Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Agile Coretime #1
Agile Coretime #1
Changes from 5 commits
c94858e
72d2787
5ec35d1
ef71a4b
4c907f2
f1c3ce4
f84d030
e020237
2bfc3de
6a07faf
814c44b
eb8a681
2538bb0
e95b2e9
015f92a
e6654fd
71c5c47
591b62a
562ef32
642782d
cbbf41e
3117eb2
9a97546
d4cdf69
bc4235c
ececc83
7c92da0
38a0189
6213a2c
56c2bf4
34a9581
36ee156
0c3121f
f939d75
056cc23
fae6b26
532cead
5fd1c37
13166ea
e50e717
1b01ee6
b39e7f8
c9ae929
28aed69
b756283
095884e
6f29561
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This wording and multiple other references to sales/ purchase suggest that Bulk coretime will be paid for in DOT, in contrast to currently where it's simply locked and the "cost" is the opportunity cost of not staking - it should be explicit if this is the case.
It would also be useful to understand - if this is the case - where those DOT are sent, i.e. who is paid? Is it validators? Is it burned? If validators, would high reward rates through demand for blockspace impact inflation that currently forms the vast majority of their revenue?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's right.
Any DOT recuperated for sales of system resources (Coretime, in this case) would by default be placed in the treasury. Governance would be able to determine what to do with it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe its better to burn the DOT instead of diverting them to Treasury. There are a few reasons for that:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I totally agree with @jonasW3F , DOT from Coretime sales should be instantly burnt in order to slow down inflation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have no objection, though I would prefer to leave the specific economics (including this and the price adaption) for other RFCs so that we can document the motivations properly. The implementation of RFC-1 can (and indeed does) just provide a
OnUnbalanced<Credit>
endpoint which can just as easily burn as send to the treasury.@jonasW3F perhaps you can write a short RFC expanding out your points above.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems optimistic, especially on the "deployable" part given the Root track takes one month and would eat into a third of this. Perhaps deployable to testnet with concrete migration path proposed for existing parachains?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wouldn't the fellowship be able to whitelist this upgrade?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes but the track is still 28 days. And even though it is less restrictive to pass earlier on that track, a lot of parachain teams have expressed that they prefer a set block number (i.e.
At
overAfter
) for runtime upgrades so that they can prepare for any breaking changes.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We'll see. As long as the Relay-chain support for core-assignment exists, then this really shouldn't be a big change. Three months should be notionally possible, even if it ends up being missed due to of factors outside of the scope of this RFC.