The Bittensor Conundrum: Can Community-Led Initiatives Fill the Regulatory Void?

As the Bittensor Network continues its rapid assent, with top-tier teams pouring substantial resources into building on the network, a critical need has emerged: clear and predictable public emission guidelines. The absence of such guidelines threatens to stifle innovation and undermine trust. Can community-led initiatives like the Raomittee rise to the challenge, providing the necessary framework to ensure the network's continued growth and success?

Bittensor's Yuma Consensus presents a distinct challenge on the root network. The official Bittensor docs do a great job of explaining how similar validators on the root network and other subnets behave

Behaviorally speaking, root network validators behave much the same way as any other subnet validator. A root network validator expresses their opinion on the quality of the subnets, similar to how a non-root subnet validator expresses their opinion on the quality of subnet miners in its subnet.

However, in contrast to the clear metrics to evaluate a miner within a subnet, there is ambiguity about how a root network validator should evaluate and "express their opinion on the quality of the subnet". In times of turbulence, dissatisfied community members use this ambiguity to launch accusations against one another. They often accuse each other of having too much emissions, that they claim lead to dumping of TAO, and new subnet teams feel it is difficult to be rewarded for their hard work due to entrenched relationships between incumbent subnet owners and validators.

The challenges surrounding subnet emissions are further complicated by the fact that root network validators may choose to recycle TAO, effectively reducing the available emissions for current subnet teams. This move can exacerbate tensions, as the allocation of subnet emissions is a multifaceted issue with far-reaching consequences. The inherent trade-offs involved mean that any solution will inevitably leave some members of the community dissatisfied, underscoring the need for a nuanced and collaborative approach to address the intricate web of interests at play.

Luckily, forward-thinking members of the Bittensor community are actively seeking solutions to the subnet emissions conundrum. One such development, the Raomitee proposal pioneered an open and standardized framework for evaluating current and future subnets. While the initiative ultimatley failed, it still represented a crucial step towards establishing a fair, transparent, and community-driven approach to emissions allocation, offering a beacon of hope for a more equitable and sustainable Bittensor ecosystem in the future

Spearheading the campaign was Alex Kiriakides, also known as kirkamalandus on discord. Alex is a college student in South Carolina that was kind enough to take time to talk the attempt at creating open standards, why the effort was ultimately unsuccessful, and what the future may hold. He also wanted to make it explicitly clear that he received a lot of support from many members of the community, and this was in no way a single person's effort

The detailed first iteration of the proposal can be found here titled " RF-001: Raomittee Framework Comprehensive Assessment and Evaluation of Subnets in the Bittensor Ecosystem"

Here are parts of Incentivized Intelligence's conversation with Alex

II: Can you share the history of the Raomittee?

Alex: The Raomitee's initial goal was to create a community-driven organization that would be filled with doxxed, elected members who would create an open and transparent criteria for how they would create emissions schedules. We hoped to get buy-in from validators and have raomiteee members provide them fair and impartial research and weight recommendations for various subnets

II: As we know the project was unsuccessful. What challenges did you face that led to this?

Alex: Over time, there was difficulty gathering interest because it would be free work for people already devoting a ton of time to their own projects in the ecosystem. We did explore two potential paths: an Internal Research Group, which would be paid to conduct research and make weight recommendations, and a community-based assessment by a small group of unelected members of the community, but over time we didn't see much of a path forward

II: Had the project been successful, how would the Raomitee have ensured that validators would listen to recommendations?

Alex: Figuring out weights takes a lot of work for validators, and ultimately, they want what's best for the network. The majority of people in the Bittensor community are good actors, and if we can show we are alligned on what's best for the network, I think it would be possible to find common ground.

II: How would the Raomitee have evolved with the Dynamic Tao proposal?

Alex: I think the biggest evolution would be that would have been going from giving subnet weight recommendations to creating reports like Messari, allowing everyone to have high-quality research on subnets available as they make decisions on where to place their emissions.

II: Overall, what is one issue you think the Bittensor Community as a whole needs to work on?

Alex: One area for improvement is our approach to subnet owners and miners. We need to move away from accusatory rhetoric, particularly regarding allegations of "dumping". These individuals have operational costs and are investing time and resources into building innovative products on the network. Instead of criticism, we should be championing and supporting those who are driving growth and bringing value to the Bittensor ecosystem in the long run.

II: Moving past the Raomitee project, what are you up to? Are you still involved in the bittensor community?

Alex: We are working on trusted stake, a non-custodial platform for managing peoples stake on the network following the dynamic Tao launch. We have been in touch with various subnet owner and validators about the project and will be partnering with other community members. Expect more news soon! Apart from that, I enjoy using many of the bittensors projects such as PTN's trade signals, cortext and taostats etc. I'll continue to be an involved community member!

As individuals like Alex strive to find common ground among diverse community factions and cultivate predictability through decentralized means, a crucial question arises: how can the community support endeavors like the Raomitee, so that the next attempt is a success? By recognizing such initiatives as public goods, we acknowledge their vital role in establishing stability, clarity, and confidence for teams building on Bittensor. These efforts provide clear guidelines, ensuring a smoother development process.

Moreover, this raises the question of how the community can better collaborate on such proposals. The OpenTensor Foundation and its leaders have repeatedly expressed their desire to gradually transition the Bittensor network towards decentralized governance. As this shift unfolds, community leaders like Alex will be essential in filling the gap, ensuring the network's continued growth and success. Their efforts will require collective support and cooperation to truly flourish. We hope by sharing Alex's story we can kickstart similar efforts by other community members and create a community of those working every day to improve the networks appeal to those outside of the ecosystem.