Members of the Fellowship Collective involved in projects flagged by the OG tracker should provide a proper explanation, return the funds to the Treasury, or face expulsion.
Back to Medium Spender
Executed
Requested:
2.86K KSM
#456 Showcasing Polkadot’s Capabilities: The Spammening Test Run
Description
AI Summary
Votes Bubble
Timeline
Evaluation
On Chain Info
Stats
Edit: excess funds have been returned for both Kusama and Polkadot:
Date: September 2024
- Proponent: Amforc
- Requested KSM: 2860
Short description:
We propose to showcase Polkadot’s high scalability in a real-world setting by submitting enough transactions to completely fill blocks for ca. 40 minutes. To ensure that this proceeds as smoothly as possible on Polkadot and following community feedback, we would like to test it on Kusama first. To conduct this test, we require KSM to pay for the transaction fees plus to temporarily finance some existential deposits (EDs).
Note:
At least 80% of the KSM spent in fees through this proposal will be returned to the treasury (see: https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/learn-polkadot-opengov-treasury). We will also return any excess KSM remaining after spamming transactions or KSMs used for temporary EDs.
Amforc takes no cut for conducting this experiment. For full disclosure, as Amforc operates validators on Kusama, these validators may occasionally collect part of the transaction fees.
Please find the full proposal here
Show More
Please Log In to comment
11Comments
33%
0%
67%
0%
0%
Gqrk...Bogy
(Edited)
you already submitted on polkadot yesterday
https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/1169
No reason todo the same thing on 2 networks.
First do it on polkadot while you already submitted there and let's see what you can bring as an output of this hussle.
i bet you do not have any contract with a news like cointelegraph or something similar that will post numbers that you will get, 0 reason for this spam without having a contracts with news agency that will broadcast your results....
DDbQ...XVS6
Hi @KSMfun ,
Thank you for your feedback. We submitted this proposal following today's community inputs (see AAG) to ensure that this proceeds as smoothly as possible on Polkadot. The canary network of Polkadot is the ideal place for this.
You're absolutely right that we do not have contracts with external marketing agencies. That is why we'll work with Distractive to fully leverage this initiative once it is conducted on Polkadot.
JFAr...nYVt
I disagree. Trying things out on Kusama first is what I would normally expect for events like this (I even asked them in regards to the other proposal why they weren't doing it on Kusama first). Kusama was always meant for chaos.
I am not sure why you brought up news agencies, as the original submitter doesn't mention them and it seems outside the scope of the technical details of what they are asking for.
Gjqb...dyMi
[Deleted]
EVhW...2EnH
Yes, we should try this "stunt" on Kusama first.
DDCN...23EF
(Edited)
I will be voting NAY, mainly because the proposal as it stands presents a conflict of interest. If you are able to answer the following questions showing how it won't present a conflict of interest then I may consider changing my vote.
Questions:
Note: Some questions assuming that you have already performed the spammening on a testnet, but I do not know if you actual have.
1- Have you performed the spammening on a testnet yet? If so, when, and which testnet?
2- How many testnet tokens did you request and use to test this on a testnet first like Paseo Network with PAS tokens or Westend with WND tokens, and when did that occur?
3- How many testnet tokens like PAS or WND did you require to pay the transaction fees for the spammening that you conducted on a testnet?
4- How many accounts did you temporarily finance with testnet tokens like PAS or WND to provide them with an existential deposits (EDs) and why?
5- Where have you published the results that showcase the high scalability of a testnet like Paseo Testnet that you used to provide a real-world setting for this spammening by submitting enough transactions to completely fill blocks for ca. 30 minutes?
6- What were the lessons learnt from testing this on a testnet first like Paseo Network, if any?
7- How will you perform the spammening in a production environment like Kusama differently to how you did it on a testnet like Paseo Network or Westend network based on your lessons learnt from doing it on a testnet first?
8- Based on the outcomes of spammening on a testnet, if any, how did you determine the amount of tokens that would be required, and what proportion would need to be spent on fees, and what proportion would need to be returned to the treasury, if you were to also perform it in a production environment, to ensure that you do not waste too many tokens in a production environment?
9- Where and how did you market the outcomes of your spammening in a testnet environment first and where how did that affect adoption?
