tuta retweetledi
tuta
1.6K posts
tuta
@thecryptogus
Cofounder @mentatminds @hypertaoHL
Genesis block Katılım Eylül 2017
1.7K Takip Edilen828 Takipçiler
@mogmachine @blockmachine_io amazing, looking forward to see more governance discussions happening on the network
maybe adding a section for comments could help foster more thoughtful discussions than on discord
English
We're proposing @blockmachine_io (SN19) take on the free public RPC the Bittensor ecosystem depends on.
No account, no API key, rate-limited by IP.
More information here: governance.taostats.io/p/sn19-free-rpc
That is not all though ... by making this possible we have created a governance voting system on Bittensor that anyone can use to create votes on subnet actions using alpha holding and/or convicted alpha with a variable weighting multiplier.
This is open for anyone to use if they want to involve the commuunity or their subnet community in the direction and choices their subnet makes.
governance.taostats.io
Just pushing $tao and #bittensor forward instead of wasting time and energy arguing with people online.
English
tuta retweetledi
Over the last 7 days:
✅ Mentat 5: +9.43%
✅ Mentat 15: +4.43%
➖ Mentat SoS: -0.52%
The market is flat, but the largest caps are moving higher.
@chutes_ai and @lium_io are the standout performers, up 17.2% and 18.4% over the last 7 days.
English
@const_reborn is miner_burn a boolean or is it not?
in the code it seems like it's a proportion of how much emissions are directed towards owners_hotkeys, but here you insist that it is a boolean.
English
@lcnxyz @DrocksAlex2 @const_reborn Agreed. The two articles don’t fix any of the issues mentioned, but give more perspectives and help understand where it’s coming from.
We need more of these
English
1000 $TAO per day will be allocated by validators
When framed this way, the attack vector of backroom deals and collusion feels much less impactful.
I vote for more articles like this to explain updates to go along with important PRs. Thanks @const_reborn
const@const_reborn
English
My thoughts about debate and incase it gets passed:
If Root Reborn ever goes though (i hope it wont)
Don’t pick a validator that does allocation for you, 90% if not more have massive conflict of interest and will use it to enrich themself
Even if you have the optionality, if you’re a root holder you should voice your opinion. Validators should not be allowed to allocate chain emissions. It failed pre dtao and will fail again:
-real subnets will be demoralised, others will play political games to enrich themself, talent will decrease/new talent will be reluctant to join
-emissions will go from average tao holders in the pocket of bad actors and validator owners who either is heavily invested or outright owns the subnet
-exploits will be heavily expedited, this will cause far more leakage than there already is
-too complicated, unsophisticated actors will pay the bill
You can already participate in dtao, the ‘more yield’ is zero sum and is factually untrue. The only way to get real yield is by having inflows and selling services at a profit. Programming money does not work.
If this gets passed it does not align with my ideology anymore, i did my very best to defend it in a calm matter and hopefully i was able to give people a different perspective. I still have hope we will focus on the right things.
I tried sirs and best of luck 🤝
English
For all those reading this:
@mentatminds will always keep allocating your $TAO to the subnet market in an optimized and neutral way.
Algod@AlgodTrading
My thoughts about debate and incase it gets passed: If Root Reborn ever goes though (i hope it wont) Don’t pick a validator that does allocation for you, 90% if not more have massive conflict of interest and will use it to enrich themself Even if you have the optionality, if you’re a root holder you should voice your opinion. Validators should not be allowed to allocate chain emissions. It failed pre dtao and will fail again: -real subnets will be demoralised, others will play political games to enrich themself, talent will decrease/new talent will be reluctant to join -emissions will go from average tao holders in the pocket of bad actors and validator owners who either is heavily invested or outright owns the subnet -exploits will be heavily expedited, this will cause far more leakage than there already is -too complicated, unsophisticated actors will pay the bill You can already participate in dtao, the ‘more yield’ is zero sum and is factually untrue. The only way to get real yield is by having inflows and selling services at a profit. Programming money does not work. If this gets passed it does not align with my ideology anymore, i did my very best to defend it in a calm matter and hopefully i was able to give people a different perspective. I still have hope we will focus on the right things. I tried sirs and best of luck 🤝
English
@const_reborn @AlgodTrading Not stopping something from being possible is very different than incentivizing it.
With this update, the behavior will become incentivized by the protocol itself.
English
@thecryptogus @AlgodTrading That's ethical of you, but there is nothing in the protocol that stops you from doing that, in the same way that there is nothing in the protocol that stops a current validators *from* doing it, upgrade or not -- in other words your point is moot.
