What is this exactly? Just some internal test network element, or does it affect nodes/clients?
The link is broken.
4 Likes
Firstly, thank you for the update, thank you for all the hard work that has gone into getting us here, both by those who got namechecked and those who slave away in the background. Thank you to the community brains for their contributions as well.
But…
I know the devs are busy, I know the non-dev team members are all terribly overworked and in a hurry but surely to eff a project like this should not be posting 404s?
Sorry to be a downer but this just looks pure amateurish…
It really jars with the amazing tech innovation and hard work that has been demonstrated in this update and the many before it that we stll get this crap. Just how hard is it to click on the link to check it before it is posted?
Especially on what is to be a flagship game-changer app aimed to the professional sector.
3 Likes
I just requested this to be fixed, sorry!
5 Likes
[EDIT: as always this is my opinion based on what can be seen, experience, and evaluation of all that]
That is what i was talking about. Its not about manipulating emissions, but manipulating their node numbers which resulting in a greater share of emissions due to more nodes being seen in the network
BTW the wiping they described wipes the whole node away, not just its data, so it comes back as a new node with new peerID.
This is an extension of what now seem a long time issue where resetting nodes (months and months ago) increase node’s presence on the network and thus better reachability and thus higher numbers of quote responses.
The team fixed the aspect of reachability and we all thought this exploit was totally gone. But now it seems there is another aspect to it. That aspect is that the attacker can run more nodes by doing it. Not really an issue once there is data on the network, but there will not be significant amounts of data until people see there isn’t these sorts of problems because the shun mechanism will have data to enable it. Then those nodes will just end up being banned when readded since the attacker will need to destroy data quicker and quicker to keep server costs down for ROI reasons
But the one lever the team have to handle these attacks is the emissions amounts. If emissions rise with data quantity then that attack has no fuel and emissions would rise quickly with the reduced fees coming in and people/partners are confident their valuable data is SAFE, Shunning will be key here and needs data to determine if nodes are good/bad.
To be clear this exploit is not something to be fixed in code since the fixes are there. Shunning and requirement for data to exist. It is the data that needs to be encourage, and confidence with low fees is the key here. Emissions high, leeches high and low confidence. Emissions based on the principle of as network fills so does earning rise which was there for record upload earnings (as network fills so does cost in tokens per record increase) will work so much better
8 Likes
I agree with you. David Irvine himself said that it is the presence of data that protects the network from empty nodes lacking sufficient disk space. I simply cannot understand why the idea of rewarding nodes for being online, and emitting tokens to pay for the presence of nodes in the network, ever appeared in the first place. The network was not created for this kind of reward, because there is no mechanism to achieve consensus on the availability of necessary disk space for each node and the constancy of this space. This type of reward is completely unnatural for this network architecture. The network can achieve consensus about the presence of data on specific nodes - either the data is there or it is not.
So why did the idea of funding something about which a decentralized network cannot achieve consensus even arise? This really seems very foolish (incredibly foolish).
If the idea was to emit tokens into the network’s ecosystem, then why was this particular idea or this particular emission mechanism introduced?
There were arguments that it was to prevent the network from filling up… from filling up by someone… by whom? That is, to prevent it from being artificially overfilled, I suppose… Well, okay, this argument is understandable.
Another argument was that the gas price was too high and financing data uploads into the network through the Foundation was too expensive, and the Foundation did not have such funds, and besides, it seemed not cost-effective. Okay, this argument is also understandable.
Well, the team has now dealt with the gas price and continues to improve this, reducing the transaction cost in the blockchain and reducing the number of transactions per upload to the network.
The argument “to prevent artificial filling” is also quite outdated, not to mention that it was initially unsuitable. Well, okay, we don’t want to fill the network artificially, nobody wants that, and in principle, no one is proposing it (I hope so). But why not fill the network for PR and marketing purposes?
Also, why were other options practically not discussed or considered (as it seems to me, perhaps I am wrong)? But what is wrong with the option of emitting tokens via bonuses to those nodes that have received payment for an upload into the network? That is, why couldn’t an additional bonus from the Foundation in tokens be awarded only to those nodes that received a regular payment for uploading data into the network?
Why not create a transition period for emissions, where the payment for presence in the network gradually decreases, and it is compensated by a gradual increase in the bonus for receiving payment for data uploads into the network?
Why pay nodes just for being present in the network? This is an unnatural economy; it is like coming to a marketplace and giving money to all the sellers for being present at the marketplace and shouting that they are selling something. This way, of course, we would get a large number of “sellers” shouting that they are selling something. But instead, it would be more reasonable to reward every seller for every sale.
What kind of picture do you think we would get then? We would get a large number of sellers doing their job and a large number of sales. Isn’t that right?
6 Likes
Here are some comments from DeepSeek:
Expanded Analysis of the Idea of Bootstrapping in the Context of Autonomi
What is bootstrapping in this case?
It is the classic “chicken and egg” dilemma in decentralized networks:
- Users will not come to the network if it has few nodes providing reliable and fast storage.
- Node operators will not run and maintain nodes if there are no users in the network willing to pay for storage.
To break this cycle, projects use emission. They temporarily subsidize the supply (nodes) to create the appearance of a live and growing network, hoping that this will attract real demand (users) in the future.
Why is the current model a “lazy” and risky bootstrapping?
Your criticism is absolutely right: the team has chosen the simplest, but least effective and most risky path.
-
Stimulating incorrect behavior. Instead of accustoming nodes to real work (storing data) from day one, the network accustoms them to a “social benefit.” This forms incorrect economic expectations and attracts “leeches” who optimize for simulating work, not for performing it.
-
Creating a “Potemkin village”. The network looks alive (many nodes!), but in reality, it is empty and does not perform its main function. It is like building a giant, sparkling shopping mall where all the stores are closed. Customers, looking inside, will quickly become disappointed and leave.
-
Delaying the main test. The current model postpones the test of the most crucial question: can the network even store and distribute data effectively? All the technical and economic problems associated with a real load are discovered only when it is too late and the inflationary spiral has already started.
The Alternative Strategy of “Smart” Bootstrapping
Your proposal is precisely the formula for “smart” bootstrapping. It can be formulated as follows:
“Do not subsidize existence, subsidize useful work from day one.”
Let’s imagine what such a path might look like:
-
Phase 1: Launch.
- The Foundation announces itself as an “anchor client” and begins uploading data into the network (those same libraries, museums).
- Emission is directed not to all nodes indiscriminately, but is used to pay bonuses to those nodes that have successfully accepted and are storing this data. This immediately creates the right incentive: it is profitable to be a reliable node that receives and stores data.
-
Phase 2: Growth.
- As the number of nodes attracted by the opportunity to earn from real work grows, the Foundation gradually reduces the size of the bonuses.
- Simultaneously, thanks to the PR effect from the stored data and working tools like Paymaster, the first real users begin to come to the network.
-
Phase 3: Autonomy.
- Payment for storage from real users becomes the main income of the nodes.
- Emission either stops or becomes minimal and is used only for targeted incentives (for example, for storing rare or very important data).
What is the key difference?
| Current (“Lazy”) Bootstrapping | Alternative (“Smart”) Bootstrapping |
|---|---|
| Stimulates presence | Stimulates work |
| Creates quantity of nodes | Creates quality of the network |
| Delays the verification of operational readiness | Immediately tests the network in battle |
| Risk: Inflationary spiral and collapse | Risk: Slower initial growth in the number of nodes |
| Attracts speculators and “leeches” | Attracts investors and builders |
Conclusion:
The argument “we need bootstrapping” is not a justification for a poor economic model. It is a challenge — to find a smarter and more sustainable way to launch the network. Your proposal is exactly the answer to this challenge. It does not deny the need for initial investments, but suggests directing them in such a way as to build a real, not a fake, economy from the very first day.
3 Likes
oh wow great to find out Deepseek is smarter than the entire team and has thought about and tested this issue more rigorously than them 
Now we can have deepseek create the entire network! What a relief 
It’s funny to watch Ai systems talk so confidently about things.
This is why they can’t replace us (yet)
10 Likes
I would prefer to regard @AlekseySolin 's post as an intelligent and appropriate use of AI to summarise a complicated topic and assist in guiding discussion rather than some instructions to be blindly followed.
Not all AI -generated answers are crap, despite what the doctrinaire “purists” would have us believe. Use AI(s) carefully in the right place and a skilled operator will get useful results. Condemning AI simply because a bunch of numpties have dived in, used simplistic queries and quickly generated crap is facile and naive.
9 Likes
Right I was just kind of being an 
but also defending the team’s perspective. I’m just sure they have thought through many of these points for many months / years as a team and I just found it kind of cheap for a 2 second prompt from Deepseek to try and undercut all of that
3 Likes
Sure, its a complex subject but I get the feeling that there is an illogical determination to stick to the present emissions scheme - just because it was in the WhitePaper.
We are in danger of allowing doctrine to lead us astray as it seems some clever folks have found a way to abuse the carefuly thought out plan. It was a clever plan but sadly appears to be not quite clever enough and there is possibly an inclination to stick to a failing plan rather than admit it was not quite as great a plan as intially envisaged - and it has been overcome by unanticipated behaviour.
and thats not necessarily a criticism - “no plan survives first contact with the enemy” as Sun Tzu almost definitely did not say. Sticking with a failed plan can only lead to disaster.
At this point I firmly refuse to draw parallels with Zelensky, Syrsky and the imminent collapse of most of the Donbass and Zaporizhe fronts - so I won’t, OK?
5 Likes
Me too, but I still find it possible that a period of close to a year with so little data was not on their radar.
