Hi tom, thank you for your questions.
Indeed, the “Jeonse” model and the parachain auction model serve different objectives and are characterized by different elements. While the “Jeonse” model serves as a solution for time lag and uncertainty, aligning with Service Level Agreement (SLA) perspective, the parachain auction model addresses resource scarcity and, given its competitive nature, resembling investment perspective.
In the “Jeonse” model, we propose that the consumer chain makes a deposit, which, when redistributed, can help offset additional costs incurred by validators in securing the consumer chain. This approach directly supports the quality of service by enhancing decentralization and economic stability. Nevertheless, such a deposit can present an entry barrier for consumer chains wishing to onboard. Therefore, while imposing a large deposit may not be feasible in the short term, it could become a viable option over the longer term.
Taking into account recent discussions(1/2) in the Polkadot forum, the shift away from the auction model largely stems from its decreasing demand and the investment-centric nature of parachain auction. It’s important to underline that the “Jeonse” model and the concept of Replicated Security operate under different paradigms.
When determining the value associated with the “Jeonse” deposit, it’s important to clarify that it isn’t directly tied to the “property’s value” of the consumer chain itself. Instead, the deposit is reflective of the security burden or the value of the security provided by the provider chain.
It’s worth noting that the precise value of a consumer chain pre-launch is challenging to ascertain. This complexity inherently generates elements of time lag and uncertainty. Thus, the approach we advocate for is the propagation of these time and risk factors across the consumer chain, provider chain, and delegators. This approach aims to mitigate uncertainty and foster a balanced ecosystem where security responsibilities and risks are appropriately shared.