to specifically use Cardano, or to structure verification revenue so that 70% flows back to the Cardano Treasury and 20% to core cardano library maintenance. None of those outcomes would be guaranteed under a normal government procurement model.
So the Treasury is paying for the part that belongs to Cardano: the reusable open source infrastructure as public good, Cardano integration, wider adoption pathway and an economic model designed to return value to the ecosystem. The state then pays for its own infrastructure, transaction fees and ongoing maintenance.
With an NCL limit of 500M this year, Cardano has spent only 2% on real world impact and adoption. The rest has gone into management, marketing, DeFi, infrastructure development, etc. I say this respectfully that all of these areas have their own importance, but we have also seen that the approval or launch of such initiatives does not necessarily translate into an immediate impact on ADA’s price. It is really high time for all of us, as a community, to look into the real and sustained usage of the chain.
PFMS brings that sustained onchain activity irrespective of whether it is a bull or bear market. Whenever other communities question our onchain usage, PFMS can be one of the major answers to it.
I really hope that you can see the value of PFMS, and I respectfully request you to reconsider your decision.
Thank you. 🙏
6
5
15
686
Alex Moser retweeted
Dear Cardano and all the DRep's who already voted & are about to vote:
Please consider this as an answer to multiple questions and statements directed towards @trivolvetech ‘s PFMS.
1. Statement: "Why should the Cardano Treasury pay to develop a police system for a single state government?”
A. The treasury will not be funding one single state government. This is a common misconception I have seen circulating around the ecosystem. This is absolutely false.
PFMS is being built as an open-source public good on Cardano that has huge potential to be adopted globally. The first agreed user is an Indian state government. This will add weight and provide humongous value to the product and will open multiple doors for a wider adoption at scale.
2. Statement: It is “simple record-keeping” project
A. PFMS is not simply a record keeping project. It is designed to prove what a record originally was, when it was created, which device produced it, which authorised officer was responsible for it, and whether anything changed afterwards.
And it does this across the entire chain of evidence. The difference is important.
PFMS does not just store records. It creates a verifiable history by binding records to device and officer identity, detects missing or altered records, preserves versions, and applies stage specific rules through Cardano smart contracts.
So when evidence is challenged years later, with PFMS, the evidence can prove that it is the same record that existed at that point in time.
That problem is not confined to one state or one country. It is a challenge faced by justice systems around the world.
Record keeping stores information. PFMS makes the integrity, history and chain of evidence verifiable.
3. Statement: It doesn’t drive any significant value to Cardano( what kind of amazing credibility Cardano gets from uploading records from some local police station)
A. It definitely brings significant value and immense credibility to Cardano.
With the first user alone, PFMS will generate 1.5 + million transactions on Cardano mainnet in just the 1st year which grow YOY with adoption. On top of that, PFMS also generates revenue through its verification layer. All of this revenue is new money flowing into the Cardano ecosystem.
Also, we have never claimed that Cardano gains credibility simply from uploading records from a local police station.
The credibility comes when Cardano becomes part of a full state scale deployment, where government departments depend on it as part of their day to day operational SOPs.
That is where the real credibility comes from.
It shows that Cardano is not just capable of processing transactions, but can operate as a trust layer underneath critical government infrastructure at scale.
And all of this credibility will be built just from the first user of PFMS.
4. Statement: Transactions get batched, and agencies will push batch sizes as high as they can to cut costs.
A. The government don’t want to batch transactions into fewer transactions. As the longer a batch remains off chain, the longer that evidence is prone to tampering. For that reason, the existing architecture is designed around how quickly the evidence needs to be secured on Cardano. The batching intervals are randomised for security reasons, so a bad actor wouldn't know the exact batching interval.
From the government’s perspective, paying for a higher number of transactions is cheaper than having to prove that the evidence was not tampered.
As it is quite an expensive and time consuming process for the government to revisit the whole case and the investigation cycle again. Due to this the government prefers to pay for larger numbers of tx’s rather than batching them into fewer tx’s.
I respectfully ask all DReps and the community to go through the PFMS proposal in detail.
If you have any questions, I am more than happy to answer them.
Thank you. 🙏
Please consider this as an answer to multiple questions and statements directed towards @trivolvetech ‘s PFMS.
1. Statement: "Why should the Cardano Treasury pay to develop a police system for a single state government?”
A. The treasury will not be funding one single state government. This is a common misconception I have seen circulating around the ecosystem. This is absolutely false.
PFMS is being built as an open-source public good on Cardano that has huge potential to be adopted globally. The first agreed user is an Indian state government. This will add weight and provide humongous value to the product and will open multiple doors for a wider adoption at scale.
