Open alvin-reyes opened 1 year ago
As long as the user in this case can also be a service, therefore the service can charge its consumers whatever it needs to justify the FIL per CID price.
The payment here may or may not be per CID. It can be denominated based on FIL per GB.
E.i: if we have a price of 1GB = 1FIL, 2 CIDs that’s 0.5GB in size will cost 1 FIL. If someone wants to store 3.5GB worth of CIDs, they’ll have to pay 3.5 FIL. We would need an Oracle to get the FIL/USD to GB price.
Does the user paying per cid mean that estuary would be charging for storage if accessed through the FVM vs our api?
Why not have something more general? PinningContract
to which you can pass a peerID and that contract will try to have that peer to pin your content.
@kelindi this assumes that we will only strictly serve paying customers all APIs are authenticated via subscription service.
@gmelodie we can. The contract can accept a CID and we will store it in an array mapping
of index, cid, address and status. We will then expose a function to get the list of CID so that an external service can call the function and grab the CIDs and pass it to /pinning/pins
.
Once we have those dealt
with (storage deal), we will need to call the contract ourselves to add the completed CIDs to a complete mapping
on the contract.
Idea/Proposal: EstuaryPinningContract on FEVM
Proposal/Overview
Create an EstuaryPinningContract to allow users to request CIDs to be processed by Estuary.