English
Kind of sad to see the new $tao update. Tao the token is/was already an index token of all subnet.
Now giving more power to validators which were proven to be highly corrupt pre dtao is sad to see. Another rushed update, another update without thinking clear.
Subnets have to start sucking up validators again to get maximum buying pressure, this means people like me cant criticise anything anymore
Honestly, i’m sick of these shitty updates
English
there is no ingrained relationship between a validator and owning a subnet
With this change, you will be adding an incentive for that relationship.
I mean, you could own a subnet?
We could, and we choose not to exactly to make sure we can't do this kind of action (of channeling stake to our subnet).
English
@thecryptogus @AlgodTrading I mean, you could own a subnet? and most validators don't own subnets (7 of top 10), and there is no ingrained relationship between a validator and owning a subnet, they are just participants in the ecosystem.
English
Please keep the likes going until I ratio @const_reborn
tuta@thecryptogus
There is a small difference, and its key: we don't own any subnet, so we are not incentivized to push our users' stake towards any of them. Most validators do, and this is a big conflict of interest. Doing this off-chain is already a bad thing (which we are preventing ourselves to do), but allowing it on-chain is even more worrying.
English
There is a small difference, and its key: we don't own any subnet, so we are not incentivized to push our users' stake towards any of them.
Most validators do, and this is a big conflict of interest.
Doing this off-chain is already a bad thing (which we are preventing ourselves to do), but allowing it on-chain is even more worrying.
English
@thecryptogus @AlgodTrading Fundamentally we’re just building Mentat minds into the protocol. If you look at the PR, this is not much different than any of your redistribution products, except standardized. Now subnets owners have more players, more competition for allocating organizations.
English
You don't think the sn owners criticism having to suck validators is valid?
If you are both a validator and subnet owner, as long as you can increase your token price you'll have the best (risk-free) yield.
As a subnet owner, you'll now need to compete (or kneel) to attract root stakers, which is a fight you'll lose against the best network distributor (taostats, tao dot com, or even us at Mentat)
This will without a doubt centralize stake into the hands of those that hold staking distribution + subnets
English
Pre dTao this wasn’t possible. Now root stakers can watch an respond to bad Validators in real time. If they push their own subnets, that shows up as bad yield.
You’re fundamentally missing the point if you don’t grok that it is yield that keeps validators in check — something that the root network never had, and why we needed to build dynamic first.
English
@AlgodTrading What if the energy was put to use? What if that use was also high value tech that consumes a lot of energy?
English
@thecryptogus If they had a larger chunk of the pie to handle conviction they could sell blocks OTC and not impact TAOflow. There are many good buyers for these tokens.
English
I think an even 33/33/33 split between miners/validators/founders would solve a lot of these problems. If it seems important that miners receive the largest chunk of the pie, then do 40% to miners and 30% to founders/validators.
Point being: If founders get a larger chunk of the rewards pie, they have more capital to lock into conviction and also get liquid to fund their operations. Two birds with one stone.
Algod@AlgodTrading
All AI labs are max incentivising talent to join their company Bittensor is doing the complete opposite lately: -only 18% for owner without ability to raise, or give up share of this to raise. Most new owners have 50% at best of this -forced to lock up tokens for conviction, the only benefit was that rewards were liquid, now 0 reason to build on Bittensor -upon deregistration alpha gets 40-50% less due to not counting for chainbuybacks, theft at best We want talent retention + new talent flowing into the ecosystem, now its just OG teams that enriched themselves before who are hanging around, barely any competition Revert these decisions and max incentivise builders, otherwise nobody of quality will come willingly build on Bittensor as its much better financially to build elsewhere Competition is coming, we act far too comfortable while we should be scared shitless
English
@AlgodTrading Agree very much
We (& OTF & Const) should be spending energy on fostering successful outcomes, instead of tying to trap everyone that tries to game the system
People will keep gaming the system as long as playing the honest game is not rewarding enough
English
All AI labs are max incentivising talent to join their company
Bittensor is doing the complete opposite lately:
-only 18% for owner without ability to raise, or give up share of this to raise. Most new owners have 50% at best of this
-forced to lock up tokens for conviction, the only benefit was that rewards were liquid, now 0 reason to build on Bittensor
-upon deregistration alpha gets 40-50% less due to not counting for chainbuybacks, theft at best
We want talent retention + new talent flowing into the ecosystem, now its just OG teams that enriched themselves before who are hanging around, barely any competition
Revert these decisions and max incentivise builders, otherwise nobody of quality will come willingly build on Bittensor as its much better financially to build elsewhere
Competition is coming, we act far too comfortable while we should be scared shitless
English