The network is small, does not make sense that the team should need to come and ask the community to try and do it’s best, i think they expect it. Defend it while it is small and voulnerable so it can grow big, it can’t be the other way around for logical reasons.
You have to have a mutual server, join the Autonomi Discord first
While I find it awkward to agree, it is hard to disagree with your points.
David has been a huge inspiration and driving force of the R&D for this project. We have to thank and admire him for that. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. Having David busy doing what he enjoys, contributing where useful, is an asset though. It just can’t be the focus, imo.
I suspect David and those around him also understand this though. I think the first ‘roadmap’ call may have been a stark reminder of this too.
So, in that respect, I hope emphasis and support remains in 100% in place to those who are leading the delivery. Bux, Nick and the devs themselves. The latter are likely unsung heroes who are keeping this show on the road, tbh.
I do think that once the foundations are sturdy, the token price can appreciate, which will help to support the team and the community. With a 3 year runway, I think there is ample time to get to that point.
On the community, I continue to be disappointed too. The team have always been great to work with directly, but some how, the broader interactions just need to work better. So much support and goodwill has been sacrificed.
10 Likes
I just think that the Network at the moment is not worth for defending. Come some fixes and see the bad guys as the only problem, then I would agree.
EDIT: Or, I mean, get a deep analysis from the team about the effects of bad actors.
Then who is going to run the nodes which makes the network worth defending?
Anyone who finds it worthwhile for whichever reasons. I’m not actually against anyone having other than monetary incentives to run a node and to do so. I just provide a counter point to have a discussions if it is worthwhile.
I agree with you @tobbetj but a large part of the problem is that those dedicated to the project raised concerns about the negative effect of emissions and it was/remains ignored and defended.
Who is in support of it?
Why is there not even a slight compromise?
9 Likes
IMO (scratched record time… 
) there isn’t much we can do to defend it, while emissions continue to shoot it in the foot.
I can support a network that is storing data, by providing reliable storage. What can I do to support a nearly empty network, with economic incentives to maintain that situation?
7 Likes
My guess is the team, other than taking time off over Christmas, want to see how it’s going in the wild before making bigger announcements about being ready for larger uploads.
Given the testing by Mightyfool shows data loss, I expect publicity won’t be much of a priority yet.
If data loss gets sorted, the Merkle upgrade does remove a huge barrier for large uploads due to the ETH fee reduction.
So, we’re waiting on solving the data loss, and building user experiences that work for people.
If the community devs had been prioritised over the past several months since IF, I expect we’d have a whole bunch of interesting user experiences waiting for the network to be functioning properly, so that seems like a big missed opportunity.
It’d be great if the major network issues are resolved soon and focus can shift to product and user experience. Not sure how likely that is, but let’s see what 2026 brings.
6 Likes
I get the immediate presumption from @tobbetj graph up above is that probably the network is smaller so he is earning more share of the emmisions pool.
But.. also, have we switched to year 2 emmision schedule yet? If not when?
Dates would be handy on this schedule, which may I add increases because of what magic number that says nowish is a good time to do so?
Bux has been vocal about this in the past. We are not on year 2 yet. She wants network stability and increased usability before increasing the emission that currently goes into the hands of bad actors. They do intend to use the emission that is not being used now for other purposes somewhere down the line when it contributes the most to the network.
2 Likes
Maybe they all understand that, but it doesn’t seem that they understand that a leader that would make it all work might be necessary. Bux is probably good choice for CEO, but I think the project would benefit a technical leader below her, that would make it all more organized.
I also suspect, that David’s tendencies towards exploring the cutting edge all the time does not allow A) anyone else leading him or B) he himself committing to any set of “rules” for long enough time. It’s the spirit of freedom and exploration that prevents anything to become set in stone.
At least for me that was one wake up moment.
And when I think about the company against the backdrop of AI pushing developers out of work, the constellation where David withdraws into to his cave with his AI enthusiasm to develop (alone?) something that might make a lot of the work of others obsolete in a few months, it looks pretty bad in my opinion. Below is a quote of what he said in Discord 15.12.2025:
There will be a day when software crytographic attestation works. That will be explosive and will mean nodes can confirm other nodes are running exactly the code they should. No more no less. At that time, our network, software and code is completely secure. In that space, native token or ANY software can convey any digital asset from node to node, form person to person wtih 100% integrity. No need for proof of work or stake, no blockchian, no smart contract, just pure simple software defined simple rules.
