Hello,
dom said in #general that validators run by the community is fastly done if necessary
Where can we see the complete statue of Association from Shimmer?
I’m excited and think we can make it!
I am excited too, let’s get involved.
yeah the testbed function is a must-be to battletest for the IOTA-Protocoll.
So if we need a good battletestground we must have trust in the chain - after the assembly decision. Without trust, no involvement - no users - no serious battletest-network!
Simple as that!
Yeah i think of both. L1 and L2. But we need the overall costs to run it by ourselves.
It is a very good idea. Shimmer should at some point become decentralized. And the community should run the nodes of the tangle.
It doesn´t make any sense to do this before Shimmer 2.0. The validator set is still centralized.
It would be great to incentivize the ones that are left from the iota and shimmer community for taking part in the decentralisation. The shimmer treasury should be used for that. Reward the community to test and play around with 2.0 testnet and later on 2.0 shimmer with mana.
But I guess the committee doesn´t care much for the community. They just keep on granting project that dump the tokens and move on. Paying for short lived attention and liquidity campaigns. That is not the way to build a true community that is convinced of the tech. It is rather the opposite. With that you are just creating a pump and dump community.
What the next action we need to take to get this voted on, or moved to the next round?
I want to see Shimmer as its own independant DECENTRALISED L1 network, and definately not moved to a L2 on IOTA as Dom said he would love to see.
i’m waiting for answers, maybe the dlt.green team can tell us more. I hope the best way is an official respond to this post.
ich verstehe es leider immer noch nicht so ganz. ohne dass die IF etwas entwickelt, was zuerst auf Shimmer und dann auf IOTA kommt, also auf Shimmer getestet wird, bringt das ganze Netzwerk nichts, ausser jemand forkt es und entwickelt weiter. Also wird das momentane netzwerk ohne die IF nicht funktionieren. Ich sehe es im moment überhaupt nicht tragisch, ob die IF den coordinator betreibt oder nicht. Shimmer ist als usecase ein Testnet, das war es von anfang an. Dass es im Prinzip zusätzlich anders verkauft wurde, ja ist leider fakt. Für uns wäre es viel wichtiger, validator im IOTA mainnet, und eben als Test im Shimmer Mainnet zu werden, da wir im prinzip die community zum teil vertreten. da aber eben iota-core auf Shimmer so gut wie vor der Haustüre steht, verstehe ich diese disskussion nicht, denn da wird das netzwerk eh dezentral mit mehr validatoren. aber trotzdem, ohne weiter entwicklung der IF ist das netzwerk eh nichts wert. dass man über die treasury diese shimmer nodes oder validator nodes finanzieren möchte ist eine nette geste, aber im punkto dezentralität is es im shimmer netzwerk eigentlich egal. aus beobachtungen her braucht es fachleute aus der community, die das betreiben, das ist nicht für jederman, und da frage ich mich, ob nicht auch die leute, die hier täglich ihre zeit mit entwicklung auch belohnt werden sollten. nur ne node laufen lassen ist ja eigentlich das einfachste. das netzwerk muss sich selbst erhalten, nur den netzwerkeffekt kann es nicht geben, wenn projekte, welche nicht über vitamin B gegründet wurden, nicht gefördert werden.
Unfortunately, I still don’t fully understand it. Without the IF developing something that comes first on Shimmer and then on IOTA, i.e. tested on Shimmer, the entire network is of no use unless someone forks it and develops it further. So the current network will not work without the IF. At the moment I don’t see it as a tragedy at all whether the IF runs the coordinator or not. As a use case, Shimmer is a testnet, it has been that way from the start. It is unfortunately a fact that in principle it was also sold differently. For us it would be much more important to become a validator on the IOTA mainnet, and as a test on the Shimmer mainnet, since in principle we partially represent the community. But since iota-core on Shimmer is almost on the doorstep, I don’t understand this discussion, because the network will be decentralized with more validators anyway. But still, without further development of the IF, the network is worthless anyway. The fact that you want to finance these shimmer nodes or validator nodes via the treasury is a nice gesture, but in terms of decentralization it doesn’t actually matter in the shimmer network. From what I’ve observed, it takes experts from the community to run this, it’s not for everyone, and I’m wondering whether the people who spend their time here every day with development shouldn’t also be rewarded. Just running a node is actually the easiest thing. The network itself has to be maintained, but the network effect cannot exist if projects that were not founded through vitamin B are not funded.
yes thats right, thats the usecase of Shimmer! We as DLT.GREEN also test everything on Shimmer and bring it then on IOTA.
you are also right, it makes no sence before 2.0 - but i see the problem not with the nodes, i see the problem with the projects in the networks, that these projects, that are working day for day and get no funding ( i know some of them )… and now they lost their developers (also my project) or think, why should we develop something, where there is no appreciation at all.
The question is when IOTA 2.0 will arrive on the Shimmer network. It could be in two years, in which case IF has the time to increase the supply on Shimmer or propose turning it into an L2 and outvote the community. I don’t like that. As I understand it, this proposal reflects the community’s desire to have equal power as IF in deciding the future of Shimmer, while everything else remains the same regarding updates from IF, every new update would go to Shimmer as it has so far. Shimmer would remain a staging network for IOTA and IF. So, the questions that Lohegrim is asking remain, so we can have the full picture and see if we will be able to take this road or not.
