GEP suggestion to wait with deployment of validators L2 (closed)

We did all the required development for the release of our L2 Validators on the Cosmos chain. It’s live on testnet (3.6 release). However, we suggest to hold on the release for the reasons mentioned below:

Reason of delay:
We were recently introduced to the Algorand folks and we’re exploring multiple synergies with their community and ecosystem. Algorand is one of our favorite blockchains and we’ve started doing some proof of concepts and research. Algorand also enables side chains, something important for our Internet of Internets model. Their technological infrastructure is very nice and they’re gaining traction.

Our team is exploring the feasibility and synergies for a meaningful partnership over the next few weeks. Having a strong blockchain partner can be very valuable as it would improve ThreeFold’s position towards emerging projects and partnerships we’re working on around banking and countries. We hope our community supports this delay for us to lock-in the best opportunities for the ThreeFold ecosystem.

Proposed solution:
Lock the current validator application on the current money blockchain (Stellar) to allow the reservation of validators and secure their position. We’re working on more info related to this potential way forward.

The proposed process for now is to have validators go to a web page, use their TFConnect to make their validator reservation, stake their TFT (link to their validator) on Stellar. Once ready for physical deployment on Cosmos or Algorand, only registered validators on Stellar will be able to officially deploy on the new chain.

  • OK with waiting for validator roll out till we have better view on blockchain partnership
  • Not OK

0 voters

1 Like

What is the purpose of an L2 validator if we scrap the Tendermint based Hub for Algorand?

I think the possibility to connect with the greater Cosmos ecosystem via IBC is really promising. There’s even a well developed IBC implementation for Substrate, meaning we can probably connect TF Chain, and future internet of internets chains, in a strong way with minimal effort.

Smart contracts are prone to many problems. I’d rather see us proceed with an application specific and sovereign chain, especially when it’s already been developed.


@scott I agree with all you say.

No-one says we will scrap the L2 validators and of-course their needs to be a purpose, ps we are talking with the Algorand people about their own sidechain implementation.

we are investigating what a partnership entails, we also like IBC.
We just ask some time to further explore where our conversations go.

We are working on some really big deals (country size and bank implementation) and having a blockchain partner like Algorand could be beneficial.

To me there are 2 different use cases anyhow emerging in blockchain

  • chains like Cosmos and Susbtrate are custom coded chains which delivers ultimate flexibility and scale on regional level but comes with a cost too, for many usecases this is probably too much overhead.
  • chains like Algorand and others are smart contract platforms which allow people to tap into existing functionality much faster

I believe both will be important.

About Algorand smart contract implementation, its the nicest one I have seen by far, we are now working with the VLANG team to see how we can even create a full integration there.

This GEP allows us to keep all options open, already let people register their validators and stake the tokens.

I like simplicity, and especially architectural simplicity.
Honestly, I wasn’t a big fan of adding Cosmos to the technology used. Nothing against Cosmos in itself, I think it’s really valuable technology. I’m mainly worried about combining different blockchain frameworks into a patchwork, requiring the need to build bridges between them. The end result might be a system that is less secure and requires a lot more maintenance work than when sticking to one technology.
Same counts for Algorand imho. Nothing against Algorand, but it will again make the TF technology a patchwork of technologies that do not necessarily interact seamlessly among each other, and requiring bridges (which are known to be weak components from a security perspective, no matter how well they are designed).
The main value of the current architecture is currently built in Parity Substrate: TF-Chain contains all nodes, farms, contracts, billing, and with TFT registered on TF-Chain as a real value of exchange of internet capacity. The Polkadot ecosystem contains mechanisms to fulfil new roles that are needed for Threefold: ex. DAO technology (SubDAO), DeFi (Acala, Bifrost), … and with an interaction between these chains over XCM, making the need to build bridges unnecessary. Moreover, as part of an ecosystem such as the Polkadot one, we can service all the projects that are in the ecosystem by providing ex. persistent storage to all of them (this is a known flaw of the Polkadot ecosystem). Doing so, projects such as Phala Network could simply use capacity on the Threefold grid to run their cloud functions. And you reach hundreds of projects. Being part of an ecosystem of many projects can create a huge network effect, especially if the functionality that our project can bring is missing in this ecosystem and has big added value to all the rest.
So I don’t know whether to vote in favour or against this GEP, because not all arguments are taken up in the decision process. And it’s choosing between 2 options that both have their drawbacks. I think I’ll vote against, but the argument is to be complete in the assessment of pros and cons for the architecture as a whole. And indeed to keep all options open (but then really ALL options should be assessed).
Also, to me, the only argument to switch to Algorand would be really hard commitments and a signed strategic, long-term partnership signed. But we are not there yet.


PLEASE can we stay on the topic of the GEP, this GEP is not about which blockchain choice to make, this we can discuss on other places, there are very good reasons why the product management team has chosen for Cosmos and this is simply not the place to discuss this.

This GEP is about getting support for not deploying Cosmos validators right now and using Stellar as reservation mechanism for now with staking support. Stellar is already our money blockchain (main chain for TFT) so is easiest for people to do (most user-friendly), which gives us time to further discuss with a blockchain partner.

Thanks @kristof. I had not considered that the L2 could be one Algorand cochain while the regional TF Chains could be additional cochains. Is that the idea? I have some further concerns about this plan but I think I at least understand the intention now.

Using the words “lock” and “stake” with relation to Stellar makes me think this proposal involves the transfer of tokens to some kind of multisig. Since this is a potentially long term solution involving lots of tokens, we should be clear about the risks involved. That’s not what we’re voting about either though :slight_smile:

Anyway, I can support waiting to launch the new chain in order to hear the full proposal around Algorand.

1 Like