Proposal type: CP-1.1 (MR) Mandate Request without Funding
Author: @cardinate
Member(s): -
Date proposed: 2023-02-17
Short Summary
support the Centrifuge project in its development and growth
request as an API node service provider for the Altair & Centrifuge network free of charge for the first 6 months
High level objective
provide an API endpoint that is completely independent of one of the major cloud providers
Background
support the decentralized approach of the Centrifuge network, because our operations, IP connectivity and server systems are definitely not depending on one of the major centralized cloud providers (AWS, GCP, Azure, DigitalOcean, OVHcloud, Hetzner, etc.)
Description of Activity
provide an fast reliable API endpoint that is completely independent of one of the major cloud providers
Change or improvement
diversification of Altair & Centrifuge API services and creation of redundancy
Alignment to the mission of Centrifuge DAO
Real decentralization is one of the declared goals of the Centrifuge DAO, which we hereby support
Description of Group
We have been in IT since 2001, starting in the Web 1.0 world and compiling Linux systems ourself (Kernel 2.2), quickly realizing that IT and network infrastructure is our strength.
Already in 2004 we have been operating our own linux routers, switches and LAMP servers in data centers.
Since 2015 we operate our own autonomous system (AS) and geo-redundant data center infrastructure in the center of Europe and can provide fast reliable services that are completely independent.
We also have our own IPv4- and IPv6-address ranges, which we announce via internet protocol BGP to ensure geo-redundant connectivity of the systems we operate.
So we really support the decentralized approach of the Centrifuge network, because our operations, IP connectivity and server systems are definitely not depending on one of the major centralized cloud providers (AWS, GCP, Azure, DigitalOcean, OVHcloud, Hetzner, etc.).
Budget
free of charge
Delivery and Reporting
if approved, beginning March 2023 our API services will be available free of charge for the first 6 months
We will then provide an evaluation of the API usage and make a further proposal at which fair market costs we can provide the service in future
You can apply for funding from the treasury after 6 months by creating a CP-2 proposal type (Request for Funding).
There was a proposal made recently by a group seeking mandate (similar proposal type as this would be) so you can take a look at how that one is made here and use that as a guideline.
Let us (@ImdioR or me) know if you have any questions or need further assistance.
Good day cardinate
Thank you for posting RFC in accordance with the Centrifuge Governance Process.
Can you please describe your background?
I`m interested in how long you provide Validation/Collators service. How many other projects do your work with?
Recently in the last 1-2 years did you get any slash or unexpected interruption in service?
We are originally an IT system integrator that has been specializing in the IT service and cloud providing business since 2012.
For this purpose, we operate our own enterprise cloud infrastructure distributed over several data centers in Germany.
We only rent the footprint in the data centers, with a maximum of the empty racks, everything else is our own hardware, starting with the routers, switches, servers and storage systems, up to the cabling and backbone connections (dark fiber) which we operate via our own DWDM transponder systems, thus ensuring the self-sufficient networking of our data center locations.
Basically, we are a provider of the Web 1.0 & Web 2.0 world in which we grew up and now see the potential in the emerging Web 3.0 world, which we want to actively support.
Projects involved
We are already heavily involved in the Phala blockchain project and support the khala network with a bunch of workers, bridges and nodes.
We also successful operate active collators in other Kusama & Polkadot parachain networks (including Astar / Shiden / Bit.Country / KILT etc.).
Since 12/2020 we operate our own validators in the Ethereum 2.0 network.
Service Interruptions
Since the start of operations, we have not had any unexpected service interruptions to our cloud platform, as we have designed all systems redundantly.
Individual non-redundant systems are exposed to a higher risk.
For this reason, we also provide the offered API services redundantly on a clustered system later in productive operation.
However, since we have been in the business for a very long time, we know that individual components can fail at any time, even basic functions such as power supply and air conditioning can fail, which is why we operate our core infrastructure exclusively in certified Tier 3/4 data centers.
Good day Cardinate
And thank you for your reply.
Just for your own information. Proposal type: CP-1.1 (MR) Mandate Request without Funding means that once the 6 months period will be over you should submit CP-2 (RF) Request for Funding that could be accepted or rejected.
As i can see in your proposals there isn`t indicated RFC period which could be a minimum of 7 days.
Once the discussion will be over feel free to contact me or @Rhano for help with submitting your proposal on Github and OpenSquare snapshot vote creation.
Governance process :
Thank you for the additional information @cardinate!
I just want to clarify one thing regarding this proposal - anyone can run a full node and it doesnât require a governance process to do so. The reason for this proposal is to get a mandate as that is a prerequisite for continuous funding for long term commitments (as per our governance process).
I would recommend this RFC to run for at 7 days in total and then the proposal would need to be submitted to the Proposal Repository on GitHub and an OpenSquare Snapshot would need to be created (we can assist you with both), followed by a proposal post here on the Forum (indicating the proposal is final and ready to be voted on).
If that vote should pass, we will instruct you on how to proceed from there.
Just one question; how much do you expect the charge to be for your services after the 6 months?
thank you for the quick feedback and the support you offered in implementing the proposal process.
I agree that the RFC runs for 7 days. Does the RFC need to be adjusted?
We already have an Altair and Centrifuge node in operation, which we would expand with the API function.
In terms of costs after the 6 months, we would orient ourselves to the usual market conditions, in the range of 1.200 to 2.000 USD per parachain per month.
I think itâs fair to start small and when the Altair/Centrifuge ecosystem has grown and our API services are used extensively, the conditions will adjust accordingly.
I already uploaded the draft of your proposal on GitHub here : PullRequest #33
Please note:
This is not the final version and until the RFC is open everything could be changed before we will pass to the next step â OpenSquare Snapshot
You can already start to check if everything looks good. And in case you or Community will not change anything this draft will be uploaded on GitHub and after moved to OpenSquare snapshot vote (RFC will be open until 24.02.2023)
Feel free to comment here or on Github if you would like to provide any changes.
If you need any help feel free to contact us.
Hi Rhano; Your replies to this Mandate Request are really good and helpful it seems to me. I hope this service follows your advise because it seems a great idea if it doesnât just do the same as our own Protocol Engineering Group. It doesnât seem the same but Iâm not sure about that. Anyway, this sounds like a good idea to me.
This proposal is not the same as the Protocol Engineering Group (PEG) proposal - the only reason I referenced it was so they could see the template they used as it is the same proposal type (seeking a mandate for a workflow).
But they are two completely different proposals with different purposes.
While I think that APIs (full nodes as a service) are helpful and important, I donât think we should mandate a specific party to provide such a service through our governance process. As mentioned previously in this thread, anyone can provide infrastructure such as full nodes to Centrifuge and there is no need for such a mandate. This mandate would have no benefit to the DAO or you as the service providers but only adds overhead in my opinion.
Onfinality is already providing full node services without any particular mandate and that has worked quite well so far (I use their nodes all the time).
The rationale behind the mandate is not to run the API node - which I agree does not require it (and I made that clear in my response above) - but to receive funding for the service after the initial 6 months.
When Onfinality started providing their services, our current governance process was not established.
If there was no funding involved, the mandate would not have been recommended. But I am curious to hear what others think too on this matter.
It wasnât clear from this proposal that there is funding requested for it, I would suggest this gets added to the proposal.
This doesnât address my other criticism though: I donât think though the DAO should mandate a single service provider to run and pay for an API. Onfinality is not getting paid by the DAO but by the users that use it. I donât think we should have the DAO bear these costs for now especially not for a single party. We could as a DAO agree to setup an infrastructure program but this doesnât seem to be necessary.
A couple of days ago Centrifuge Node was shut down for a while (time of switching off+resynch) and the unique node alive was only OnFinality. So the entire chain was maintained only by one operator.
This proposal aims to provide a free 6-month service without automatic payment approval for the next period. ( CP-2 - Request for Funding should be submitted with a separate proposal).
Anyone from the Community could proceed through our Governance Process without asking DAO if this overwhelms it or not yet.
Dwellir stopped to provide node service without any announcement. In case, if OnFinality will do the same movement (stop to provide service) we are risking the halt of the network. As a community member, i personally believe that any Chain should have a minimum of 3 different nodes (own+2 external).
They could do this definitely. If they are doing this for free - this is great and up to them.
They are not aiming to ask for funds for this.
In case they would like to provide this service and ask for funding with our actual Governance Process they should follow: CP-1 (MRF) Mandate Request with Funding or CP-1.1 (MR) Mandate Request without Funding + CP-2 (RF) Request for Funding.
In any case, CP-2 should be disapproved or approved afterwards by the Governance.
And this is exactly what i wrote to Cardinate:
This could be decided by Centrifuge Governance ( Centrifuge Councillors after submitting a Request for Funding in the case Centrifuge Treasury will have enough funds)
Agree that this is not clearly mentioned in the proposal and could be elaborated on better.
As the initiator, I would like to once again create clarity with regard to this RFC / proposal.
This RFC / proposal is not about funding, but about providing a public API, free of charge for 6 months to support Altair / Centrifuge in its developments and growth, plus to create a diversification of services.
Aftrer 6 months we will then provide an evaluation of the API usage to the community / DAO and make a further RFC / proposal at which fair market costs we can provide the public API service in future. After that, the community / DAO can decide how to proceed.
Generally, if the community / DAO wants real decentralization, API services should also be provided by providers that DO NOT build only on the infrastructure of major centralized cloud providers (AWS, GCP, Azure, DigitalOcean, OVHcloud, Hetzner, etc.), as is the case with many blockchain projects.
Since 2015 we operate our own autonomous system (AS) and geo-redundant data center infrastructure in the center of Europe and can provide fast reliable services that are completely independent.
We also have our own IPv4- and IPv6-address ranges, which we announce via internet protocol BGP to ensure geo-redundant connectivity of the systems we operate.
So we really support the decentralized approach of the Altair / Centrifuge network, because our operations, IP connectivity and server systems are definitely not depending on one of the major centralized cloud providers.
The collators never went down and we didnât have any downtime on the chain. This is merely the full node that was serving the polkadot.js portal.
Sure itâs free for now but if we already know that it wonât be free 6mo from now then we might as well evaluate what it will actually cost
OnFinality has a paid service agreement with Centrifuge Network Foundation for operation of the nodes and has an SLA to comply with. We should not expect them to disappear. We had these conversations with Dwellir as well but for budget reasons decided to stick to just having OnFinality and k/factory provide publicly accessible full nodes. But itâs important to note that all collators run full nodes and are responsible for maintaining the network, not Onfinality, Dwellir or this proposal. So this is much less of a problem than you make it seem.
Lastly, I would say if we do want to spend money on more full node providers, we should invite Dwellir to make another proposal and revisit this entire topic as opposed to handing out a one off mandate to one particular party.
@cardinate after talking with @ImdioR, based on the discussion in this thread, we have decided there is no need to pursue a mandate for the services at this point in time.
The reason we recommended it to begin with, was because of the funding - but since there is no funding involved the first 6 months, we can disregard this. After the 6 months, we can evaluate and consider the next steps to take, in terms of funding, according to our governance process.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Below you will find the steps to get the steps up to get your node up and running:
