#1792 KICRA - Kusama Innovation Cost Reduction Act 2022
GM everyone. Kusama is supposed to be a place for experimentation, where we should try new things and build crazy stuff. Some of this crazy stuff might end up being nonsense, it’s not going to work. Some of it, though, is going to be amazing. Experimentation in and of itself is valuable - Polkadot cannot be that experiment, it must be a reliable protocol for it to have its credibility as a leading platform, but Kusama doesn’t need to hold itself to that conservative ideal. - Gavin Wood, Polkadot Decoded 2022
Kusama is supposed to be a protocol with a low barrier to entry for parachain deployment so that early-stage startups can experiment with new ideas.
The GM Parachain team has noticed some inconsistencies with how certain deposit fees on Kusama are handled, and we believe that it is in the best interest of our ecosystem as a whole for some of these fees to be reviewed.
At a high level, we propose to lower the deposit fees associated with the following:
- registrar(reserve) - Reserve a Para Id on the relay chain.
- registrar(register) - Register head data and validation code for a reserved Para Id.
- crowdloan(create) - Create a new crowdloan campaign for a parachain slot with the given lease period range.
- hrmp(hrmpInitOpenChannel) - Initiate opening a channel from a parachain to [the] given recipient channel.
- hrmp(hrmpInitAcceptOpenChannel - Accept a pending open channel request from the given sender.
TLDR Version
Kusama is the experimental network of the Polkadot ecosystem. It should be used for innovation and experimentation, and we should not be afraid to push it to its limits nor stifle this innovation through high barriers to entry (i.e. big deposits). This is why we are proposing the Kusama Innovation Cost Reduction Act 2022 (KICRA 2022) - we believe the reduction of the extrinsic deposits outlined below should be an order of magnitude lower than the equivalent deposit for Polkadot.
registrar(reserve)
registrar(reserve) reserves a parachain ID on the relay chain. It is a mandatory extrinsic that must be executed in order to connect properly to the Kusama relay chain. The current deposit fees associated with issuing this extrinsic are too high for a canary network, and can be prohibitive for new teams who may not be well funded yet want to experiment with a niche idea on Kusama.
We can see that typically the deposit fees associated with this extrinsic on Kusama are ~40 KSM. For Polkadot, the deposit fees associated with the same registrar(reserve) extrinsic are 100 DOT.
On Kusama, this works out to be:
- ~40 KSM
- $2,344 (30D MA)
- $8,132 (1Y MA)
On Polkadot, this works out to be:
- 100 DOT
- $832 (30D MA)
- $2,184 (1Y MA)
Note: Regarding crypto to fiat conversion, the following figures were used throughout this document - as of 25-Aug-22:
- KSM 30D MA = $58.6
- DOT 30D MA = $8.32
- KSM 1Y MA = $203.3
- DOT 1Y MA = $21.84
Workings: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uPSd0MWvPSiJTsqMwAwkXlN1daKSoQzYJsTRuzQvxxU/edit?usp=sharing
We at GM Parachain are of the opinion that the deposit fees associated with executing this extrinsic are too high, and should be considerably lower on Kusama than on Polkadot (by an order of magnitude at least), especially due to its sole purpose of being the canary network for Polkadot.
registrar(register)
registrar(register), at a basic level, allows the parachain to upload its runtime and some other information to the relay chain once it has a reserved Para Id from the registrar(reserve) extrinsic (it’s a bit more nuanced than that of course). This is a mandatory extrinsic that must be executed in order to connect properly to the Kusama relay chain. Like the registrar(reserve) fees above, these are also too high and should be reduced to facilitate greater experimentation for teams with unique use-cases but lack capital.
We can see that typically the deposit fees associated with this extrinsic on Kusama are ~23.81 KSM. For Polkadot, the deposit fees associated with the same registrar(register) extrinsic are ~537.2 DOT.