10- How would you compare how real-life and real-world the setting is between the following networks: Polkadot, Kusama, Westend, Paseo?
11- Is Amforc willing to share open-source the script that they intend to use on a testnet like Paseo and Westend that generates addresses (a few thousand) and that sent the tokens between those addresses?
12- Is Amforc going to share the open-source the script that they intend to on a production network like Kusama or Polkadot that generates addresses (a few thousand) and that sent the tokens between those addresses, for approval by OpenGov before they run the script?
13- What are the different quantities of tokens that will be used in each of the transactions that will be sent for each block (e.g. how many 90 DOT transactions and when, how many 285 DOT transactions and when)?
14- How is Amforc going to ensure that the public, users, developers, traders, and investors are fully aware with sufficient notice that these transactions do not reflect active address usage from real users and that the network will effectively experience downtime for them for the duration of the spammening?
15- How will Amforc ensure that the high transaction fees that this may generate that do not reflect real usage aren't marketed to make Kusama or Polkadot appear to usually have higher transaction fees compared to other networks, when this is actually one-off?
16- How is Amforc going to time when the spammening occurs on Kusama and Polkadot to avoid this presenting a conflict of interest?
For example, what is to stop Amforc timing it to coincide with the end of an OpenGov Confirmation Period of a Big Spender or similar, that prevents voters from opposing referenda that sabotage the Polkadot or the Kusama network?
For example, what is to stop Amforc choosing for the spammening to occur when specific validators and collators are chosen that they favour generating and finalising blocks on the network and being rewarding with high throughput?
Credit to Amforc for providing full disclosure that they Amforc operate validators on Polkadot, and these validators may occasionally collect part of the transaction fees.
For example, the spammening will affect on-chain data used by Santiment that allows deep diving into crypto analytics that "combines financial, social and on-chain metrics to gain valuable insights into the strength of a token, profitability, its overall behaviour and levers", such as the:
- number of active addresses https://academy.santiment.net/sansheets/functions/onchain/#san-active-addresses-24h
- number of active deposits https://academy.santiment.net/sansheets/functions/onchain/#san-active-deposits
- gas used by the affected blockchains https://academy.santiment.net/sansheets/functions/onchain/#san-gas-used
- token's network growth https://academy.santiment.net/sansheets/functions/onchain/#san-network-growth
- token's circulation https://academy.santiment.net/sansheets/functions/onchain/#san-token-circulation
- trading volume https://academy.santiment.net/sansheets/functions/onchain/#san-trading-volume
- token's velocity https://academy.santiment.net/sansheets/functions/onchain/#san-velocity
- token's transaction volume https://academy.santiment.net/sansheets/functions/onchain/#san-volume
- token's whale transaction count https://academy.santiment.net/sansheets/functions/onchain/#san-whale-transaction-count.
Noting that the spammening may trigger whale alerts on social media, since 65000 DOT is being requested, which equates to ~$300 USD, and whale transaction count is triggered for transactions that transfer more than 100k USD.
How will you ensure everyone in and outside the community knows that they may only be able to rely on NVT (Network-Value-to-Transactions-Ratio Daily Market Cap / Daily Token Circulation) since that method is said to "filters out excess transactions and provides a cleaner overview of a blockchain's daily transaction throughput" https://academy.santiment.net/sansheets/functions/onchain/#san-nvt-ratio
Sophisticated traders and investors, including Amforc themselves who may know when they are going to start the spammening, may open DOT or KSM put options in advance, or open long positions in futures markets just before they start the spammening, frontrunning the rest of the community that knows about it, and then opening short positions in futures and prediction markets like Zeitgeist if they know precisely when the spamming will finish, since in your proposal you say ca. 30 minutes, not a specific amount of blocks.
17- How will you randomize when the spammening starts and finishes and the amount of funds that will be transferred at each block to avoid there being a conflict of interest, since Amforc may be the only ones that know when that will occur? For example, how will you use the Drand Bridge Pallet to provide that source of randomness and prove that you used it, as mentioned here? https://kusama.polkassembly.io/referenda/442
18- How will the spammering use optional tips in some transactions to allow for higher priority of some over others and to test the performance of that?
