Nov 4 Update from Bux

[Profess]

@Dimitar

Of course, it could also turn out that a network starting with fewer nodes performs better, grows faster, and attracts more users. It would be great to see an alternative network launched where these ideas can be tested — and, if proven successful, perhaps applied to Autonomi as well.

---

@neo

@Dimitar

Of course, it could also turn out that a network starting with fewer nodes performs better, grows faster, and attracts more users.

I do believe this is a no-brainer. Big uploaders look at the network and se large number of nodes being run without the storage to back them up. And they will do their due-diligence and see that its not sustainable while this is the case. A smaller more dynamic network will attract them more

@JimCollinson In August 2024, I proposed this solution and explained it several times, I foresaw the current problems and suggested that we at least discuss the creation of two parallel networks, but unfortunately I either received no response or read responses (including from team members) saying that it was a bad idea, it is a pity that the advantages of this proposal have only been recognised today:

@Profess

@dirvine

@Profess

I will ask perversely, is there really no alternative to this approach?

There are many, but time and money need considered. i.e. do somewhat or ponder everything

I wonder if it would be possible to run two Autonomi networks, and I don’t mean a bifurcation but two parallel, twin networks:

• The first would be the original network with the Native Token, which would allow development and testing as originally conceived, the team could develop the token on it and innovate, eliminate problems and bugs etc, and developers could test and develop applications on it, it would not be burdened by regulation and legal requirements because the token would not be listed anywhere and would have a clearing value, and it would be created by all those willing to create it who are looking for the utility value of the network, not just tokenomics, you could say it would be a technology sandbox, and this would facilitate testing and experimentation without complicating the work and operation of the commercial network (ERC20),
• The second would be a prepared network with the ERC20 Token implemented, meeting adaptations to regulations and legal requirements, which would allow partners’ expectations to be met and would be developed in accordance with the adopted tokenisation, with TGE implementation etc., as in the Native network, the team would carry out development work and developers would develop applications using the adopted tokenomics,

Sure the idea seems ridiculous and maybe the thought is just very silly but it occurred to me:

• perhaps separating the work on the Native Token network and the work on the ERC20 network would allow the objectives to be achieved more easily, as each network would have different scalability and technological priorities, I am not in a position to assess this, but numerous statements indicate that the changes made to the ERC20 network will cause many complications, which will probably not facilitate the work on the objectives set,
• the Native network could use the dev forum, so as to simplify the flow of information, transparency of work etc, and the work on the ERC20 network would remain in the community forum, I know that for the team this could be some discomfort but it is possible that overall the transparency of work on individual problems would be more beneficial though,
• As the two networks would be twinned, all errors detected and updates developed could be mutually implemented in the common part (i.e. the data storage layer),
• the costs of the Native Network appear to be small for the project, as the infrastructure is created by the users, and the scale of the network would ultimately be an interpretation of its sophistication and market assessment, the team would have freedom in many areas of the work, and with the risk of attempts to bifurcate the network greatly reduced, full control would remain in the hands of MaidSafe,
• I don’t know what the future of these networks could look like, but the market could judge for itself which solution is better and which it wants to use, I have no idea if this is possible and it’s just speculation, but - maybe it would be possible to merge these networks in the future, since the storage layer would be exactly the same and each network would have its own token with its own genesis, while in the current assumptions about the future there is a flexible option offering the choice of Native or ERC Token,
• no one could accuse you or the Board of Directors that the original Native network has been abandoned for any interests, and that it will not be developed.

I don’t know if I’ve drifted too far away with this idea but could it at least be worth looking into?