On Kusama, this works out to be:
- ~24 KSM
- $1,395 (30D MA)
- $4,841 (1Y MA)
On Polkadot, this works out to be:
- ~537 DOT
- $4,469 (30D MA)
- $11,732 (1Y MA)
Workings: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16AZwJLf7qBoezzAztai787Q3b1akH5HWiJivAs6jX9k/edit?usp=sharing
We at GM Parachain are of the opinion that although the fees are less than the DOT counterpart in this instance, the deposit fees required to enact this extrinsic on Kusama are still too high. However, there should be a lot of care taken when considering how to lower the deposit fees for this particular action (changing constant, instead of changing deposit per byte, for example).
crowdloan(create)
crowdloan(create) effectively opens your crowdloan based on the lease period range that your team selects. It is a mandatory extrinsic which must be executed in order to open a crowdloan for a parachain slot auction. Much like the previous extrinsics, the high deposit fees associated with executing crowdloan(create) can be prohibitive for a team that does not have significant financial backing.
We can see that typically the deposit fees associated with this extrinsic on Kusama are 10 KSM. For Polkadot, the deposit fees associated for the same registrar(register) extrinsic are 500 DOT.
On Kusama, this works out to be:
- 10 KSM
- $586 (30D MA)
- $2,033 (1Y MA)
On Polkadot, this works out to be:
- 500 DOT
- $4,160 (30D MA)
- $10,920 (1Y MA)
Workings:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17o9uwn4WnqKV1TPUdoWh-cdIU6BTN59eWSjELIV_P78/edit?usp=sharing
We at GM Parachain are of the opinion that, while we note these deposit fees are already lower than the Polkadot versions, there are already a lot of fees associated with setting up a parachain candidate project prior to even opening the crowdloan itself.
hrmp(hrmpInitOpenChannel) / hrmp(hrmpInitAcceptOpenChannel
hrmp(hrmpInitOpenChannel) & hrmp(hrmpInitAcceptOpenChannel) must be initiated from both teams involved in opening these communication channels. These communication channels are one of the current key features of our ecosystem, and demonstrate the interoperability of parachains.
On Kusama, the deposit for each extrinsic is 5 KSM. That means that Project A must deposit a total of 10 KSM, and Project B must also deposit a total of 10 KSM.
On Polkadot, the deposit for each extrinsic is 10 DOT. That means that Project A must deposit a total of 20 DOT and Project B must deposit a total of 20 DOT.
There are a limited number of these channels that can be open, and this number is controlled (and can be changed) by the relay chain. We are of the opinion that on Kusama, we should be actively testing the limits of the network, and be pushing towards opening the maximum number of channels available to test the robustness of the network.
Kusama is the canary in the coal mine; it should be at the vanguard, leading the way and actively testing the limits of our ecosystem. This is how we can ensure the stability of opening additional channels on Polkadot.
On Kusama, this works out to be:
- 20 KSM (both teams combined)
- $1,172 (30D MA)
- $4,066 (1Y MA)
On Polkadot, this works out to be:
- 40 DOT (both teams combined)
- $332.80 (30D MA)
- $873.60 (1Y MA)
We at GM Parachain are of the opinion that, similar to the first instance, we are now in a position in which teams will likely find these deposit fees a financial burden that will only create friction in developing novel ideas. As noted in all four instances, the deposit fees associated with executing this extrinsic on Kusama are too high. These extrinsics should be considerably lower than their Polkadot counterparts (by an order of magnitude at least). In contrast to the previous three extrinsics however, this extrinsic is required for each additional channel that the parachain opens - and therefore the associated deposits will continue to accumulate as projects become more innovative and outward looking.
Typical Summarization of Deposit Fees
Below shows the typical deposit fees for a parachain team launching on Kusama / Polkadot and also opening 5 sets of HRMP channels (note: the 5 sets of HRMP channels is a purely arbitrary number, it is pretty realistic for the number of channels that a parachain may want to open fairly quickly after deployment onto Kusama / Polkadot):
On Kusama, this works out to be:
- 174 KSM
- $10,196 (30D MA)
- $35,374 (1Y MA)
On Polkadot, this works out to be:
- 1337 DOT
- $11,124 (30D MA)
- $29,200 (1Y MA)
We can see that based on the 30D MA -** it is only ~9.1% more expensive to launch on Polkadot versus on Kusama.** We can see that based on the 1Y MA - it is actually ~21.1% more expensive to launch on Kusama versus on Polkadot.
We would like to encourage all of the Polkadot / Kusama ecosystem participants to discuss below what you believe the appropriate deposit fees should be for each extrinsic type, and ultimately the total deposit fees associated with setting up a Kusama parachain and opening 5 sets of HRMP channels (as an example).
