Treasury Proposal: Polkawatch Decentralization Analytics Parachain Support and Continued Operation.
Hi Community,
We recently launched Polkawatch decentralization analytics on Kusama, and Nomination Pools support.
The community is becoming more and more aware of the need for effective decentralization in our Ecosystem.
The interest peaked with a recent deplatforming event of Solana nodes by a Network operator.
We are been contacted by other teams of our community: Wallets, Parachains, Data Scientists, etc That want access to the data and help contribute to bringing awareness to the ecosystem. Which I think is good news.
Parachains are secured by the rely chain, but they are still vulnerable to censorship. Censorship could come from dishonest collators, deplatforming from network operators or sudden regulatory changes from hosting Countries. Despite been secured by the rely chain, parachains would benefit from decentralization analytics too.
On this proposal we aim to bring parachain support for Polkawatch, on top of continued operation of the service and other minor improvements.
You can access the detailed proposal here.
Comments (4)
Comments (4)
This is such a good tool to raise awareness about the state of decentralisation in this ecosystem! It's not just for dev teams and power users, but also for statistical evidence on the work that is being done re: regulatory discussions.
It would be great to see Polkawatch's functionalities expanded onto Parachains, indeed.
However, I have noticed that your dapp is also using hosting services from Hetzner, meanwhile they have given a negative statement on the use of their platform for PoS-related applications here. Isn't Polkawatch worried that its dapp could also, one day, be affected by a ban from Hetzner? If so, isn't it worth investigating other (less ambivalent) providers from now on?
Thanks for your time. :)
@anaelleltd thanks for the support to expand to parachains.
Yes, you are absolutely right about Hetzner dependency in our deployment.
We are indeed planing to act on the Hetzner issue and move some infra.
There are some points that make our life easier:
- Significant part of the infra is hosted in our own datacenter.
- Most critical part of the customer facing part is hosted on IPFS, which is very easy to migrate. Thanks to our Distributed Data Pack architecture.
- Our operational model is based on 100% automated infra. Migrating should be easy.
The big question about Hetzner is whether others like OVH will follow suit. So I was thinking on looking for a more permanent solution, such as additional infra hosted somewhere out of EU-US.
I did not want to introduce infra changes so early (we only released last Quarter) but perhaps it would make sense to get IPFS up from a second network. That seems like a 20% effort for 80% of benefit.
This is such a good tool to raise awareness about the state of decentralisation in this ecosystem! It's not just for dev teams and power users, but also for statistical evidence on the work that is being done re: regulatory discussions.
It would be great to see Polkawatch's functionalities expanded onto Parachains, indeed.
However, I have noticed that your dapp is also using hosting services from Hetzner, meanwhile they have given a negative statement on the use of their platform for PoS-related applications here. Isn't Polkawatch worried that its dapp could also, one day, be affected by a ban from Hetzner? If so, isn't it worth investigating other (less ambivalent) providers from now on?
Thanks for your time. :)
@anaelleltd thanks for the support to expand to parachains.
Yes, you are absolutely right about Hetzner dependency in our deployment.
We are indeed planing to act on the Hetzner issue and move some infra.
There are some points that make our life easier:
The big question about Hetzner is whether others like OVH will follow suit. So I was thinking on looking for a more permanent solution, such as additional infra hosted somewhere out of EU-US.
I did not want to introduce infra changes so early (we only released last Quarter) but perhaps it would make sense to get IPFS up from a second network. That seems like a 20% effort for 80% of benefit.