I still feel bad about that.
Certainly everyone is under pressure.
One thing that particularly bothers me though is that when folk get worked up the reasons for it are not clear.
My gut tells me the go to perception is “it’s about money” which I 100% believe is not true, at least not for the the old timers who have undoubtedly put way more time than money into this.
Time is a significantly more valuable resource.
My concerns have always been rooted in Integrity, being true to the fundamentals, and most of all this being “for everyone”.
It pisses me off when it’s repeatedly framed as “folk go bad where money is concerned”. That’s not always the issue and has never been mine. I knew the risk.
I also gave my time willingly, only doing things I wanted to do, so that isn’t a concern in itself. There it again comes back to Integrity - in the form of respect - which fell off a cliff IMO.
Absolutely, we are here by free will.
Hopefully it is not lost to all though that not all emotional reactions stem from financial origin.
This particular issue, now resolved, was brewing for a while and early attempts to sort it out, perhaps poorly communicated, fell on deaf ears, even worse there was reluctance to even acknowledge a potential issue.
Anyway, it’s fixed, we got some stick, we got some carrot and hopefully soon we get some uploads too.
I agree, we need to have more calm and less emotionally charged discussions. Hopefully as things improve and get better folk can see it’s working. It will always be too slow for some and not an all out war for others.
There’s changes everywhere here, even in the teams viewpoints and the shift from small networks to the production network, that I hope we can see continue to grow, but of course with uploads working much better. We have some thoughts and great internal discussions on more monitoring and probes for the network to confirm the close groups are stable, the whole network is visible and much more. I want to make sure downloads are actually not only working but are very efficient and that allows us to ignore the money part immediately and see the network part, alone. Then move to the economy part that includes those extra steps for payments etc.
In addition the parallel network we will run to all folk to devlop and test without costing money will help, but again that will be a small network and can tell us some things, but the real analysis has to shift to the production network. That is happening as we speak. It’s just not instant and we cannot make it instant, but hopefully we can be smart with the team and resources we have.
It’s not easy to concentrate for all the shouting and passive aggressive quips etc. So I hope we can all get to a place where we understand it’s happening and get the forum and discord places where the devs don’t feel so much under pressure to “do X now I demand it” type stuff. That’s all short sighted and mostly blind.
We can get this, it’s amazing so far, so let’s get together and make it happen. So perhaps we can keep the money motivated or screams to kill folk chat out of the tech threads a wee bit and let the team engage directly and with clear purpose.
Yes, I am a dreamer and optimist that want’s it all to just be smooth 
I know I know.
Hey, Since network is already “live” post-TGE, I was a bit confused by the ‘Impossible Futures’ timeline… is the Alpha Net launching in April a separate test network that doesn’t use real ANT? And does the Live Net launch in August mark the point where everything from the Impossible Futures competition merges into the main network with real token utility? or is the network itself being upgraded?
There will be a separate testnet, it will not be the live network and the real ant tokens will not be used.
Check out the Dev Forum
@JimCollinson @Bux Early into emissions is the best time to fix a lop-sidedness caused by emissions.
Background
My suggestion is that while it is early on without the weight of many months/years pushing back we make a change for the short term.
The suggestion is that emissions are reduced a lot while uploads are not working and we cannot get a balanced network with nodes actually storing data.
The nodes are like 2D objects being stacked on top of each other like paper in a reams of paper making a pile of useless sheets. Its just a theoretical network at the moment
Proper balanced network is more like 3D objects actually taking up space and can construct a real network. And emissions should reflect this.
Lets stop reinforcing the lop sided network and encourage a healthy network. Reduce emissions until uploads are working properly.
I realise that the big node operators will not like this proposal at all since it’d mean they cannot rake in as much and support their exponential growth of nodes to rake in more, but this network is worth more than that, worth more than promotional figures, and until the balance with records being uploaded and stored we are just a mining exercise with emissions as the rewards. Lets lower emissions a lot until the network is balanced with records being stored to warrant the normal levels of emissions I am not saying get rid of them, but reduce them by a lot to stop supporting those running underperforming nodes on crippled servers due to number of nodes, and then bring them back to normal once people can upload records to justify the normal emissions rate.
And @JimCollinson @Bux I truly disagree with the comment that it is too early to change things like emissions. This isn’t changing the concept or long term emissions but a pause, if you will, giving reduced emissions till uploads are working. It is the perfect time to do this before the weight of time makes it difficult and less right
Totally agree, once the network works it will also attract more users so those emissions should cast far and wide.
Right now they are going to a handful of folk doing nothing, if we are honest they are likely going to folk who are harming the network.
If we knew the fix was imminent fine, that seems unlikely. We could potentially be doing this for months.
Surely it is logical that emissions should scale with adoption.
Magic numbers of emissions tied to no factor other than dates on a calendar is the antithesis of the networks design.
It’s also taking away rewards to those smaller node runners who are using the recommended 35gb storage requirement, preventing them running more nodes.
The big players aren’t limited by this storage requirement. They are clearly running nodes with little storage to maximise emissions yield. Why wouldn’t they?
Emissions are risking alienating many home node runnners that are new to autonomi. This is at the expense of feeding whales for their paper nodes.
Imo, the emissions can only support network growth as desired, once network storage rewards are more dominant. The incentives are perverse atm.
I think you’re missing a very important reason why millions of nodes are very, very useful right now. For any potential big investor, this will be a significant factor. We know that Autonomi Labs is raising seed capital from big investors ( we know they are looking for big players because they don’t want money from us the small players):
Check out the Dev Forum
good luck with that when the network is more like a NotWork.
50 million nodes makes an impressive 2nd slide on the pitch presentation. Shame about the meat needed on 3rd nd 4th slides. Autonomi Labs needs the SAFE community to take them forward to where all @Bux and @JimCollinson 's fancy words can mean something.
The way I see it there are only 2 sides to this coin.
as usual put perfectly @neo wish there was a supper like button !
my vote would be cut emissions and get a healthy network without the overloaded origami mess.
I might re-use that…
I think that’s pretty cynical at this stage, but what do I know?
Everyone here seems to want and need the network to be a success though. Even Autonomi Labs in whatever shape/form they take. Indeed, a working Autonomi Network is pretty much a prerequisite for any such spin off company to have a market.
At that point, emissions are not needed, as the network will be incentivised to stay in balance based on demand for uploads. Excessive node number growth doesn’t support network growth any more than balanced growth.
While I don’t like the idea of emissions at any point, at least a by-product of emissions so far is that some scaling issues have been exposed & can be addressed while the network is young.
So, emissions may have already achieved more than they ever will in the future.
I still dislike the economic waste of emissions, but I’m very glad it’s 20% supply and not the original 70%!
I’d much prefer the emissions allocation to be used as prizes to ‘Impossible Futures’ participants over many rounds. Bigger prizes = higher caliber projects = more value to Autonomi ecosystem, which in turn delivers better returns to node operators than purely diluting direct payments to them via emissions.
I should stop dissing emissions anyway… they’re coded into the smart contract, and the team is set on them, and I don’t want to be a pest 
I actually corrected myself from ‘dominant’ to ‘more dominant’ for similar reasons.
Supporting storage rewards seems like the ideal place to be, not replacing them.
You are correct, I think this is a lost battle.
Unless I fail to restrain myself , final words, in comparison to the incredible effort that went into the network design, emissions in it’s current form is as I said earlier the complete opposite more like a afterthought.
Emission amounts are manually loaded into the smart contract, so it can be changed to another smart contract:
Check out the Dev Forum