Summary
Taking into consideration the arguments presented above, along with the fact that Kusama was envisioned to be the canary in the coal mine - the incentivized testnet - we recommend making these changes to unleash the untapped innovative power of Kusama. We need to push Kusama to its limits. We should not be concerned about “reaching the cap” of open HRMP communication channels; instead, we should be actively trying to reach that limit, so that the community can monitor the stability of the network. If it is stable, we could potentially push it even further or see the theoretical maximum number that can be deployed safely on Polkadot, which will complete the interoperability vision. We can facilitate this by lowering the barriers to entry - such as exorbitant deposit fees.
Ultimately, the GM Parachain Team believes Kusama should not be gatekeeping teams from being able to participate in the Kusama ecosystem with over-priced deposits, especially when compared to the more conservative Polkadot that has, at times, significantly lower deposit fees - despite being the enterprise solution for parachain teams.
We would like to make reference to a previous referendum that was passed on Kusama ~10 months ago by the HydraDX / Basilisk team - Snek slithered, so that GM could walk, and we want Kusama to fly. (Link to that discussion: https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/1056 and the subsequent referendum: https://kusama.polkassembly.io/motion/391)
As a closing thought, here’s a clip of Gavin Wood talking about his vision for Kusama in an interview with our friends at Wagmedia: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W9_2ZCUTGtI4WOQKGXg_Vblo54OxcdGU/view?usp=sharing
Special thanks to @lolmcshizz, @ThePhunky1, @pixeltrip, @TinkerGabe and @xcBirdo for their input into the KICRA campaign, and also to the rest of the GMorDIE DAO team members.
Show More
Poll:What should be the approximate deposit fees of these extrinsics on Kusama compared to on Polkadot??
Overall 48 % of users are feeling optimistic. The KICRA proposal aims to reduce entry barriers for experimentation within the Canary Network by lowering BTE fees and HRMP channel deposits on Kusama. This initiative encourages open-minded communities to launch parachains at reasonable costs, fostering innovation and chaos in line with Kusama's ethos. The proposal suggests that entry into KSM should be 1/3 to 1/5 lower than DOT, making it more accessible for smaller projects while maintaineing a balance against spamming risks....
Overall 48 % of users are feeling neutral. To enhance Kusama accessibility and foster experimentation, we propose reducing HRMP channel open/accept fees and registrar reserve requirements. These changes will encourage broader community participation without hindering innovation. We suggest implementing these adjustments through a pull request for the codebase alongside other runtime upgrades. Our DAO signatories are ready to confirm this proposal's origin if needed.
Overall 2 % of users are feeling against it. The existing fee structure hinders small project exploration due to its high cost and decreased necessity for winning slots with lower levels of KSM. This discourages experimentation and innovation within smaller ventures, negatively impacting their growth potential.
AI-generated from comments
The content indexer would be a welcome addition to this ecosystem. 👏🏿
However, I am wondering how content is going to be screened in your context.
- There are plenty of "Top 10 blockchains for XYZ" sort of articles/videos published everyday, it wouldn't make sense to index them into the PolkadotSpace.
- Opportunists who are looking for an audience/easy target often flood the internet with fake/bogus content to lure newbies into their phishing schemes. A search indexer like yours could potentially be used to these unlawful ends. 😩
TL;DR: I think there should be a mechanism for manually reviewing/removing unsuitable/inappropriate content from the indexer, BEFORE visitors see them. Of course, this would mean that you hire somebodies who are going to do these manual checks on a daily basis.
What do you say? 👀
Short Answers: Devils are in the details, i will add these details into the proposal. Thanks for pointing this out. :)
Long Answers:
Part #1 - Top articles and relevancy.
In My Opinion, there is no “TOP X articles” as part of any ecosystem. I am not the authority of the system, who am I to say, this is Top#1 xyz. I will not use that terminology in our indexer. What we will do is “Relevancy by keywords or recommendations”.
The key usage of relevancy is going to be based on several factors:
- Keywords
- Recommendation
- View times
The representation of the relevancy will be based on a percentage which will be presented by the above factors in certain mechanisms. For the purpose of this proposal, we will open the floor for discussion based on the following ratio: 20: 50: 30 as a “general concept”.
We do understand that, at the beginning of the project, the recommendations are not available and the view times will be based on “availability of data”. Our key focus is not about the TOP 10 or the TOP X of a specific topic but to categorize the articles in such a way that a “Librarian” can use. Our focus is to stipulate the needs of these articles based on the goal of the searcher. The searcher is not necessarily looking for the hottest article at the moment or all-time. They are focusing on finding info to meet their thirst for learning.
Moreover, there will be duplicate articles along the internet. Google cannot prevent it today, I am going to “try” my best to indicate duplication given the initial budget.
Part #2 - Phishing
Great point, there is overly enough information and videos that are fake on the Internet. Our initial thought process is the following and WELCOME improvement or feedback.
We are not yet the “google of polkadot”, the algorithm behind it is enormous - costs zillions of brain cells. However, the following things will be implemented to prevent phishing. However, I haven’t “seen” one reputable article with an On-chain ID who is trying to phish people.
- IP address restriction and revision/frequency will be in place.
- Modification frequency on articles will also generate alarm.
- As part of the source info, we are expecting the source data to be reputable sites who have their own mechanism of phishing prevention (no one is perfect).
- Phishing data from Polkadot.js (https://polkadot.js.org/phishing/) will also be used.
- As part of the submission/recommendation from Community, we are asking the community member to also make a call to maintain the data by being on-chain. Such an example, if Raul or Bill (sorry to pick your name) decides to confirm a such an article is a scam. The authority in name will help us to address the issue quicker.
You are absolutely correct that there is going to be a need for “manual review” process. There is no AI presently today capable of not requiring manual intervention. It is currently planned as part of the scope to have monthly data review operation cost. Unfortunately, we are not able to estimate the “outcome of that requirement” presently. When desired, with a known process, we can deliver this function to a 10$/hour help desk to lower the cost, until then we will need to pick this up on-shore which is a higher cost.
Hope that my answers will satisfy you.
Thanks for the extensive reply, @lucasyoda.
I think that my first point was misunderstood. Just to give more precision, when I mentioned "TOP 10 blockchains that xyz", I was referring to articles published around the web that lump information about multiple blockchains (including Polkadot) into one article in the hope of striking SEO gold. These articles usually don't really present much value in term of information, but they are posted by their respective platforms to boost their online visibility.
My commentary was that these sort of articles are likely to clog your indexer at some point, so it might be worth thinking about how to block them out from the get-go by your algorithm. 🤓
Your answer regarding my second point is...on point! 😁 Thank you for breaking down the entire process.
thx a lot for your support.
we are looking for making things easier with this and help the decentralization of infrastructure.
This would be great for people looking for information. An Excellent idea to simplifying how to obtain knowledge
thx you for your support!
I can see that you have a plan and ready to design/implement.
Great idea for lurker and creators. I love this idea especially the categorization and indexing, it is a good thing to try as I feel you when you are going through the search. I kind of sense from your proposal that you will also try to develop tools for validator program as you are building RPC and Archive nodes. I also agreed that we need more RPC nodes publicly in America Continent.
Just to push my always characteristic question, while that you can generate "recommendation" and the data api that you mentioned to provide, are these going to be public available to to the community including also your recommendation mechanism? I assumed yes as you offered transparency.
transparency is definitely a characteristic that we want to push forth with the project. if there are specific that you are looking for, our team will do the best to provide it, else you can help us to determine it’s feasibility. We welcome community to help and assist.
we do want to push for some additional analytic data/validator tool with archive and RPC. At this point, i can’t say too much about it as we are also still looking into it.
thx for your support,
excellent, i will be waiting for the final excitement!
Based on conversation with some veterans, we simply want to emphasize the distinguished values in proposal.
There are 2 values in this proposal
A Content indexer so that when people searched for educational or articles related to Kusama and Polkadot, we are able to provide a categorization and filtering value to the search result. The target audience is anyone who are interested in the above and wants to join or provide a little touch of their Likes as part of the community feedback to the indexing mechanism. This can be a lurker, a content creator or a technical learner.
The above will help to gather the information done by many content producers that are being posted in so many repeated location and provided a relevancy.
RPC nodes for community which we simply want to provide more capabilities to the community and infrastructure as the usage of XCM is increasing dramatically now. As part of the RPC, we also delivering additional archive nodes to reinforce the data footprint of the eco-system.
Thanks,
Discover similar proposals