Is there a way anyone from the team could respond to recent developments, give us any indication on how they plan to bring volume to the network and what the actual strategy is now that it seems impossible to fund buying an exchange for over 100m dollars outside of VC funding?
First and foremost we are focused on shipping product that works and that people can depend on. Beyond that, our strategy remains: (1) merchants that opt in, (2) implementers that integrate, and (3) exchanges that interface with the OMG DEX.
There seems to be a pretty negative sentiment towards OMG from some fairly prominent Ethereum community members. Snide remarks on Twitter etc. Could you shed any light on what might have caused this?
Disagreements are not uncommon in this space, especially with work that is in R&D mode. We listen broadly but also understand the need to stand our ground when necessary. We can only make the decisions we feel are right for our company, product and the communities we are part of, taking into account whatever useful critiques come our way.
The PoS OMG network won’t be secure if there are poor staking rewards. What happens if the network goes live and there are insufficient stakers?
Good point - more than the actual mechanics, the incentive structure is really the tricky part when it comes to a successful PoS network. Once the network becomes fully PoS, if there aren’t sufficient incentives for stakers, no one entity will be able to “fix” it. To this end we’ll be carefully planning and adjusting our strategy prior to going live with full PoS, based on information gathered during the PoA and hybrid phases. We’ll also do our part to secure the network as stakers ourselves, and continue our business development efforts until PoS launch and beyond.
Will running a staking node come with any security burdens? For example, if I'm running a node and someone breaks into my house and steals my computer or tampers with it in some way, would my tokens be at risk?
There are both hardware solutions and best practices that can be employed to guard against this type of eventuality. Running a staking node bears responsibility for the smooth operation of the network. As such you will be required to secure the node appropriately; as with any crypto, it’s ultimately up to the owner to secure their tokens and equipment. As a staker you’ll need to keep your keys secure with multiple backups, as you should with any crypto assets.
Thomas is extremely eloquent and a thought leader when it comes to crypto topics. Where can we learn more about him and his background?
We can’t speak for Thomas so we’ve passed your question along to him. In the meantime, we'll answer an extra question here.
Are you aware of the Plasma Implementation of LeapDAO? How is the OmiseGo Implementation different from the LeapDAO implementation? Can you please comment on that.
We extend our congratulations to the LeapDAO team, who were incubated by our partner Status, for bringing a public testnet online. This isn’t a race; everyone who is working on plasma brings something different to the table and everyone takes a different approach. LeapDAO chose to deploy a public testnet at a relatively early phase of development; OmiseGO have thus far chosen to keep our OMG testnet internal in order to publicly deploy something more polished and stable. We have also been running our release candidates against Rinkeby since December. The means of deploying the testnet are available in the form of the child chain server and watcher, which anyone can deploy - and which we have deployed in multiple iterations, but we have so far not opened those iterations to the public. We won’t argue that either approach is correct or incorrect; just different.
As for whether LeapDAO has appropriated the work of the OmiseGO team in some way, here’s how we understand it: although LeapDAO started from the MoreVP design proposed by Kelvin Fichter and Ben Jones with help from a motley crew of Ethereum community members, they did not fork OmiseGO’s code.
There have already been some good analyses of the differences between LeapDAO’s plasma and OMG plasma in this sub. We’re going to refrain from commenting in further technical detail until we have a better understanding of LeapDAO’s work thus far; we look forward to seeing more thorough documentation as it becomes available.
nebali
commented
5 years ago
OmiseGO AMA 15
OmiseGO AMA #15 - February 10, 2019
Is there a way anyone from the team could respond to recent developments, give us any indication on how they plan to bring volume to the network and what the actual strategy is now that it seems impossible to fund buying an exchange for over 100m dollars outside of VC funding?
First and foremost we are focused on shipping product that works and that people can depend on. Beyond that, our strategy remains: (1) merchants that opt in, (2) implementers that integrate, and (3) exchanges that interface with the OMG DEX.
There seems to be a pretty negative sentiment towards OMG from some fairly prominent Ethereum community members. Snide remarks on Twitter etc. Could you shed any light on what might have caused this?
Disagreements are not uncommon in this space, especially with work that is in R&D mode. We listen broadly but also understand the need to stand our ground when necessary. We can only make the decisions we feel are right for our company, product and the communities we are part of, taking into account whatever useful critiques come our way.
The PoS OMG network won’t be secure if there are poor staking rewards. What happens if the network goes live and there are insufficient stakers?
Good point - more than the actual mechanics, the incentive structure is really the tricky part when it comes to a successful PoS network. Once the network becomes fully PoS, if there aren’t sufficient incentives for stakers, no one entity will be able to “fix” it. To this end we’ll be carefully planning and adjusting our strategy prior to going live with full PoS, based on information gathered during the PoA and hybrid phases. We’ll also do our part to secure the network as stakers ourselves, and continue our business development efforts until PoS launch and beyond.
Will running a staking node come with any security burdens? For example, if I'm running a node and someone breaks into my house and steals my computer or tampers with it in some way, would my tokens be at risk?
There are both hardware solutions and best practices that can be employed to guard against this type of eventuality. Running a staking node bears responsibility for the smooth operation of the network. As such you will be required to secure the node appropriately; as with any crypto, it’s ultimately up to the owner to secure their tokens and equipment. As a staker you’ll need to keep your keys secure with multiple backups, as you should with any crypto assets.
Thomas is extremely eloquent and a thought leader when it comes to crypto topics. Where can we learn more about him and his background?
We can’t speak for Thomas so we’ve passed your question along to him. In the meantime, we'll answer an extra question here.
Are you aware of the Plasma Implementation of LeapDAO? How is the OmiseGo Implementation different from the LeapDAO implementation? Can you please comment on that.
We extend our congratulations to the LeapDAO team, who were incubated by our partner Status, for bringing a public testnet online. This isn’t a race; everyone who is working on plasma brings something different to the table and everyone takes a different approach. LeapDAO chose to deploy a public testnet at a relatively early phase of development; OmiseGO have thus far chosen to keep our OMG testnet internal in order to publicly deploy something more polished and stable. We have also been running our release candidates against Rinkeby since December. The means of deploying the testnet are available in the form of the child chain server and watcher, which anyone can deploy - and which we have deployed in multiple iterations, but we have so far not opened those iterations to the public. We won’t argue that either approach is correct or incorrect; just different.
As for whether LeapDAO has appropriated the work of the OmiseGO team in some way, here’s how we understand it: although LeapDAO started from the MoreVP design proposed by Kelvin Fichter and Ben Jones with help from a motley crew of Ethereum community members, they did not fork OmiseGO’s code.
There have already been some good analyses of the differences between LeapDAO’s plasma and OMG plasma in this sub. We’re going to refrain from commenting in further technical detail until we have a better understanding of LeapDAO’s work thus far; we look forward to seeing more thorough documentation as it becomes available.