Well that’s interesting.
Is there any workload on V2?
If there is no use there, it means it’s only used to farm TFT. And V2 farms, as of now, more TFT than V3 for the same 3node resource. Thus some farmers will most likely stay on V2, or even revert from V3 to V2 while it’s more profitable there.
This is not effective if we start with the premise that V3 is the future of Threefold.
It looks obvious that we need to prioritize V3 and close V2 as soon as possible if there is no workload there and all the activities and upgrades are being done on V3. If there are some workloads, I guess it’s another story and the situation is more nuanced.
Would changing the difficulty adjustments to accelerate the closing of V2 respect the original terms of V2 farming? (increase difficulty --> decrease incentive for v2 farmers to stay on v2)
If the answer is no, this solution is as “unethical” as simply closing V2.
If yes, then the poll number 2 suggests that the community would agree with this solution.
It’s clearly a tricky situation and we need to respect the original terms of V2 farming while thinking about what is best for the future of Threefold.
As of now, farmers on V3 seeing this situation might simply revert to V2, since TFT entry price of V3 stays at 0.08$ and V2 is more profitable than V3 as of now. In short, farmers can go back to V2 to farm more TFT for the same resources, and migrate to V3 before the TFT entry price for V3 increases.
What do you guys think?