You still haven’t solved the problem of the capacity to store the Archive, have you?
Yes, that is correct and in principle I like the canister-per-user concept. At least for “power users”. For the average user I think it increases onboarding friction, maintenance burden, costs and latency. I am looking for something more lightweight.
For the archive we have an on-chain archive (completed, in testing) to store the history of all successful transactions. This should be fine as a minimal solution sufficient for launching a real ledger. It is publicly accessible and would serve as a backup in case the ledger gets bricked. We can have a mix of fees and rate limits in the ledger to make sure that the archive does not get too large (say does not occupy more than one subnet). That way we can push out off-chain archives to be a future task.
An archive is not an index. It does not provide search by various keys. But I think it’s ok to launch a ledger without an index/explorer as long as the fulll history can be read chronologically.
Hi @timo and the research team,
I’m very interested in the progress of HPL and its potential to significantly enhance the capabilities of the Internet Computer. Are there any updates you can share regarding its development or any plans for public testing and deployment?
The prospect of 10,000 TPS is exciting, and I’m eager to see how HPL could empower new applications on the IC.
Thanks for your ongoing work!
There aren’t any updates. HPL could be launched if we figured out the governance. Who controls the HPL ledger and who can decide on upgrades? A community has to form who can take on these things and who can do the initial deployment.
Shall we put HPL under NNS control? Then every update requires an NNS proposal.
Shall we create an SNS for controlling HPL? SNS does not seem to be designed for it. It has governance tokens, neurons with a lock up period and is designed for raising money. For HPL it is not clear what the incentive is to hold and lock up governance tokens. It is also not clear why we should raise money or how an SNS can be created without raising money.
Shall we develop a new form of governance for HPL?
Couldn’t you collaborate with an established SNS like waterneuron and put the canister under the DAO then every update goes through the DAO?
That’s one option. The problem I see with an SNS is that it is ultimately secured by the value of the governance token of that SNS which has no relation to and can be far less than the assets at stake. The assets at stake are all asset that live on HPL combined. I think the security that can be delivered by an SNS isn’t high enough for that reason.
If going into that direction of governance then it would have to be the NNS.
Maybe the future canister snapshots can be used to fork a canister and that can give us more options for governance.
SNSes governance can be customized a bit. One day maybe become modular. If you put a lot of voting power inside a blackholed canister on initialization, then the canister can have another supporting governance system and reward elected devs who contribute and verify upgrades. That canister votes in the SNS. After all even with the NNS governing it, it will be as secure as the people who are checking the upgrades. You could make HPL take % of all transaction fees, exchange to the SNS token and burn it. Just a technical solution tho. I think we should stick with SNS, it’s getting a lot of tools, dashboards, analytics you won’t have if you make a custom dao.
Does the blackholed canister have more than 50% of voting power or less? If more than 50% then I wonder why other people are interesting in holding SNS tokens because they cannot influence the vote. They only have financial interest because they can profit from fees?
I don’t understand what exactly the benefit of the indirection with the blackholed canister is. We could also give the elected devs direct voting power in the SNS without the canister. Is the idea to give them voting power without financial stake? If the blackholed canister needs another governance mechanism then what have we gained compared to not using an SNS?
The custom gov canister could probably have 99.999% and 0.001% just for the launch to go trough. Then the gov system will be completely custom.
The benefits on top of my head:
- The dao won’t be governing it’s own ledger, also it will get upgrades blessed by the NNS
- The dashboard will add it and it will have indexer & browser (only SNSes have that there)
- Proposals will be visible in the dashboard as well
- Cycle monitoring tools work on SNSes
- DEXes will work with it since it will be icrc ledger
- Stats sites like icpcoins will work
All these things and a lot more will need to be developed for a custom dao without SNS.
Actually that gov canister doesn’t have to be blackholed, it could be governed by itself.
I mean, that is if you want a custom governance system. Then the SNS will be like a shell that gets the DAO to work with existing tools
If the custom gov canister hold 99.999% then the governance token won’t be used for moving it around or trading so anything related to ledger, dex and stats sites will be irrelevant, or?
I was thinking that since a ledger is so sensitive it should upgrade very infrequently. A new version should be frozen and tested for 6 months before it goes live. So we have an upgrade cycle of maybe once per year.
Maybe we can give a dev team the power to halt the ledger if there is a bug detected. So they can stop it immediately in emergency situations, but not upgrade it.