19- What if a whale accounts decided to burn their own tokens during the spammening by using optional tips that are larger than those used by the spammening to achieve a higher priority when the chain is busy due to the spammening?
20- How will the community be able to review the script before it is used to ensure that an optional tip isn't provided to allow for higher priority to certain validators, potentially presenting a conflict of interest?
21- If Amforc validators, or any validators for that matter, process any blocks during the spammening, will they return the part of the collected fees that they collected during the spammening to the treasury, plus any tips for higher priority that they received?
22- Why is the link to your full proposal here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YZNxvBqmpiVvHwq0yQ0EmGsnI7eCh1pieyFQ0WoNkAM for this Kusama proposal, the same as that used for your Polkadot proposal here https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/1169 ? In it you specify the amount of DOT tokens rather than the amount of KSM tokens that you mentioned in your description.
23- Why do you mention ca. 30 minutes in your full proposal, but then show traffic for 60 minutes in the spreadsheet that you link to in it here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mAdr3ZVxlE7ETVnxzb7VMhhBVivmnCeP-jkTmpWnMLY ?
24- Why doesn't the spreadsheet link in your proposal show how many of the "generated addresses (a few thousand)" will be used each 6 seconds, and how that will vary over time?
25- How will you secure the "generated addresses (a few thousand)" that are used in the spammering to ensure that the full amount of the remaining funds may be returned the the treasury?
26- Would Amforc and all its team members be willing to sign legal documents (by legislators that do not themselves have a conflict of interest in making laws against their own interests) and have them ratified on-chain that confirms that through their participation in the spammening, they would never engage in investment practices that by nature or practice are or appear to be self-dealing or appear to be inconsistent with or violate any insider trading policies or corruption laws, or are illegal, improper, unethical or that present a real or apparent conflict of interest?
DDbQ...XVS6
Hi @ltfschoen
Some of those concerns are understandable and we won't try to sway your vote.
DDCN...23EF
@1eGtA_qy31j Would you care to answer the questions that you found understandable for myself and the rest of the Kusama community?
Also, which questions didn't you find understandable? I would be please rephrase them for you and the rest of the Kusama community?
DDCN...23EF
I watched The Spammening in AAG #167 https://x.com/TheKusamarian/status/1837446679035105615 and The Spammening on "AAG #168 - SPAM" 9:00-13:50 https://www.youtube.com/live/ytYD5wmUAR4?feature=shared&t=544 by the @TheKusamarian.
Note that my previous Question 25 relates to what security procedures you will follow to protect the funds provided from the treasury.
**Additional Questions:**
-1.1 Regarding Question 1. based on your response on AAG #168 I am going to assume that your answer is NO to this question (please correct me if my assumption is wrong), since you said at 9:20 on AAG #168 that you wanted to test in production (Polkadot) but were advised to test it on Kusama first, not as you'd planned, as you'd planned to just do it on a local fork and Paseo (resembles Polkadot).
-1.2 When do you plan to test it on a local fork and on Paseo, and how soon after could you reveal the results (to answer question 2, and 3)?
-2.2 Is there a reason why you wouldn't test it on Westend? Noting that you didn't mention Westend on AAG or in your proposal
-11.1 Regarding Question 11 and 24. in your response on AAG #167 you said that on Polkadot you would use each account once per block (every 6 seconds on Kusama) without caching using simple keep-alive extrinsics. Are you going to do that on Kusama and Paseo too?
-13.1 Regarding Question 13.1, will you provide a final version of the Spammening spreadsheet that you included in your proposal for review and approval by the Kusama community before proceding with The Spammening?
-14.1 Regarding Question 14 and Question 15, in AAG #167 you mentioned that you may have a website that may provide rewards for participation. How would you promote that website to ensure the community knows about it? Would you request @Polkadot to promote it in a public announcement on X a reasonable amount of time before The Spammening?
-18.1 Regarding Questions 18 and 19, Shawn Tabrizi mentioned in AAG #167 at 5:00 that the community could get involved in sending spam too during The Spammening. What is the minimum tip that community contributors to The Spammening would have to tip to achieve priority of their transactions over the transactions performed by The Spammening itself?
-27 Who is going to perform a risk assessment that involves by subject matter experts to determine the likelihood of The Spammening bricking the Kusama network? Who is going to fund generating a fork of Kusama and migrating the whole chain updating everything that was dependent on it and depending on it if the Kusama network gets bricked due to The Spammening? How long would users not have access to their funds and assets? Would the Kusama community vote using Polkadot OpenGov until Kusama OpenGov was migrated to a fork and it was ready to use?
DDCN...23EF
In "AAG #168 - SPAM" https://www.youtube.com/live/ytYD5wmUAR4?feature=shared&t=544, Ra from Amforc said at 9:45 that Amforc (Ra and Tugy) are here to talk and to help and to answer any reasonable questions.
If @amforc feels that any of my questions were unreasonable, could they please explain which questions they believe are unreasonable and why?
In that AAG #168 at 13:00, Jay said along the lines of "we do have the chaotic entity coming out against you (Amforc), until we can overpower them". I'm assuming that he's referring to my NAY vote, since it comprises the majority 18k out of the 33.3k total NAY votes. However, Jay doesn't appear to have even voted on this proposal yet, so I'm not sure if is fully aware of my comments and the potential ramifications.
But since Jay said "we", then that implies that he's on the side of overpowering the chaotic entity (the AYE side), however we would first need to confirm his thoughts on whether he believes it presents a conflict of interest or not (due to questions Q16, 17, and 20).
Jay didn't mention the reasons why the chaotic entity had voted against @amforc, so he may not be fully aware of my questions Q16, 17, and 20. The reason why is stated at the start of my initial comment where I said why I was voting NAY, which was because "the proposal as it stands presents a conflict of interest" (due to questions Q16, 17, and 20).
I have since sent him a tweet here https://x.com/ltfschoen/status/1838337558851272977 to make him aware of my concern, since I was concerned with how he suggested dealing with the chaotic entity "battle" by playing the general market game, because I don't believe this should be treated like a game or a "battle", and just returning more "firepower" as Ra from Amforc put it.
I believe that we should instead be working together to help reach a compromise for the community, and the next step to achieve that involves simply answering the questions, since doing so would be in the best interest of the Polkadot and Kusama networks and hopefully avoiding any damage that could be caused due to any conflict of interest arising.
If @amforc are not willing or able to answer questions Q16, 17, and 20, then I would expect the Polkadot and Kusama communities to assume that both this proposal and Amforc's Polkadot proposal https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/1169 present a conflict of interest. It would also be concerning if Amforc does not attempt to demonstrate in an update to this proposal how they would eliminate or at least mitigate the risk of a conflict of interest arising to as low as reasonably practicable.
If no changes get made to this Kusama proposal and the associated Polkadot proposal, then it would also be concerning if those that have voted AYE on them weren't able to explain why they backed a proposal that presents a conflict of interest that could have damaging repercussions for the proponent and the Kusama and Polkadot communities.
Unanswered Previous Questions: Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q13, Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q21, Q22, Q23, Q25, Q26.
Additional Questions: Q1.1, Q1.2, Q2.2, Q11.1, Q13.1, Q14.1, Q18.1.
Note that Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9 only need to be answered after Q1.1 and Q2.2 are answered.
DDbQ...XVS6
Hi @ltfschoen , we will address a subset of your questions that we believe to be relevant for other reviewers as well.
>> 1
The script will be run on Paseo first to make sure it runs as intended once we cleaned up some minor bugs.
>> 7
We will run our script from a VM that is created only for this task.
>> 11
We intend to share the script before the Spammening starts.
>> 18
No tips, allowing normal users to transact with priority.
>> 20
See above. Also, trustless verification by anyone interested can be done by inspecting the public ledger.
>> 21
No. We do not charge anything for our work, and the amounts collected by the validators are by far not enough to cover our expenses (time + legal/tax advice).
>> 25
After generating them with the script, they will be on a VM in a secure environment for the ca. 40 minutes of Spammening on Kusama.
>> 14.1 / 18.1
We are going to share the exact time and date of the Spammening. Everyone in the community is free to do their own community events around it. We will solely focus on the Spammening.
P.S. You are not the chaotic entity.
DDCN...23EF
Thanks for answering some of my questions.
Please note the following:
- I look forward to your answer to questions Q1.2 soon, given that you'll be running it on Paseo first based on your response to Q1.
