Recently the RFC 0061 — Safe Network Token Distribution RFC was posted concerning the politics of where and in what proportion tokens will be distributed. I was asked to start a new thread since my off-topic thoughts over there concern what happens before the actual distribution decisions that the RFC covers.
This thread is not concerned with the politics of who and in which percentage tokens are distributed, the RFC is the best place to take those.
At a high level two methods for the creation of SNT have been mentioned (references at end):
- 100% of SNT are Pre-Farmed at genesis.
- 30% (upto possibly 100%) Airdropped or equivalent to initial stakeholders, otherwise…
- 70% Pre-farmed SNT are distributed to participants over time in the most secure way possible but from outside, meaning external the Safe Network consensus algorithm.
- 30% of SNT are Pre-Farmed and airdropped or equivalent to initial stakeholders
- 70% Are created based on need and as required and the whole process managed by the Safe Network consensus algorithm.
In some surprising news @oetyng has informed us that currently they do not want to see (likely meaning it is not possible for) the Safe Network consensus algorithm to secure the data structures and related rules for SNT data. Meaning Method2:
On the RFC thread I lead off with this question (repeated below and slightly modified for clarity):
Why can the Safe Network Consensus algorithm be trusted to handle data in a secure way, run a bunch of rules for handling it, but not token data and rules for handling that?
There were a couple of responses on the RFC thread:
A first thought to this not being a reason to discount Method2 completely is that Method1 has as much if not more attack surface than Method2, both political and technical. In addition the Safe Network Consensus algorithm is going to come under maximum attack anyway, regardless.
@JimCollinson informed us that:
I first read “audibility of supply” to mean “audibility of total supply”, and speculated that it could possibly be solved with the hard limits provided by u64/u128 and well chosen SNT divisibility rules. Those supply limits could not be broken easily without being noticed.
However since that appears too easy and on further reflection what Jim might really be saying is the problem is “audibility of distribution” which appears to have at least two parts:
In what percentage and to who is SNT being distributed as covered in the distribution RFC. In Method2 this would always be under decentralised control of the node operators. So this raises the possibility that perhaps politics is playing a role in not wanting Method2 and it is not actually a technical limitation of the SN consensus algorithm.
Audibility of the rate at which SNT is created (and possibly destroyed if that even possible with DBCs) by the SN consensus algorithm.
It is not clear is one or both these secondary problems are what the Safe Network Consensus algorithm is unsuitable to handle, or whether it really is “audibility of total supply” and u64/u128 is not a politically viable solution.
I would like to push for decentralised solution meaning getting to a place where the Safe Network consensus algorithm can be trusted with all data types and the rules for handling it. Not doing so sends a very powerful wrong message that will be used to discredit the project by its detractors on launch, not to mention the new attack vectors Method1 opens up to both political and technical as we are getting a glimpse of over on the RFC and related threads.
If Method2 really is definitively impossible then so be it the devs are the ultimate experts (@oetyng, @danda and @bochaco and any others i missed from reading through the updates, sorry). That said It may still be productive to get some more insight on the technical/political realities of why Method2 is not possible for those of us that hold out hope for there still being a chance.