2. Statement: It is “simple record-keeping” project
A. PFMS is not simply a record keeping project. It is designed to prove what a record originally was, when it was created, which device produced it, which authorised officer was responsible for it, and whether anything changed afterwards.
And it does this across the entire chain of evidence. The difference is important.
PFMS does not just store records. It creates a verifiable history by binding records to device and officer identity, detects missing or altered records, preserves versions, and applies stage specific rules through Cardano smart contracts.
So when evidence is challenged years later, with PFMS, the evidence can prove that it is the same record that existed at that point in time.
That problem is not confined to one state or one country. It is a challenge faced by justice systems around the world.
Record keeping stores information. PFMS makes the integrity, history and chain of evidence verifiable.
3. Statement: It doesn’t drive any significant value to Cardano( what kind of amazing credibility Cardano gets from uploading records from some local police station)
A. It definitely brings significant value and immense credibility to Cardano.
With the first user alone, PFMS will generate 1.5 + million transactions on Cardano mainnet in just the 1st year which grow YOY with adoption. On top of that, PFMS also generates revenue through its verification layer. All of this revenue is new money flowing into the Cardano ecosystem.
Also, we have never claimed that Cardano gains credibility simply from uploading records from a local police station.
The credibility comes when Cardano becomes part of a full state scale deployment, where government departments depend on it as part of their day to day operational SOPs.
That is where the real credibility comes from.
It shows that Cardano is not just capable of processing transactions, but can operate as a trust layer underneath critical government infrastructure at scale.
And all of this credibility will be built just from the first user of PFMS.
4. Statement: Transactions get batched, and agencies will push batch sizes as high as they can to cut costs.
A. The government don’t want to batch transactions into fewer transactions. As the longer a batch remains off chain, the longer that evidence is prone to tampering. For that reason, the existing architecture is designed around how quickly the evidence needs to be secured on Cardano. The batching intervals are randomised for security reasons, so a bad actor wouldn't know the exact batching interval.
From the government’s perspective, paying for a higher number of transactions is cheaper than having to prove that the evidence was not tampered.
As it is quite an expensive and time consuming process for the government to revisit the whole case and the investigation cycle again. Due to this the government prefers to pay for larger numbers of tx’s rather than batching them into fewer tx’s.
I respectfully ask all DReps and the community to go through the PFMS proposal in detail.
If you have any questions, I am more than happy to answer them.
Thank you. 🙏
Introducing PFMS: Bringing Government Scale Adoption to Cardano by Trivolve Tech
A Treasury proposal which brings massive scale real world adoption to @Cardano with its first user being an Indian state government. PFMS secures the entire Chain of Evidence on Cardano. The scale that once it is deployed, it will become the largest government scale project ever on Cardano.
PFMS will be built as an open source public good for policing and justice systems worldwide.
What PFMS brings to Cardano with just the first deployment:
→ 1.53M + Cardano mainnet transactions in year one and rising every year as adoption grows.
→ Grows the current Cardano mainnet transaction metric by +18.2%.
→ ~5.1M DIDs across 3,500 facilities, 1.81M devices, 113,000 personnel and 3.2M evidence items connected to Cardano.
→ Cuts down case resolution time by 30% using Cardano.
→ Generates revenue through PFMS’s evidence verification service.
→ 70% of verification revenue returned to the Treasury, 20% to core Cardano library maintenance & 10% to Trivolve Tech.
→ Open source core (Apache 2.0) as a public good, designed for reuse across the world.
The ask: ₳9,600,000 over 15 months.
Here’s how we’re doing it 👇🧵
12
15
66
5,706
Gotta love @Excellion..
He is 10min late to a panel on BIP110 at @LuganoPlanB, comes on stage with a coffee in his hand, mid sentence of @jimmysong and says:
“BIP110 is one thing I don’t care about, so I got a coffee.”
He is 10min late to a panel on BIP110 at @LuganoPlanB, comes on stage with a coffee in his hand, mid sentence of @jimmysong and says:
“BIP110 is one thing I don’t care about, so I got a coffee.”
0
3
16
1,780
After having received the first slopfest submission (which surely was well intentioned, but is pretty useless), Id again like to raise attention to this.
An AMAZING opportunity to get paid for doing interesting work on Cardano.
(just to be clear, using AI is obv perfectly fine, but we dont need a meat proxy to paste the questions we defined into a harness)
An AMAZING opportunity to get paid for doing interesting work on Cardano.
(just to be clear, using AI is obv perfectly fine, but we dont need a meat proxy to paste the questions we defined into a harness)
The Parameter Committee is running the first of its kind Public RFP (Request for Proposal) for Cardano Research!
...and YOU can apply, including setting your own price.
We are looking for a researcher (team) who can answer the question on HOW LOW we can go on the O) parameter under current and planned protocol rules.
Expected deliverables for the work:
- An assessment of the lowest technically and economically sustainable utxoCostPerByte value.
- Analysis of the risks, trade-offs, and limitations associated with reducing the parameter, including economic and/or security concerns where relevant.
- Analysis of the impact of not reducing the parameter.
- Evidence-based recommendations, including potential safeguards or mitigation measures.
Expected content of the application:
- Description of your research approach and methodology.
- Your experience.
- Your estimated time of completion.
- Fixed-price quotation in ada.
Apply here: tinyurl.com/utxoCPB-RFP
Deadline: 4th of November
Ask questions here, in my DMs, or on the Forum post for the RFP: forum.cardano.org/t/public-rfp-r…
2
4
5
424
Mike confirmed to be a major threat to Cardano. Its so over for him.
He caused CID-202407 (github.com/ptrdsh/cardano…)!
What a terrible terriblee terribly good man. The best man in fact. He made Cardano so much better by finding this vulnerability!
He caused CID-202407 (github.com/ptrdsh/cardano…)!
What a terrible terriblee terribly good man. The best man in fact. He made Cardano so much better by finding this vulnerability!
CID-202407
Does that mean I'm part of the Cabal too?
0
0
12
629
The Parameter Committee is running the first of its kind Public RFP (Request for Proposal) for Cardano Research!
...and YOU can apply, including setting your own price.
We are looking for a researcher (team) who can answer the question on HOW LOW we can go on the O) parameter under current and planned protocol rules.
Expected deliverables for the work:
- An assessment of the lowest technically and economically sustainable utxoCostPerByte value.
- Analysis of the risks, trade-offs, and limitations associated with reducing the parameter, including economic and/or security concerns where relevant.
- Analysis of the impact of not reducing the parameter.
- Evidence-based recommendations, including potential safeguards or mitigation measures.
Expected content of the application:
- Description of your research approach and methodology.
- Your experience.
- Your estimated time of completion.
- Fixed-price quotation in ada.
Apply here: tinyurl.com/utxoCPB-RFP
Deadline: 4th of November
Ask questions here, in my DMs, or on the Forum post for the RFP: forum.cardano.org/t/public-rfp-r…
...and YOU can apply, including setting your own price.
We are looking for a researcher (team) who can answer the question on HOW LOW we can go on the O) parameter under current and planned protocol rules.
Expected deliverables for the work:
- An assessment of the lowest technically and economically sustainable utxoCostPerByte value.
- Analysis of the risks, trade-offs, and limitations associated with reducing the parameter, including economic and/or security concerns where relevant.
- Analysis of the impact of not reducing the parameter.
- Evidence-based recommendations, including potential safeguards or mitigation measures.
Expected content of the application:
- Description of your research approach and methodology.
- Your experience.
- Your estimated time of completion.
- Fixed-price quotation in ada.
Apply here: tinyurl.com/utxoCPB-RFP
Deadline: 4th of November
Ask questions here, in my DMs, or on the Forum post for the RFP: forum.cardano.org/t/public-rfp-r…
5
20
48
4,440
Alex Moser retweeted
Btw, I'm open to new opportunities. Happy to build something useful for Cardano and beyond.
0
4
14
771
Alex Moser retweeted
One night in Singapore. Over 90 investors in the room, up to $500K on the line.
From AI agents and DeFi to digital identity, nine startups building across Cardano, Bitcoin and the wider UTXO ecosystem made their case.
Co-presented with @DraperDragon alongside @TOKEN2049.
From AI agents and DeFi to digital identity, nine startups building across Cardano, Bitcoin and the wider UTXO ecosystem made their case.
Co-presented with @DraperDragon alongside @TOKEN2049.
14
79
464
22,621
Alex Moser retweeted
New epoch and we're currently down to 203 registered Mithril Signers.
If you're updating your nodes, remember to restart your Signers.
To the #CardanoCommunity, you funded the continuation of Mithril when development moved from IOG to @TeragoneFactory, consider supporting those logy now you funded it 👀 #Stake2Signers
If you're updating your nodes, remember to restart your Signers.
To the #CardanoCommunity, you funded the continuation of Mithril when development moved from IOG to @TeragoneFactory, consider supporting those logy now you funded it 👀 #Stake2Signers
3
4
13
770
Alex Moser retweeted
Lowering minPoolCost isn't about helping small pools for their own sake. If incumbents can't be challenged because the protocol gives them an unfair advantage over fresh competition, then we have faux decentralization.
