Polkadot 2.0 Definition

Wish For Change

6mos ago

14 Comments

Executed

Content
AI Summary

Summary

This proposal aims to define Polkadot 2.0 as being scoped around the themes of Coretime.

If accepted, the first Polkadot runtime version that fully supports Agile Coretime, Async Backing, and Elastic Scaling will be the version considered Polkadot 2.0

Motivation

Giving versions to software products primarily acts as an attention coordination mechanism. Major versions are typically assigned for significant improvements in the feature set of software (or significant breaking changes).

After the delivery of Polkadot 2.0, attention in the developer and user community shifted towards what the next big evolutionary steps of Polkadot are going to be. Agile Coretime, as most notably publicly introduced by Gavin Wood at Decoded 2023, was the first major focal point of public attention and quickly became referred to by many as Polkadot 2.0.

The only other major theme next to Coretime-related development effort is JAM, which is still in research and with a yet unclear delivery timeline. It is more suitable for a future major version.

It is the opinion of the stakeholders voting AYE on this proposal that Coretime is a significant evolution in the efficient allocation of Polkadot blockspace and should be marked as Polkadot 2.0.

Specifically, we consider 3 epic features to be part of this development track:

Agile Coretime, which is the ability to acquire bulk and on-demand coretime and dynamically allocate it to parachains
Async Backing, which allows parachains to submit parablocks for inclusion into the Polkadot relay chain more flexibly
Elastic Scaling, which will allow parachains to consume more than one core if they need additional resources

Instructions

If accepted, this proposal instructs the Polkadot Technical Fellowship and any other actor that respects this proposal to declare the first Polkadot runtime version that supports all of the three described features as Polkadot 2.0.

Since the exact definition of the circumstances and implementation of those features is complex, subject to change, and intersubjective, it is up to the Technical Fellowship to apply its best judgment on what constitutes the delivery of the features.

Up 1

Status

Decision28d

Confirmation1d

Attempts

Tally

77.1%Aye

50.0%Threshold

22.9%Nay

Aye

≈69.23MDOT

Nay

≈20.56MDOT

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Threshold

Support(1.41%)

≈20.11MDOT

Issuance

≈1.43BDOT

Votes

Nested

Flattened

Calls

How OpenGov works↗

Call
Metadata
Timeline6
Votes Bubble
Statistics

Comments

15D2...KwVb

Hey @Alice und Bob ,

I can appreciate the motivation behind this proposal. However, with reference to Colorful Notion's post, I also agree that Polkadot 2.0 seems bland. Keep trying, I'm sure something buzzworthy would manifest itself.

15oF...6Sp5

Yeah right, let's let Gavin decide, because it's his chain and he's been running the marketing of Polkadot like a maestro this far 🙇🏽

12p2...Xe6Q

Yes pls. Especially new community members are often confused about what Polkadot 2.0 actually entails.
Maybe add BEEFY into the mix (the lightclient, not the memecoin ;) )

Suggestion:

Polkadot 2.0: Coretime, Async Backing, Elastic scaling, BEEFY
Polkadot 3.0: JAM & upcoming features that align with it (tbD)

129i...CwLM

Few thoughts are coming up.

This whole process looks like a fucking joke from the outside. So Polkadot2.0 needs to be decided retroactively what's actually part of it? How did developers start working on these then

The whole issue stems from having no leader I guess.
Alice und Bob is suddenly an ecosystem planner, may we ask how you got this position?

What qualifications do you have to fill this role?
Do you even have web3 development experience? Because all I've seen on Twitter from you is mediocre web2 takes.

Seriously whenever Gavin will take responsibility for his actions this ecosytem will move further.
I mean this is like Apple asking the community what they think about the new phone features and how would they call. iPhone 8? iPhone7.5

Amateur hour, voting nay and bearish all things Polkadot until Alice und Bob is leading

Edited

1jPw...ZdrF

While the features outlined are indeed significant, I believe more work and broader community engagement are needed to define Polkadot 2.0's scope. Let’s continue to build on these ideas and aim for a version update that truly represents Polkadot's next major leap. Assigning the Polkadot 2.0 label based on including these three features feels a bit premature. While these features are significant, Polkadot 2.0 should represent a more comprehensive and transformative upgrade, reflecting a broader range of improvements and innovations across the entire ecosystem.