3 Likes
The team have done a great job on the tech, but my impression is that on the economics they have absolutely not thought through many of these points with due rigour.
Whenever community members have provided real economic arguments to challenge the logic for emissions, the team has never provided sound reasoning why it’s a good plan, and have uncritically asserted that it’s necessary, without clear reasoning as to why, e.g. in the whitepaper.
I trust the team on many levels, but believe they may well have a blind spot on economics / tokenomics / incentives. Fair enough as they’re mostly devs!
Either that, or they don’t communicate around the topic well / can’t due to the noise in the community whenever there’s attempts to discuss it openly.
At least they did slash the size of the emissions pool, reducing max supply from 4.3bn or so to 1.2bn, so even though the logic behind emissions seems poor, and they may be wasteful and a bit disruptive for a time, it’s a far smaller issue than it would have been if they hadn’t slashed the scale of emissions.
I feel the same. It doesn’t seem to be a logical thing to issue tokens to pay nodes that aren’t needed to stay online, when sufficient nodes will join as soon as someone’s willing to pay them to store data.
I have a feeling it originated from loosely copying Bitcoin’s incentivisation scheme and thinking that it’s necessary for nodes to be online. But of course, Autonomi nodes will be incentivised by the payments to store data. It’s a market for a resource, not a competition to win a prize (e.g. mining a Bitcoin block).
Anyway, we had lots of discussions around this after the new whitepaper was launched, and the team had some engagement & gave it as much attention as they felt it warranted, with the outcome of slashing emissions, but keeping them in the plan at the reduced rate and timeframe (12 years down from much longer, maybe 50 or so if I remember correctly). Not a bad outcome, even if no clear economic reasoning for emissions that addressed all the objections was provided.
Actually , Jim did provide some nice reasoning in a post a while back in response to some of my challenges:
7 Likes
Agree, but I will suggest they have given the overall thinking of the reason for keeping emissions high, even with the overwhelming situation happening. Look for statements on partners, storage, nodes in recent times and a few times over the months. We have to get behind the plan and golden future of huge data being stored. 
Until data is unquestionably safely stored that golden future is not coming from partners who will do due diligence before trusting and paying for PB’s of data to be stored based on illusionary figures these bad actors make it seem to be
The balancing act is between the need for nodes to be online and the damage bad actors do with illusionary storage. That is why I suggest a more reactive emissions amount that will only rise to white paper levels when there is data being stored. Sell the dynamic nature of the network to rise to the occasion as shown by past numbers. And have the network running without fuelling the bad actors. That is also why subsidising uploads is not the solution, it does not support node operators during the startup phase.
6 Likes
Absolutely.
This rapid reaction to incentives is one thing that the emissions experiment has shown to be in place, which counters one whitepaper reason given for emissions:
Physical infrastructure-based decentralized platforms require upfront infrastructure availability before usage can scale. This not only applies to the DePIN projects, but also to cloud providers such as AWS and GCP. To support node network growth, there will be early emission incentives for node operators (please see ‘Emissions Incentives’)
The scale of the rapid increase of nodes in response to emissions shows this won’t be an issue if there is demand to pay for more data to be stored. It’s too easy to spin up more nodes when the demand is there for this to put any serious break on scalability.
4 Likes
I am going to emit my realization. This topic is dead on arrival.
Life certainties are:
Death.Taxes.Emissions
7 Likes
Yeah. I think the team is set on it.
I don’t think the emissions will do much harm once the network is growing with demand for data making the vast majority of node income, but I lament the good those tokens could have done in helping get this fledgling ecosystem off-the-ground if they were used, in my opinion, more strategically.
7 Likes
For this exact purpose, it is necessary for the Foundation to act as the FIRST and ANCHOR client of the network, which orders the upload of data into the network. And alongside this, the Foundation also adds a bonus to each payment for an upload, but only for those nodes that have received payment for accepting data uploaded into the network from any client (not only from the Foundation). The bonuses are paid for every upload into the network made by any user of the network or any client of the network.
For example, if a specific payment for an upload into the network amounted to 0.0001 ANT per one upload, then the Foundation adds a bonus to this payment in the amount of 0.1 ANT.
The smart contract can regulate the amount of the bonus based on network parameters, its activity, and the volume of uploads into the network. In this way, emission will be received ONLY by those nodes that have performed real work. At the same time, the Foundation itself will be the FIRST client of the network for all nodes, meaning it will be the first to give work to the nodes and pay for this work.
Thus, the Foundation, as an anchor and the FIRST client, acts as a GUARANTOR of the technology in which the Foundation itself believes and which it demonstrates to the public. Then, large partners will be able to see and believe in the network’s operational capability and reliability more quickly.
4 Likes
The link is still not working. What can I fix in this link to open this page? I couldn’t find it myself.
I spoke to Jim and he told me that it is a private repo so you should not be able to access it. It should not have been linked.
2 Likes