Hi @ethernomad,

It's an interesting-sounding approach, but I have two questions:

1. The proposal claims that the indexing solution it offers is decentralized. I can see from the code that it provides proof data, which can present an advantage compared to the indexing solutions we currently have available. But does the system have any decentralized consensus on these proofs, or the indexed data? If so, can you please point me at the consensus logic in the code? My personal opinion is that if we want a truly decentralized solution to indexing, then the Substrate node itself should be extended so that it would allow certain built-in indexing logic to be activated on the node through a switch(es).
2. It seems to me that your indexing model is not very flexible/dynamic. You're relying on pre-determined event structures as demonstrated in acuity-index-substrate/blob/master/src/substrate_pallets.rs and acuity-index-polkadot/blob/master/indexer/src/pallets.rs. It can present a problem also when you are indexing backwards as demonstrated in your Quick Start document too. For example, some events are named differently in older runtimes, and can have different fields. How are you planning to introduce more flexibility?

Overall, my opinion so far is that it can be an interesting piece of technology, but it needs more thinking and a better, more comprehensive design. In its current form, it's not offering too much progress. Please let me know if I'm overlooking any information.

Regards,
kukabi | Helikon

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is AYE.

The Small Spender track requires 50% participation and simple majority of non-abstain votes according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received three aye and zero nay votes from ten available members, with three members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

In the recent referendum, voters expressed a mix of support and hesitation regarding the proposal. Some supported it, viewing the request as modest and beneficial for usability, while others abstained, citing a need for more information and clarity on the project's impact and external validation. Concerns were raised about the lack of responses to previous inquiries, indicating a desire for transparency and assurance before committing to the initiative. Overall, the feedback reflected a cautious yet hopeful outlook on the project's potential benefits.

The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate

📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate