There are a couple different forms of evaluation that allocation pathways are using for evaluation and compliance in the current system. Two that involve objective, on-chain behaviors are
Public / open data that should be available for retrieval.
Economic utility / paying customers denoted by paid deals.
However, we haven't really done much to define norsm for how deals within allocation pathways using these forms of evaluation should express either of those properties.
For paid deals, the only way to do this on chain that I am aware of as a standard currently is through the f05 markets actor. I think that even with DDO deals, for deals being made in the context of being "paid / onchain deals" we should current expect and evaluate the amount of paid deals based on what's notified to the f05 actor currently. I think in the future we can have other markets / forms of lock-up proposed, but as a default this provides a path that compliance / evaluation tools can be built off of today, and is the only form that I have confidence in as actively locking up / ensuring that payment is happening on chain.
For retrieval / public data sets, we currently lack a way to link or know what the contents of deals are to track retrievals besides for the label field of deals made with the f05 markets actor. I think we need to figure out if there is a way to link DDO deal content (as provided to something like IPNI, or generally the files and semantically meaningful contents of the deals) to the piece CIDs of the containers being stored to Filecoin. There's alternatively some off-chain metadata for how to properly reconstruct the dataset, but I'm not aware of norms having formed for how these are communicated. I think we have more diversity of on-boarding happening in this regard than we do with paid deals, so I think it may not be possible to push for the norm to directly be the exclusive use of f05, but I think we do need a stronger norm here to allow anyone in the network to independently evaluate and satisfy themselves that deals being made are in compliance with program terms.
There are a couple different forms of evaluation that allocation pathways are using for evaluation and compliance in the current system. Two that involve objective, on-chain behaviors are
However, we haven't really done much to define norsm for how deals within allocation pathways using these forms of evaluation should express either of those properties.
For paid deals, the only way to do this on chain that I am aware of as a standard currently is through the f05 markets actor. I think that even with DDO deals, for deals being made in the context of being "paid / onchain deals" we should current expect and evaluate the amount of paid deals based on what's notified to the f05 actor currently. I think in the future we can have other markets / forms of lock-up proposed, but as a default this provides a path that compliance / evaluation tools can be built off of today, and is the only form that I have confidence in as actively locking up / ensuring that payment is happening on chain.
For retrieval / public data sets, we currently lack a way to link or know what the contents of deals are to track retrievals besides for the label field of deals made with the f05 markets actor. I think we need to figure out if there is a way to link DDO deal content (as provided to something like IPNI, or generally the files and semantically meaningful contents of the deals) to the piece CIDs of the containers being stored to Filecoin. There's alternatively some off-chain metadata for how to properly reconstruct the dataset, but I'm not aware of norms having formed for how these are communicated. I think we have more diversity of on-boarding happening in this regard than we do with paid deals, so I think it may not be possible to push for the norm to directly be the exclusive use of f05, but I think we do need a stronger norm here to allow anyone in the network to independently evaluate and satisfy themselves that deals being made are in compliance with program terms.