adamsoffer
commented
4 years ago Thanks for the proposal, Chris. We’re excited about this! We think the financial model you and Gleb shared with the community is hugely valuable for both demand and supply-side actors and the ecosystem as a whole, and we'd love to see the added features and improvements you’re proposing. We’d like to provide a grant to help you execute the "comprehensive" vision for this model you described.
A couple of questions:
- Is the idea to continue iterating on the spreadsheet? We think this would be a good tool to make accessible via the web — easier to share, discover, and measure usage/success. Of course, if this is out of scope for the 40 hours that can be made into a separate grant.
- Is there a metric you’d like to use for measuring the success of this proposal?
cfl0ws
glebdudka
nelsorya
Give a 3 sentence description about this proposal.
Chris from Chainflow and Gleb from StakingRewards have recently open-sourced a Livepeer Orchestrator and Network Model (link). This grant proposal is directed to receiving support for extending the model in terms of depth, interactivity and outcome, based on some add-on features listed in the chapters below.
This model can be used by various demand- and supply-side actors to make data-driven decisions around e.g. pixel pricing and demand forecasting. The goal is not only to improve but also to maintain the model over time which can be reflected in the grant's structure (see Scope).
Describe the problem you are solving.
While building up a business case for an Orchestrator we came to realize that there is a lack of resources and models which can be used to make data-driven decisions when participating in Livepeer today. These would require a combination of demand-side estimations/observations (demand for transcoding, pixel price competitiveness compared to legacy actors, etc.) and supply-side parameters (network-related data, pricing, breakeven pixel cost given a particular Orchestrator set-up, etc.).
Given the network's relatively young age and the speed the space as a whole is moving as well as additional complexity of extremely multi-variate pixel pricing, creating such a model has posed a significant challenge and requires multiple iterations and assumption validation rounds with industry experts.
Having additional significant improvement to the flexible, adjustable and scenario-based model like that will save time to many ecosystem participants as well as allow them to come up with own strategies, be it staking, transcoding, hodling, etc.
Describe the solution you are proposing.
The solution we are proposing is to build upon the first model and get it to a certain level of maturity in terms of breadth of scenarios and benchmarks, depth and validation of certain assumptions, as well as improve the data and outcome interpretation side by implementing a set of features (see Scope).
This model can be used by a variety of Livepeer ecosystem participants to drive their data-driven decision-making:
1) Demand-side actors, like video streamers and potential partners to estimate and compare costs/prices between Livepeer and various centralized alternatives.
2) Supply-side actors, either existing or future Orchestrators to calculate the business case of operating one and figuring out the fees to charge as well as existing miners considering dedicating some rigs to Livepeer. Or the token holders and/or investors to calculate their expected LPT+ETH rewards.
3) Ecosystem in general to model the effects of certain updates on the network, evaluate the impact of governance decisions, etc.
Describe the scope of the project including a rough timeline and milestones
Here are some feature and improvement ideas which will become deliverables were we to receive the grant (further scoping with the community is desirable):
Feature shortlisting to 3-6 features and their priorization is expected to be made/proposed with a help of e.g. community voting/poll on most desired features. These features will be then taken into account for scoping the following feature sets:
*Limited set of features (3 man-days / 24 hours)** - deliverable within 2-4 weeks of grant allocation and/or feature vote close
Comprehensive set of features (3-5 man-days / 24-40 hours)** - deliverable within 4-6 weeks of grant allocation and/or feature vote close
*limited set of features would mean 1-3 added features from the feature list based on 3 man-day effort estimations of scope. Limited scope also means an incremental improvement in model capabilities and outcome detail.
**comprehensive set of features would mean 2-3 further features from the feature list based on further 3-5 man-day effort. Full scope also means a significant improvement in model capabilities and outcome detail.
Please estimate hours spent on project based on the above
The estimated hours can be seen in the chapter above. TLDR: Limited set of features (3 man-days / 24 hours); Comprehensive set of features (3-5 man-days / 24-40 hours)
Effort estimations are kept smaller intentionally, given the fact that the size of the grant is limited. We would however expect that depending on the feature sets, the overall effort can exceed the estimate, in which case the addressing the surplus may be addressed via subsequent grant applications.