- I gather the community will be able to establish the answer to Q2, Q3, Q4, Q11.1, Q12, Q13, and Q13.1 themselves based on the script that you publish for running it on Paseo.
- I look forward to your answers to Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, and Q9 after you conduct the spammening on Paseo. I gather the community will be able to answer questions Q2, Q3, Q4, Q11.1 and Q13.1 themselves based on the script that you publish for running it on Paseo, and you will help them do that.
- I have removed my request for an answer to question 2.2 since the use of Westend would be relevant to the associated Polkadot referendum.
- Since you haven't responded to Q22, I'm going to assume that in this Kusama proposal you are requesting 2860 KSM tokens, unless otherwise advised, as mentioned in the proposal description, not the amount of DOT tokens mentioned in the attached full proposal.
Additional Questions:
-Q23.1 Regarding Question 23, are you going to more accurately estimate the longest period of time that it could possibly take for The Spammening to take to finish if you incentivise the community to get involved in The Spammening? How will you discourage wreckless behaviour from the community during The Spammening that may cause it extend it for multiple days and interfere with use the use of parachains and coretime? Will those that purchase coretime during that period be able to request a pro-rata refund from the treasury?
-Q25.1 Regarding your answer to 25, what script will you use to store the private key / mnemonic seed phrase associated with with each of those accounts that you generate in the VM? Will you store them directly in a password encrypted file rather than allowing them to be output into the terminal logs? e.g. here is a script that I previously used to store them directly in a file but where the file isn't encrypted https://github.com/ltfschoen/Edgeware-seed-generating-script-SSSS
Remaining Unanswered Questions: Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q23.1, Q25.1, Q26, Q27
Dm4u...1Xkk
This test can be done here, on Kusama , Polkadot after Kusama
GATo...QuNY
I'm all for it, this is an easy way to show that Kusama is able to handle high TPS before we actually test it on Polkadot. The team is known, capable, and from my information already did all the needed previous work.
DDCN...23EF
@GAToWXwmQoMmxHKCmFJ615WbhdGRcRfyDZi7pg7PBRpQuNY
Firstly, i don't know how much KSM and conviction you're voting with. it shows you voted AYE with 0.1 KSM and 2x conviction, and i noticed that you are promoting AYE votes on X here https://x.com/Tbaut/status/1839273752661565550, but i don't think it's possible to prove whether you haven't actually voted split with NAY through a collective that has more voting power.
Secondly, i'm not sure if you are aware but @amforc has not answered the following questions that I raised that i believe are most important: Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q23.1, Q25.1, Q26, Q27. i'm assuming it is because @amforc doesn't understand those questions or is deliberately choosing to ignore them.
If this proposal represents a "conflict of interest" then it could be in violation of the "Polkadot DAO Constitution — Second Draft" — Article VIII: Ethical Standards — Section 1: The Code of Conduct https://hackmd.io/@HopeClary/H1LMNMJCA
I wonder if anyone else, such as voters with KSM and a vested interest in Kusama like yourself, would be willing to help make those specific questions more understandable for them, or to propose answers to those questions (ideally either explaining why those questions aren't a concern, or otherwise proposing one or more solutions to the question in their answer).
Note that that haven't yet done "all the needed previous work.", since for example they answered my question 1. with "The script will be run on Paseo first to make sure it runs as intended once we cleaned up some minor bugs."
GATo...QuNY
Hey Luke, idk why you're trying to change my vote or question my voting power. Also I don't have nearly as much time to invest in writing nor reading walls of text. My way of voting and promoting open gov proposals is mostly based on:
- my values
- my experience
- my network
I know the ppl behind this proposal, I trust them, I want this to happen both on Kusama and Polkadot, bc I think it makes sense. That's it, no 4d chess needed.
DDCN...23EF
@GAToWXwmQoMmxHKCmFJ615WbhdGRcRfyDZi7pg7PBRpQuNY That's cool, I'm not trying to change your vote. I'm busy like you and don't have much spare time either. It's just that you posted your question after me and you said "and from my information already did all the needed previous work", which differs from my interpretation since I likely don't have as much information about them because I don't know them like you, so 4D chess for me seems necessary, and although I've established that they're a trusted entity in the community, they don't appear to be forthcoming and concerned about clarifying the conflict of interest questions that I'm interested in Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q23.1, Q25.1, Q26, Q27, that could affect the community.
