Discussion of VRC-4 and VRC-5

[annakaz]

This is a thread for discussion of VRC-4 and VRC-5, currently in draft.

VRC-4: Sublinear DLP Rewards Distribution #4
Summary: This VRC proposes implementing a sublinear reward distribution system for DLP treasury rewards while maintaining linear rewards for stakers. Under this model, staker rewards remain proportional to their staked amount, while DLP treasury rewards follow a quadratic distribution curve. This approach aims to promote network decentralization by making it easier for new DLPs to establish themselves while preventing excessive reward concentration among the largest DLPs.

VRC-5: DLP Launch Readiness Standards #6
Summary: This VRC proposes launch readiness standards for Data Liquidity Pools (DLPs) to be eligible for DLP rewards. The goal is to make DLP best practices clear as the network scales with new DLPs being built across the ecosystem. The requirements establish baseline expectations around web presence, community engagement, data contribution activity, and data schema documentation. These requirements support the growth of Vana by providing clear readiness standards for DLPs and enabling future data portability features.

[finquarium]

As the creator of Finquarium DLP, I strongly support both VRC-4 and VRC-5 as they align with our vision for sustainable ecosystem growth.

VRC-5's requirements are particularly important for maintaining high quality standards across DLPs.

The 100 unique wallet requirement is reasonable and helps ensure DLP viability. However, the specification could benefit from clarifying whether these need to be unique contributions or if a single wallet can make multiple contributions of different data types.

I suggest a minor enhancements to VRC-5: to add a requirement for DLPs to maintain technical documentation of their proof implementation, whether using TEEs or custom solutions. This would help data requesters evaluate validation methods.
We also support the sublinear treasury rewards distribution proposed in VRC-4, as it will help newer DLPs like ours establish themselves while maintaining fair competition with larger pools.

We're committed to meeting these standards and believe they'll benefit the ecosystem's long-term health.

[Ulmasrahimov]

Overall, both proposals have the potential to significantly improve the sustainability and transparency of the DLP ecosystem. Not only do they help create a healthier competitive environment, but they also provide the necessary support for new participants, which can ultimately lead to innovative development and greater trust from users. It will be interesting to see how these ideas will be implemented in practice and how they will impact the community in the future.

[SpecialistDev]

Love VRC-5

On VRC-4, starting with an exponent of 0.5 is a massive change. Testing with 0.9 lets us see the effects of this proposal on a smaller scale, allowing us to make a more informed decision on if we want to change it further.

[Masoudahmadi92]

Its seems so incredible

[Masoudahmadi92]

VRC-5 is lovely

[EnigmaticRay]

Submitting to VRC-4, since stakers reward is proportional to staked amount. Thank you

[jiaularivv]

VRC-5 right! V!!!

[w99s]

Like it's VRC-4

[rishtoe]

The sublinear reward distribution system proposed for DLP treasury rewards has the potential to promote network decentralization effectively. However, it is crucial to ensure that this model accommodates not only smaller DLPs but also larger DLPs that have made significant contributions. Given the reliance of the ecosystem on funding from Vana, incorporating additional mechanisms to recognize historical contributions or past support could help maintain fairness across different sizes of DLPs. Specifically, a mechanism that evaluates past participation and support from larger DLPs could prevent the concentration of rewards among the largest entities, while still encouraging smaller DLPs to grow and succeed. Furthermore, continuous evaluation of this model is necessary to adapt to the evolving dynamics of the ecosystem, ensuring that all DLPs, irrespective of size, can fairly participate in the reward system. The introduction of launch readiness standards for Data Liquidity Pools (DLPs) provides a solid foundation for ensuring that new DLPs meet essential requirements for eligibility in DLP rewards. Given the dependence of the ecosystem on funding from Vana, adding flexibility to these standards could allow DLPs operating in niche or specialized fields to tailor their approach according to specific needs. Additionally, as the ecosystem scales and incorporates new DLPs, these standards must evolve to accommodate shifting trends in data utilization and community engagement. This will ensure that DLPs are equipped not only with the technical and community-based support required but also with the ability to sustain themselves through changing economic and technical landscapes influenced by Vana’s financial support.

[Ulmasrahimov]

Overall, both proposals have the potential to significantly improve the sustainability and transparency of the DLP ecosystem. Not only do they help create a healthier competitive environment, but they also provide the necessary support for new participants, which can ultimately lead to innovative development and greater trust from users. It will be interesting to see how these ideas will be implemented in practice and how they will impact the community in the future.

[RXbabyT]

Vana team should discuss with existing stakers how changes in reward percentages might influence their decisions to stake or unstake.

[Masoudahmadi92]

Oh
How can i choice
Ok VRC-5 is lovely

[konveksus99]

ok nice project

[annakaz]

Documenting some opinions in this thread, from direct feedback from DLPs, and from the Open Builder Community Call:

• Some DLPs noted that a 0.5 polynomial for VRC-4 may not be aggressive enough, as top DLPs will already have received significantly more rewards from Epoch 1. Other DLPs noted that this is an aggressive change when first rolling it out, and a more gradual change could be preferred.
• After modeling out the impact of the parameters on DLP rewards, even with a 0.5 polynomial, the top DLP still receives over 10x the rewards of lower ranking DLPs in the top 16, still providing a strong incentive to rank more highly with stake and performance metrics.
• There is near unanimous support for VRC-5. No comments on changing the 100 wallet minimum requirement or other documentation requirements. Generally this is an important one alongside VRC-2 which introduces DLP performance metrics

As the comment period has come to a close as of 3pm UTC today, I have updated the VRCs based on feedback:

• Updated VRC-5 to clarify how it helps make VRC-2 more robust, specifically with the required documentation of proof of contribution

I will now update their status to Final and merge the PRs.