Let’s do this. Witval will support the proposal
wonder how much mid-high txs would cost if the users pays the costs fully instead of relayers and what if these paid fees would then come back as staking rewards
Can the node still participate?
It successfully identifies a critical issue arising from the recent gas fee increase and proposes a collaborative solution. Here’s a breakdown of my feedback:
Strengths:
- Clear Problem Definition: The proposal effectively outlines the adverse effects of the gas fee increase on IBC relayers, emphasizing its potential impact on the Cosmos Hub’s usability and brand image.
- Community Collaboration: The involvement of various respected relayer teams in crafting the proposal strengthens its credibility and fosters a collective effort to address the issue.
- Transparent Solution: The proposal offers a transparent solution, detailing the multisig structure, fee-grant distribution, and a fair usage agreement. This transparency is essential for community trust and understanding.
- Risk Management: Anticipating potential issues and proposing risk mitigation measures, such as hard caps and public analytics dashboards, demonstrates a thoughtful approach to risk management.
- Community Involvement: The inclusion of community representatives in the multisig aligns with the principles of decentralized decision-making, ensuring a diverse perspective and broader community participation.
Considerations:
- Long-Term Sustainability: While the proposal addresses immediate concerns, it’s essential to consider the long-term sustainability of the fee-grant system. Exploring additional revenue streams or adapting the model over time could enhance sustainability.
- Operational Efficiency: The proposal acknowledges future automation, but careful evaluation and testing of the automated processes will be crucial to ensure operational efficiency and scalability.
- Fair Use Agreement: Further clarification on the fair use agreement, including specific criteria for vetting operators, will enhance transparency and help potential relayers understand the requirements.
- Communication Strategy: An effective communication strategy will be vital to convey the proposal’s benefits, the role of the multisig, and the broader impact on the Cosmos Hub to the community.
- Network Dynamics: The potential impact on free-market principles for relayer operators should be discussed openly within the community to ensure understanding and alignment with the proposed changes.
Conclusion:
The proposal showcases a well-thought-out response to a pressing issue, and the collaborative effort from relayer teams is commendable. As the proposal evolves, addressing considerations for long-term sustainability, operational efficiency, and community communication will be pivotal for its success. The proposal serves as a positive step towards maintaining the Cosmos Hub’s interoperability and ensuring a vibrant ecosystem.
2 Likes
@lexa are the above replies all bots that are farming potential engagement aidrops that have become more pertinent with the Celestia and Namada criteria or are these genuine replies?
You can count me in already!
Dont understand why the introduction of a tiered system is necessary. Its just creates inequality that isnt needed or am i missing something there?
Aside from that happy about the positive feedback.
This is good to discuss, in my opinion relayers have similarities with validators in that both are important activities in a blickchain, on the one hand validators get rewards which in my opinion are commensurate with what they do and on the other hand relayers should also get rewards like validators get. . But in the public interest, I strongly agree that relayers pay their own costs temporarily to address existing gaps, and please note that this is only good for the short term, not the long term. Let’s wait and see what the future plans are to overcome this problem (long term solution)!
*How will the community representatives be selected?
Yes. Cosmos forever. belive
Support this initiative. Easy yes.
when the relayer registration to be included in the fee grant will be opened?
Yes from us of course. There is no logical reason to vote no for this.
fully support this proposal
Hey community and relayers,
The Relayer Feegrant Working group is now in full effect and we are open to PRs by IBC relayers!
We are incredibly grateful for the technical leader of the group @clemensGG (CryptoCrew validators) who has delivered an awesome Github workflow for the FeeGrant implementation, Live Monitoring, Multisig integration and a lot more!
Please consider delegating to CryptoCrew validators for all the effort they put in.
Relayers can make Pull Requests noting their address and other needed information in the following repository: GitHub - cryptocrew-validators/relayer-feegrant-wg
Please follow the Readme.Md for instructions.
The Multisig aims to do batch approval TXs every week or so after the Pull request was merged and confirmed.
There is an automated alerting service integrated into the repository for stuck packets that might alarm operators if channels are not properly serviced.
All metrics and live monitoring of the relayers can be found here: Grafana
We hope to see as many Relayer applications as possible.
Best regards,
The Relayer Feegrant Working Group!
IcyCRO - CryptoCrew - CosmosSpaces - CrosNest - Architect Nodes - Lavender.Five
4 Likes
Just wanna shout out to the work you guys did there so far. Its a good start to push things off the ground for relayers and for smaller validators teams to start relaying too. Well done
1 Like
Great initiative!
How often do you convene on adding new relayers? We submitted an issue + PR 3 weeks ago
The ATOM received from this proposal has now been depleted by 26 relayers to serve almost 3 million transfers over 6 months.
We are seeking additional gas restitution from the AADAO to continue this effort.
Find a full report here: relayer-feegrant-wg/REPORT.md at main · cryptocrew-validators/relayer-feegrant-wg · GitHub
1 Like
Just a question why didn’t you pay to Validao or to GATA Hub? They both applied for it months ago. And I can see both are actively relaying.
1 Like
Hi @waqarmmirza, looking into the PR history it seems they have been onboarded but were actually missed in a review meeting! Thank you for pointing this out, we’ll update the feegrant state as soon as possible in an expedited meeting.
1 Like