Registration may be permissionless, but growth is gatekept.
Registration may be permissionless, but growth is gatekept.
5 days left to vote for relief for delegators to small pools!
1
8
20
656
SPOs!
It is time to voice your opinion on HALVING the pool saturation, and INCREASING the effect of pledge.
Looking at some recent data:
Raising k to 1000 would mean 209 pools, representing 12.5b ada total (or 60% of total active stake), become over-saturated.
At least 89 of those are "private" and can seemingly re-arrange assets trivially to a second pool. Thus, at most 123 pools are 'actually' affected and if none of them would act, they would lose 27% of staking rewards for their delegators on average.
This creates a game theoretical inefficiency where those that stake with a "good" pool, are rewarded more, theoretically driving a strong (~30% incentive) to migrate to an unsaturated pool.
Read much more facts and opinions in this document created by @Cerkoryn, @intuitionismRus, and many more behind the scenes:
docs.google.com/document/d/1E0…
THEN VOTE! There wont be a better second chance than this one, as you have to rely on DReps to make the actual decision.
Because the currently live Action is an Info Action, no votes directly change a protocol parameter. Raising k would require a Parameter Update governance action, which may or may not be submitted, with any results within this info action, at anyone’s discretion.
It is time to voice your opinion on HALVING the pool saturation, and INCREASING the effect of pledge.
Looking at some recent data:
Raising k to 1000 would mean 209 pools, representing 12.5b ada total (or 60% of total active stake), become over-saturated.
At least 89 of those are "private" and can seemingly re-arrange assets trivially to a second pool. Thus, at most 123 pools are 'actually' affected and if none of them would act, they would lose 27% of staking rewards for their delegators on average.
This creates a game theoretical inefficiency where those that stake with a "good" pool, are rewarded more, theoretically driving a strong (~30% incentive) to migrate to an unsaturated pool.
Read much more facts and opinions in this document created by @Cerkoryn, @intuitionismRus, and many more behind the scenes:
docs.google.com/document/d/1E0…
THEN VOTE! There wont be a better second chance than this one, as you have to rely on DReps to make the actual decision.
Because the currently live Action is an Info Action, no votes directly change a protocol parameter. Raising k would require a Parameter Update governance action, which may or may not be submitted, with any results within this info action, at anyone’s discretion.
3
9
14
1,663
Wondering how you can vote easily as SPO?
Here are two great ways:
dreptalk.com/login/?role=spo
voting.cardanofoundation.org
Here are two great ways:
dreptalk.com/login/?role=spo
voting.cardanofoundation.org
0
0
2
58
Scum Alert
___
ok. drama over. i try to promise ill keep it together from now on.
Lets go vote now!
K = 1000 vote has started! Its been YEARS !! :D
chop chop SPOs.
----
waitwaitwait. one last thing: Fuck youuuu!
ok bye.
___
ok. drama over. i try to promise ill keep it together from now on.
Lets go vote now!
K = 1000 vote has started! Its been YEARS !! :D
chop chop SPOs.
----
waitwaitwait. one last thing: Fuck youuuu!
ok bye.
"My aim was to create a neutral, standalone SPO poll."
your aim and work huh?
You took a draft, half of it in fact, and screwed over the plan that dozens of people worked and agreed on without speaking with those same people about your views.
You write "I did not see a path toward a common voting methodology that I could support."
A) I have never heard of you before and would have loved to have you discuss your concerns on the Parameter Committee, where we openly and frequently debate opposing views productively. I guarantee your inputs would have been positively received.
You knew where the document was coming from and did not for a single second try to collaborate. Dont even pretend otherwise.
B) Your solution to your personal disagreement is to deliberately front-run the group that you took your rationale from, altered it slightly to meet your needs, call it neutral, implying the original work wasnt, before the group had a chance to submit it. Dont even pretend that you didnt do this with calculated malice.
C) Im glad the discussion about k has started with your "work" now, I truly am, voting thresholds, honour, origin of work, a or b, but the egoistic arrogance, lack of respect, total abuse of trust and lack of any kind of awareness or reflection, is not acceptable to me on a human level.
Get fucked.
0
1
10
572
Mr. Plagiarism with egoistic ideologies left out the most important part of the work though.
A double-document, which aims to aid the community in making an informed decision.
One case against raising k, one case for raising k.
The two authors COLLABORATED on this in the most professional way possible. It was a blessing to observe - this is what real debate looks like. Have respect for each other.
It is 100% worth reading if you want to know about k.
x.com/Cerkoryn/statu…
A double-document, which aims to aid the community in making an informed decision.
One case against raising k, one case for raising k.