So he is working for a total revolution, while others do… something that he aims to make old fashioned as soon as possible, working day and night? That doesn’t sound like a good team work. And just based on how his research project was first published in the “roadmap” call made at least me think that this is the way forward. And maybe it is, but what a mess for from organizational point of view.
Say no more.
The fact that I, as a long term follower, don’t know who is leading the technical development, is quite depressing when thinking about the possibility for any wider enthusiasm and trust for the project and the organization behind it. It’s just not very presentable. Also, I think that the trust of this community is running on the fumes of the gas that was there once, but is no more.
2 Likes
This is when it gets annoying, we couldn’t adjust the emissions to stop the node whales for one reason or another but we can alter the emmisions for other reasons 
6 Likes
Also, when I look at the roadmap, I see lot’s of various apps and other bits and pieces. But the things I’m most interested in are not anywhere there, namely:
- Data permanence
- Truly decentralized architecture
- Handling bad nodes
- “Declaration of privacy” - meaning some kind of product description in regards how to best use the network in a way that ensures your privacy - and what kind of privacy benefits and pitfalls are there?
All in all the Roadmap seems to assume that the base network is just fine, which is not the case in so many ways. And the tasks that are needed to fix that are not listed.
5 Likes
It’d be Feb would it not be. Emissions started in Feb of 2025
That was my suggestion, that the emissions be scaled by amount of data stored. Some factor of %age of “fullness”. Some algo, doesn’t have to be linear, and when emissions reaches the levels in the white paper then it is limited at that.
They showed there was no need for legals to do this sort of change, they did double the emissions for one day without consulting legals/paperwork/hindrances. This change I suggested does not require changing the white paper, it is just a change to the daily rate that is made up when more data is stored.
That results in nodes being encouraged to join at a time when they are needed rather than leeches running nodes without enough storage to back them up. Like the multiple who turn off their nodes to wipe the records so they can run 50% more for some 12? hours.
@Toivo My suggestion with QUIC/QUINN was handed over to @joshuef at a time when he must have gone on leave, gotten sick, moved on, move job position in the company (We do not know and its best we leave it that way now) and because of that the suggestions about window size was not taken up by any other devs.
5 Likes
Seems the bad node whale might be earning less and has to shut down nodes more and more, network seema smaller, but too early to tell.
2 Likes
Think the year 2 might be in mars but at this time it might be better to lower it some.
1 Like
Was it so, that Joshuef was at a lead position? In that case it is somewhat understandable that it was not taken care of by someone else. Anyway I think it is such an important detail, that it should have been delegated to someone else. I’m, not going to pry, but I want to say that I miss Joshuef. I did / do like the guy, the little I learned to know him during his active years here.
No to say that I would have anything against anyone else either. Even if I single out David in some of my statements, it is not because I would have anything against him in person. To add to some of the positive things I have said about him, I want to add that I don’t doubt his motives or anything like that, and his determination is just incredible.
I guess I could say that I have no complaints about any specific thing, but everything in general. And that points back to too little team and/or something off in the organizational side.
Another example is that every time there is a release, I pray that it doesn’t break more than it fixes. I take that as a sign that the development is under resourced and / or lacking structure.
***
Also, I speak my mind this way, because I want my thoughts and observations to be challenged. All this is just my views that I have brewed with the material from this Forum, Discord and Github.
(Another person that I miss is community member @mav. He was once very active, but not been around lately.)
4 Likes
For sure this type of node drop will cause data loss yet again, that’s 33% of nodes disconnecting?
This network needs to grow first, become truly decentralized. People have to be willing to run nodes at a loss for now.
At this point in time it seems any bad actor with a couple thousand USD can de-stabilize this network and cause permanent data loss, how crazy is that?
2 Likes
Or, the earning system needs to be tweaked somehow. Maybe some sort of necessity to stay around for longer time before earning, to make the loss hurt the nodes dropping that way, and not sticking around.
There is not necessarily any bad intentions behind the sudden drops, see the excerpt from Discord below:
To make 500 000 nodes to be more like 5% of the network instead of about 33% that it is now, would require quite a lot of volunteering from others. The amount of nodes should be around 5M nodes instead of 1.5M. The missing 3.5M nodes is quite a lot to run on negative balance.
1 Like