So I was curious to know whether your information on them having already done "all the needed previous work" associated with the proposal included whether they had already addressed, or even had a track record of addressing those kinds of conflict of interest questions, which I'd like to know because I would like to back the proposal if they could show how they'd address those risks or have addressed similar risks successfully in the past.
There is also another community member that I still don't actually know personally who is sending me DMs whenever I receive a reply, because they must also be concerned about those aspects of the proposal.
Fa21...tF8R
Whatever happened to Kusama's vision for embracing chaos and risks? The requested KSM is going back to the treasury and whatever is left will also be returned to the treasury. This proposal should pass. Our TPS metrics shared on crypto Twitter are a joke. Let's show our prowess through this proposal.
The largest ever recorded TPS on Polkadot is 112 TPS. This proposal aims to improve this number by 6-8 X. Think and vote. https://chainspect.app/dashboard
Hw38...c75M
AYE. We need a real benchmark, i mean a real one on prod infra.
Other chains are dealing with theoretical numbers, the tps narrative is all based on "i was told this chain makes 1000 tps, 10 000 tps", but no one ever saw these numbers.
Show me the code, show me the proof.
It's our time to show what we can do and end this endless debate. Other chains will have to do the same or they are just talking cheap.
HvjN...PGM6
I really think we should make this happen for the marketing purposes. We can also re-use these numbers later to compare to JAM. Not doing this compared to other spending seems absolutely crazy. I will address some of the questions because it seems like a problem here.
@ltfschoen 14. UIs should allow to specify tip for the transaction if the chain is congested it would be nice to see how we can handle this in general i.e. polkadot.js apps does allow this. I believe that this will be widely marketed on twitter and in the discord accounts to prevent confusion. As stated before, there will be no tips on the spammening transactions, so that anybody can include their transactions with minimal tip. 15. Transaction fee ramp up function is slow and it's not gonna affect the price that much. https://research.web3.foundation/Polkadot/overview/token-economics#2-slow-adjusting-mechanism if I count correctly it's gonna change maximum 75% per day as per these settings https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/df12fd34e36848a535892b1e88281faa59bf34b6/polkadot/runtime/common/src/lib.rs#L96 16+. (Conflict of interest) I would expect the script to have pre-defined start and end block set publicly before the script is started to prevent confusion and enable other agents to conduct their own tests. Also, the notion of selecting time for specified validators to pick up extra fees is trivial to solve and is also very unlikely to ever be a problem as it would require crazy amount of work for gaining small amount of funds and destroying reputation which doesn't make any sense. The block production lottery is selected in the epoch before and thus is unpredictable if the blocks are selected upfront.
All in all @Amforc is publicly facing respected member of the community, running multiple services, attending conferences and promoting the ecosystem as a whole. I trust that he is doing this for the good of the community in his spare time and for free because he cares. It would be ridiculous for him to destroy his reputation for this.
Side note: Proposals like these failing sends a bad signal to people wanting to do something cool, as the grift passes relatively unhindered and this has to go through 3d chess politics and scrutiny to pass. It is really demotivating. We should find a way forward from this situation otherwise the cool things won't get even started or fail on governance.
DDCN...23EF
@HvjNJ7hY1dXayUV5vbvurSvEWgKGkVbyXafKfnyDLm2PGM6 Hi Jack, I'm still concerned about Question 17 and 27 as shown in this "Issues / Questions Register - Kusama Referendum 456" https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h8EJPiksLEeH1DCifxqvWBAxROg7YfBgU_J0lXAf40o/edit?usp=sharing
HvjN...PGM6
@ltfschoen I think that 17. is a no concern if the block is chosen upfront enough (at least one day) I would not try to randomize it as that brings more problems and questions than it helps. Also Kusama has 1000 validators. There will be 300 blocks built in the period of 30 minutes. That corresponds to (2860/300)*0.2 = ~1.9KSM per block for validator... I think even if in the scenario they land couple of these blocks, this is absolutely non issue and I would consider it as thank you for making this work. I think we wasted more money in time by even talking about this. 27. The chance of Kusama network stalling is slim to none. There were multiple occasions where there were multiple full blocks including the famous Remark spam back in the day, and if this would happen, it would mean all of the testing and protection measures failed which is very bad for the developers which I'm sure will be watching this also so they will be up to fix it. In any way, parity runs multiple testnets to try to simulate these scenarios with replicated states and I am sure putting transactions to the chain is zero concern. Kusama at the moment has very low traction and doing this is something that can get it on the map.
DDCN...23EF
@HvjNJ7hY1dXayUV5vbvurSvEWgKGkVbyXafKfnyDLm2PGM6 If this proposal gets approved and you do The Spammening on Paseo Network, but it bricks that network, will you still proceed with also doing The Spammening on Kusama Network anyway? Or is proceeding with The Spammening on Kusama Network after approval of this proposal conditional on the Paseo Network not being first bricked by The Spammening?
HA55...oQjZ
I got this tattoo the last year in honor of this damn referendum, before I even knew about it 💦.
Expect Chaos on Kusama please. Be kind, make decisions and act, do not argue about unnecessary things, no one has to prove how intelligent and blameless they are, move. Thanks.
Discover similar proposals
#509
E5qF...tqrg
Deciding
KSM RFP #1 - Shielded Kusama Hub Transfers - $50k Total Prize!
See More
Treasurer
Treasurer
#509 KSM RFP #1 - Shielded Kusama Hub Transfers - $50k Total Prize!
E5qF...tqrg
This RFP was adapted over several weeks on AAG to turn a treasury proposal in discussion to an RFP with refined scope and oversight.
To apply for the prize pls fill out this form.
Prize Pool: $43,000
Finder’s Fee: $2,000 **
Supervisors: $5,000
Supervisors (Bounty Curators)
- Flipchan
- Byte (Erin)
- James Slusser
Excess or unused funds will be returned to the treasury by Bounty Curators.
Timeline
Monday, March 17 - AAG Discussion & this forum post! ✅
Monday, March 24 - Single-ref Bounty + Curators ✅
4 Weeks after Bounty Funding - Submission Deadline Thursday
July 31 - Project Completion (Pending Kusama Hub Launch)
Project Scope
Smart Contract Development
- A Solidity-based smart contract deployed on Kusama Hub
- ZK enabled for private deposits & withdrawals
- Compatibility with all Kusama Hub assets
User Interface
- Browser-based, mobile-ready UI hosted on IPFS
- Support for: Deposits, Withdrawals, Transfers, XCM Transfers
- Compatible with popular ecosystem wallets (Nova Wallet, Talisman, Subwallet)
Anti-correlation Attack Mitigations:
- Fixed deposit amounts (e.g. 1, 10, 100, 1000 units)
- Batch payouts for withdrawals to multiple users
Interoperability - Ability to receive assets via XCM from any Kusama-connected parachain and transfer them to Kusama Hub for use in shielded pool.
Open-Source Delivery
- All code (smart contracts and UI) published under the MIT license
- Publicly accessible repositories Project updates shared transparently via Polkassembly, Subsquare, or Polkadot Forum from Team with Milestone deliveries
- Developer & User documentation
Milestones
Milestone 1, Initial Pools & Basic UI:
$16,200 USD
1 month
- Tests - Smart contract test
- Smart contract - ZK shielded smart contract with KSM and multi asset support on Westend or Paseo
- Basic UI - A basic UI for interacting with the smart contract
Milestone 2, UI + XCM:
$9,900
1 month
- Tests - tests for all features
- User interface design - UI design
- XCM transfers - XCM transfer assets in UI
- Fixed amount transfer only - Allow fixed amount transfers in the UI
Milestone 3, Mainnet Deployment:
$16,900
1 - 1.5 months
- Contract Migration to Kusama Assethub - Migrate contract from Testnet to Kusama Hub
- Public documentation - Documentation for using Kusama shield and developer integration documentation
- Test - tests for contract
- V1 UI - User tested & something we can be proud of
** re: Finder’s Fee: this payment is set aside to incentivize a broad search for the right implementor. Finder’s Fees are paid out at time of team engagement. Teams that submit themselves can collect their own Finder’s Fee at completion of project.
See More
Deciding