The two authors COLLABORATED on this in the most professional way possible. It was a blessing to observe - this is what real debate looks like. Have respect for each other.
It is 100% worth reading if you want to know about k.
x.com/Cerkoryn/statu…
1
0
9
1,062
Today is a weird day.
Months, if not years of work, thought and effort put up in flames by a single person who was given access to a google doc for transparency's sake in the spirit of collaboration.
It doesn't matter if this passes or not, its not even about k anymore, but the absolute garbage human move to take other's work, half-ass quoted, and then make it their own is utterly disgusting.
Months, if not years of work, thought and effort put up in flames by a single person who was given access to a google doc for transparency's sake in the spirit of collaboration.
It doesn't matter if this passes or not, its not even about k anymore, but the absolute garbage human move to take other's work, half-ass quoted, and then make it their own is utterly disgusting.
The parameter committee has spent months/years debating on how to accurately gauge SPO sentiment about raising stakePoolTargetNum from 500->1000.
As part of this, myself and another member of the parameter committee meticulously drafted all the arguments for and arguments agaseparate documents so that voters could have a balanced view of both arguments. We linked these inside of a neutral-language Info Action body for SPOs to consider.
Because Info Actions have no ratification threshold and stakePoolTargetNum isn't a parameter that SPOs vote on through governance, the parameter committee collectively agreed to use a specific threshold of explicit YES > explicit NO for this Info Action. This is already above and beyond what the protocol and the Constitution require and we went out of our way to give SPOs a voice on this.
Unfortunately, a community member who is opposed to the parameter change hijacked our draft and the years of effort that went into it, changed the threshold to suit his desired outcome, and submitted it without consulting anybody.
Even if the we can reasonably disagree about what the threshold should be for this vote (remember it is not required at all), taking other people's work, twisting it, and submitting in a manner to suit your own narrative is extremely disappointing to see.
I'm very disheartened by this after having spent years of my own, uncompensated effort building to this point only to see a community member undermine it like this.
If you want to see the real draft that the parameter committee put together, you can read it here. Also the case for and case against are linked as well, so you can see both sides of the discussion fairly.
I can't speak on behalf of the others, but I will be interpreting the outcome of the vote based on the criteria that the parameter committee collectively agreed on, regardless of what this Info Action says.
docs.google.com/document/d/1zE…
4
1
22
2,734
yes please! at least until the ecosystem agrees on an alternative tagging scheme.. which may be a while - or not necessary at all.
which is why this CPS exists. github.com/cardano-founda…
which is why this CPS exists. github.com/cardano-founda…
Yup. We gotta get Chris to tag his blocks with a unique minor.
1
0
5
377
Does anyone know how many double, triple (or generally n>1) height battles ever took place?
Im defining a double height battle as:
A block inserts itself infront of (into an earlier slot than) two widely accepted blocks.
...triple/n>1 height battles infront of n accepted blocks accordingly..
The wider question this answers is how deep of a reorg is regularly plausible. A reorg of 1 happens all the time with a standard height battle, but a reorg of 2 (a double height battle) seems to be extraordinarily rare.
@Pooltoolio maybe has some data on this? @Hornan7 ? @ch1bo_'s team perhaps?
Im defining a double height battle as:
A block inserts itself infront of (into an earlier slot than) two widely accepted blocks.
...triple/n>1 height battles infront of n accepted blocks accordingly..
The wider question this answers is how deep of a reorg is regularly plausible. A reorg of 1 happens all the time with a standard height battle, but a reorg of 2 (a double height battle) seems to be extraordinarily rare.
@Pooltoolio maybe has some data on this? @Hornan7 ? @ch1bo_'s team perhaps?
2
0
1
327
After the SPOs rejected the previous paramchange govaction about mpc + memunits, I want to commend @Cerkoryn to resubmit an unbundled version!
Its just the part that would have gotten accepted if the SPOs weren't given the chance to vote on mpc before by bundling with memunits.
se asap. Lets get this done quicker than in 6 epochs!
dreptalk.com/t/reduce-minpo…
.....and before anyone complains that mpc=75 is a pointless change without changing k... keep your complaints.. you'll soon get the chance to vote on that too thanks to the amazing work of @Cerkoryn.
Its just the part that would have gotten accepted if the SPOs weren't given the chance to vote on mpc before by bundling with memunits.
se asap. Lets get this done quicker than in 6 epochs!
dreptalk.com/t/reduce-minpo…
.....and before anyone complains that mpc=75 is a pointless change without changing k... keep your complaints.. you'll soon get the chance to vote on that too thanks to the amazing work of @Cerkoryn.
0
1
1
88