Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

FIP-0065: Ignore built-in market balances in circulating supply (first draft) #726

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jul 21, 2023

Conversation

anorth
Copy link
Member

@anorth anorth commented Jun 15, 2023

Summary

Declare that future protocol changes may commit non-zero data into sectors without requiring a corresponding deal in the built-in market actor.
Remove the built-in market actor's locked balances from the network circulating supply calculation.

Discussion: #719

Copy link
Collaborator

@arajasek arajasek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me.

AFAIK, this is the first time we've FIP-ped something that is mostly a declaration of intent for future changes. While I don't oppose such a FIP, it's something we should discuss as part of the deliberation process -- if this FIP passes with little contention, but there's opposition to the future FIP that actually introduces direct commitment of data into sectors (on the grounds that the centrality of the built-in market actor shouldn't be eroded), would we entertain that discussion? Or shut it down saying "sorry, this previous FIP already announced a decision on this"?

Regardless, that doesn't affect landing this PR.

FIPS/fip-xxxx-deal-collateral.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
FIPS/fip-xxxx-deal-collateral.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
FIPS/fip-xxxx-deal-collateral.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
FIPS/fip-xxxx-deal-collateral.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@anorth
Copy link
Member Author

anorth commented Jul 18, 2023

if this FIP passes with little contention, but there's opposition to the future FIP that actually introduces direct commitment of data into sectors [...] would we entertain that discussion?

Thanks for raising. Yes, I think we would. I don't think there's anything that reasonable people could do now that should prevent other reasonable people in the future from debating a change.

With that in mind, I think I will rework this FIP to focus on the technical change, with clear pointers to the rationale being expectation of direct commitment of data. The content will mostly remain, just re-arranged.

@anorth anorth changed the title First draft of declare the built-in market actor as optional First draft of exclude built-in market balances from circulating supply Jul 18, 2023
Participants and developers will need to explicitly alter their arrangements should they wish to make
arrangements that uses a lesser amount.

## Implementation
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this mean we are excluding it from both regular and vm circulating supply or only the VM one?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I only know of one protocol-defined circulating supply, which is the value that is input to calculations of things like sector initial pledge. Are any other definitions of circulating supply relevant to consensus rules?

@jennijuju
Copy link
Member

First editorial pass ✔️ with some nits.

re: @arajasek's good flag: This FIP's motivation and impact depends on many hypothetical future protocol changes, that may or may not be accepted by the Filecoin community. The idea of this proposal is reasonable and concrete enough to be landed as a draft, however, when this FIP can be moved to Last Call/Acceptance is worth discussing. some quick options:

  1. treat this FIP as an independent FIP.
  2. treat this FIP as a dependency of future "directly commit data to sector" proposals and bound the FIPs acceptance. (stay Draft until then).
  3. treat this FIP as an independent FIP now for acceptance(not finalization) & and allow revision to Deferred or Reverted when contentions raised in then future.

@kaitlin-beegle I think this is gap in the current governance process and would love to hear our feedback.

Copy link

@hannahhoward hannahhoward left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

comments left per @jennijuju

---

## Simple Summary
Exclude the built-in market actor's locked balances from the network circulating supply calculation,

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Recommend a slightly different phrasing than include/exclude

The built-in markets locked balances are currently included in the total locked amount, which is then subtracted from the total circulating supply. Another way to plausible way to say this is "the total Filecoin circulating supply EXCLUDES the balances locked in the built in actor".

I realize now the proposal is to exclude them from the calculation, but I read this several times as excluding them from the total circulating supply number itself, which I found very confusing because I know that's what already happens.

Maybe "remove the built-in market actors locked balanced from the pool of locked filecoin on the network" is a better way to say it?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, it's tricky to find something concise (FIP title is supposed to be <80 chars, though I find this restriction silly). I changed it to "ignore the built-in market locked balance..."

Removing them from the calculation will thus have negligible effect on downstream calculations
such as the sector initial pledge requirement.

Removing these balances from the calculation of network circulating supply will not actually unlock any tokens,

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Even if there's no underlying change, I assume crypto exchanges report the number the chain reports. I wonder if a sudden bump in the number affects token price?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have some reason to believe they chose their own definition (see @jennijuju comment about about which definition I'm talking about), and I don't know which if any include tokens in deal collateral or payment escrow as "circulating".

@jennijuju
Copy link
Member

(I’m happy to land this DRAFT when we find a venue to discuss the raised governance process questions)

Copy link

@dirkmc dirkmc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall this looks great, thanks for putting it together @anorth 👍

My only suggestions are to change a couple of things to improve the readability and understandability (particularly for non-native speakers):

  • I'd suggest massaging the language to be as concise as possible
    • eg minimize repetition of the same point in different sections
  • I'd suggest using bullet points instead of paragraphs where possible
  • I'd suggest using graphics where possible (better for non-native speakers) eg a pie graph of locked balances vs total locked amount vs circulating supply

@anorth
Copy link
Member Author

anorth commented Jul 21, 2023

Thanks @dirkmc , someone should make you a FIP editor. The template structure makes it hard to avoid repetition, but I will attempt to compress and tabulate a bit.

A pie chart isn't going to work well to show a 0.21% slice.

@anorth
Copy link
Member Author

anorth commented Jul 21, 2023

I have addressed the editorial comments. @jennijuju please approve given your ✔️ so I can merge this draft for community consideration . We can discuss any governance issues in the the discussion #719.

@jennijuju jennijuju changed the title First draft of exclude built-in market balances from circulating supply FIP-0065: First draft of exclude built-in market balances from circulating supply Jul 21, 2023
@anorth anorth changed the title FIP-0065: First draft of exclude built-in market balances from circulating supply FIP-0065: Ignore built-in market balances in circulating supply (first draft) Jul 21, 2023
@anorth anorth merged commit 421e9ea into master Jul 21, 2023
2 checks passed
@anorth anorth deleted the anorth/deal-collateral branch July 21, 2023 01:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants