Chainspect proposal

[its-a-setup]

Hi xGov team!

We would like to propose the inclusion of inner transactions for Algorand on Chainspect.

We decided to propose this improvement based on direct feedback from the Algorand community. In the past few weeks, we've received numerous messages on X and quite a few direct messages, all suggesting the same thing – include inner transactions in the Total Transactions Per Second (TPS) calculation.

The community is keen on changing the calculation method and recommends using the xGov process for funding.

Feel free to ask us any questions

[SilentRhetoric]

Hi Elijah and Nick,

Thanks for engaging with folks on X and coming here to participate in the Algorand xGov process. As there is no forum post linked for discussions (note that this is a requirement to advance to the voting stage), I will kick off a discussion here.

1. Deep dive into transaction structure on Algorand. This includes the research required to understand the details of inner transactions on Algorand and how they differ from inner transactions on other chains.

It is not clear to me why deep comparative research is needed to deliver this enhancement to your TPS calculations. Algorand transaction types are described here, and inner transactions can be any of these types. Inner transactions are also clearly visualized on popular explorers such as this example on Allo. Perhaps research into other chains' models could be funded by grant programs associated with those chains.

I think I speak for the whole Algorand community when I say that, if you were to do any deep research to inform more meaningful measures of blockchain activity, that research should include counting successful transactions, not failed transactions or consensus work to confirm blocks, neither of which represent actual outcomes for people and institutions who are using or considering using various chains.

Additionally, it is my understanding that Algorand Foundation has already provided some example code for parsing Algorand blocks here.

With these things said, I think this proposal's ask is a bit much. My suggestion would be to request 10,000 ALGO for this enhancement to your existing app.

Regards,

SilentRhetoric

[its-a-setup]

Hi Brian! Thanks for kicking off the discussion. QQ: Would you like us to place the link to this discussion in the proposal?

It is not clear to me why deep comparative research is needed to deliver this enhancement to your TPS calculations. Algorand transaction types are described here, and inner transactions can be any of these types. Inner transactions are also clearly visualized on popular explorers such as this example on Allo. Perhaps research into other chains' models could be funded by grant programs associated with those chains.

One of the core value propositions of Chainspect analytics platform is the standardization of metrics across various blockchains with different consensus mechanisms, txn structures, and other blockchain-specific intricacies. We don't doubt that Algorand has quality documentation, but it nonetheless will require Chainspect team to spend time and see how Algorand's transactions differ from other blockchains and how to ensure that comparison stays fair.

I think I speak for the whole Algorand community when I say that, if you were to do any deep research to inform more meaningful measures of blockchain activity, that research should include counting successful transactions, not failed transactions or consensus work to confirm blocks, neither of which represent actual outcomes for people and institutions who are using or considering using various chains.

That's true, we do not count any system or consensus-related transactions for any blockchains. Moreover, we provide info on which txn types are excluded for every chain here. As for failed transactions, we do not exclude them from the calculation process due to the simple reason: transactions may fail due to a variety of reasons (incorrect permissions, lack of gas/txn fee to cover for the execution cost, slippage, just to name a few). The majority of reasons why txns fail do not depend on the blockchain. That's why we do not exclude failed transactions.

With these things said, I think this proposal's ask is a bit much. My suggestion would be to request 10,000 ALGO for this enhancement to your existing app.

The cost is based on the amount of time and resources needed from the Chainspect team to deliver this custom development. We've requested 30,000 ALGO (~$5580 at the time of writing this comment), which is the bare minimum to cover the development and research costs associated with it. Moreover, the topic of inclusion of inner transactions was brought up by the Algorand community and initially was not on the agenda of Chainspect team, but after seeing numerous requests and discussions on the topic we've decided to cater to the requests of the Algofam and initiate this xGov proposal.

We do not intend to make any profit on this proposal, but instead fund the bare minimum needed to develop this custom feature and keep the Algorand community happy about the calculation process, while maintaining integrity and fairness across our platform.

BR, Chainspect team

[SilentRhetoric]

You should start a discussion thread on forum.algorand.org (e.g. https://forum.algorand.org/t/xgov-108-airgap-vault-wallet-integration-via-isolated-modules/11004) and then set that url as the discussions-to in the proposal. I can copypasta my comment over there so it becomes part of the official forum thread.

[its-a-setup]

Hi @SilentRhetoric In your last comment, you mentioned that we can keep the discussion here:

As there is no forum post linked for discussions (note that this is a requirement to advance to the voting stage), I will kick off a discussion here.

If it's an option, we would like to keep the discussion in a single place (here), without moving it to forums or other places.

[SilentRhetoric]

Let me be clear: you are required to make a forum thread for discussion under xGov rules. If you don't, the proposal will not make it to the voting session.

[its-a-setup]

Sure, we will create a forum thread!

Thanks for providing the explanation, based on your first comment we thought that this PR discussion would suffice.

[its-a-setup]

Hi @SilentRhetoric

We've just created the post: https://forum.algorand.org/t/xgov-171-inclusion-of-inner-transactions-for-algorand-on-chainspect/11551

[SilentRhetoric]

Great--I have commented there. My comment is not the same as it was here on GitHub; I've modified a couple parts.

[its-a-setup]

Hi @SilentRhetoric Just updated the proposal to include the failed transaction ratio. Moreover, we've kept the initial budget without increasing it.

The conversation on the Algorand forum has ended (as there were no comments in the past week). We assume that the next logical step is the review of our proposal by the Algorand Foundation admin. If this assumption is wrong, please suggest what should be the next step.

[SilentRhetoric]

You're ahead of schedule for the next session (specific dates TBA by Adri).

The forum discussion may ramp up again just ahead of the deadline for proposals to be amended.

There may be some minor rule changes for the next session based on recent community feedback discussions, so watch this space or join the Algorand Discord server to follow along.

Adri will confirm the exact process for proposers in the weeks leading up to the voting session.

[its-a-setup]

Got it! Thank you so much for providing the info!

[nonfungibleab]

Hi @its-a-setup, thanks for creating your draft. Would you please go through the latest version of ARC-34 and the proposal template to ensure your proposal will meet the requirements? Special attention to the "Proposals MUST" and "Grants contract & payment" sections. Thanks, Adri

[nonfungibleab]

Also, please add xGov-175 to the title of your proposal :)

[its-a-setup]

Hi @nonfungibleab We decided not to move forward with this proposal