2/n Id like to make clear that the #SongbirdNetwork has not been exploited, the FTSO system so far has been resilient enough to this kind and size of abusive behaviour. However it could still be swayed to a truly innacurate price given enough funds. But this has not happened yet!
3/n For example, the pink dot around the $18500 mark are (sadly) undoubtedly innacurate prices for $ADA, but given the VP this provider has, the FTSO system simply discards it.
If the provider had around 10% of the VP, the price could swing upwards a bit but still not by much!
4/n
Yes, the FTSO could be made A LOT more secure, and there are plans to do so, potentially 1000s of providers could be feeding data to thousands of time series, but again, so far this has not been necessary.
5/n
This thread was meant as a response to @banker_defi's, sorry about that
6/n Anyway, regarding the comments by @TomT_Crypto, it's also important to make clear to the wider community that no one @ the @FlareNetworks team can decide who acts as a provider to the FTSO and who doesn't, that process is fully decentralized, what isn't decentralized..
7/n
.. as @banker_defi correctly points out, is the ability to run a validator on #SongbirdNetwork, this is by design though, but still, I'd too like to have the ability to do so. On the other side, #FlareNetworks will NOT have that restriction as soon as the code is released..
8/n And given that #SongbirdNetwork is the canary network for #flarenetwork, and that @FlareNetworks made it clear that Songbird will be surrogate to them in one of the articles in their blog, I think that this isn't something to be worried about that much.
9/n So yeah, the FTSO could be made even more resilient (EVEN MORE), things could be more descentralized on the validator front for #SongbirdNetwork. But still, so far things have worked out all right.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh