-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 165
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
FIP-0045: spec the token receiver hook payload schema #457
Conversation
until the allocation's maximum term is reached. | ||
|
||
Since new allocations are more valuable than existing ones, this proposal may incentivise | ||
deal-focussed but capital- or capacity-constrained providers to let existing sectors expires |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
deal-focussed but capital- or capacity-constrained providers to let existing sectors expires | |
deal-focussed but capital- or capacity-constrained providers to let existing sectors expire |
deal-focussed but capital- or capacity-constrained providers to let existing sectors expires | ||
in order to re-use the associated pledge and hardware for newer allocations. | ||
|
||
Storage providers may prefer deals associated with long data cap allocation terms to those with shorter expected terms. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this will only happen if FIP36 is introduced. And, in that case, the pledge will also be higher for longer-duration sectors. Thus, SPs with lower capital or more risk averse will prefer shorter sectors (and shorter deals)
@@ -653,18 +714,6 @@ and may be claimed by a collection of data commitments spread across multiple se | |||
Such an allocation would be far more gas efficient than the multiple per-sector deals | |||
required for a large data set today. | |||
|
|||
### Support for FIP-0036 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is this section being removed? Is it no longer valid?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Correct (mainly because the opt-in migration of existing sectors was removed).
This complements #455, answering the remaining TODOs currently noted there.