Polkassembly Logo

Create Pencil IconCreate
OpenGov

Notice: Polkadot has migrated to AssetHub. Balances, data, referenda, and other on-chain activity has moved to AssetHub.Learn more

View All Medium Spender
Discussion#2107
Referendum#494

Implementing a Polkadot-native system parachain for data storage: Phase 1/3

inMedium Spender
2 years ago
infrastructure
Executed

We would like to add native storage offering to Polkadot.

One that uses DOT exclusively as the native token and where anyone in the ecosystem through XCM would be able to store and retrieve data. This is mainly inspired by the vision Gavin presented at Decoded 23 about building the Ubiquitous Supercomputer. When thinking about the app-centricity design and the Space and Cores model it will be critical for us to have native storage and not depend on other networks.

This basically extends the Polkadot value offering to include storage, similar to Filecoin, and brings us closer to the supercomputer vision.

We believe it's very important that this work is done as a system parachain with DOT used as the fee token, otherwise, any dependence on other networks or other tokens would undermine the goals.

Compared to existing offerings like Crust:

  1. Crust uses IPFS as its underlying storage network, on the other hand this would be native storage provided by the Polkadot storage providers, not the same storage network, not a subset. Even if you have a great incentivization model, being dependent on the storage technology limits what you can offer and how far you can innovate. For one to be free from these constraints it needs to have control of the whole stack.

  2. We are not proposing to create a new token on top of which our business model and investor returns would be built upon. This is a network owned solution, a system parachain, not a private endeavor like Crust. We want DOT to be the exclusive fee payment token. Someone said in another chat "than put all the eggs into the basket of one team which, if it disappears, takes the product with it (which is the case with every parachain right now)" and that is what we are trying to avoid and solve for. We just want to build the solution, not own it, system parachain, so avoiding "here's another token". Everything would be open source, open license, no ownership. Anyone can then make proposals to maintain and improve it. This whole industry, this is what its all about, open source and decentralization, making the system own itself.

Read our full proposal here.

Notes about our experience:

  • We are bringing MoveVM to Substrate

  • We worked on and maintained IPFS in Rust for several years. Our engineers are the top contributors (Eiger is a child company of Equilibrum)

  • More about our experience in section 2.4 of the proposal document

More links:

  • Our 48 page extensive research on how to do this. Read this as it complements this proposal

  • Polkadot forum discussion.

  • Github repository

  • Eiger website

Comments (10)

2 years ago

"Public good" is very Communist word-speak. Best not to use that kind of political language. A lot of public bad has been done under the promise of being a public good.

2 years ago

@bobCraddock  Fair point. What would you suggestt we use instead to convey that its meant to serve the network and that we don't want to create another token. Is "common good" a better alternative, does it carry the same conotation?

2 years ago

Image

You literally are describing CRUST NETWORK, one of Polkadots OG parachains, providing reliable and native storage services to Polkadot for many years.

2 years ago

Hey @Spezi00l (account created today) thank you for your comment. Compared to Crust:

  • We don't want to use TEE's

  • We are not proposing to create a new token on top of which our business model and investor returns would be built upon. This is a network owned solution, a system parachain, not a private endeavour like Crust. We want DOT to be the exclusive fee payment token.

  • Crust uses IPFS as its underlying storage network, on the other hand this would be native storage provided by the Polkadot storage providers, not the same storage network. In decoded 23 Gavin talked about the Ubiquitous Supercomputer, if you think about the cores and space model, the network can't be dependent on another network, it has to be resilient and self dependent on storage.

I hope this clarifies the difference. While we respect the hard work done by the Crust team, its important not to confuse the details or equate the design choices and value propositions.

Load more comments
PleaseLogin to comment

Requested

DOT
65.18K DOT

Proposal Passed

Help Center

Report an Issue
Feedback
Terms and Conditions
Github

Our Services

Docs
Terms of Website
Privacy Policy

A House of Commons Initiative.

Polka Labs Private Limited 2026

All rights reserved.

Terms and ConditionsTerms of Website
Privacy Policy