I read your proposal and wiki yesterday - it is incredibly thorough, well written and considered.
You are definitely focusing on a clear pain point - essentially you are aiming to create an ‘operating system’ framework for the Substrate ecosystem.
High level
Apillon pursues Polkadot’s multi-chain vision by seamlessly linking supported parachains in
an opinionated manner and translating them into decentralized microservices called Web3
Services.
Am I correct in thinking you want to create a framework for something akin to ‘iOS’ on polkadot’s decentralised settlement and business logic (firmware) core?
Integrations / ecosystem positioning
-
Is this project expressly focused on abstracting the specific logic of current parachains to Polkadot?
-
Will you be doing the same for Kusama?
-
Will you be doing the same for solo-chains that are not part of either relay?
Parachain Dependability section
Polkadot’s approach to creating a competitive market is leasing parachain slots to niche
parachains. But it could also lead to certain services not having a redundancy offering,
making them risky to governance pivot in the long run. In case of a service failure, Apillon is
thus currently unable to provide service alternatives or redundancy
Apillon’s ‘opinionated service’ is as you correctly state entirely dependent on lower level dependancies that may well not have continuous uptime, long term resilience or predictable governance.
Without some guaranteed consistency here, why would developers want to risk building on Apillon if the sands shift under their feet in a manner entirely consistent with the issues of ‘platform risk’ that pervade ‘Web2’?
This is effectively the primary case against Apillon’s ability to deliver on its vision.
Do you have any views on this? For example, you could just include system chains?
Governance / Token / Funding sections
As a common good project, Apillon should be funded by the ecosystem and, in exchange,
governed by the Polkadot community. This would ensure that the path of project evolution
remains transparent, open-source, and within community needs.
Post-funding changes to Apillon:
⧓ The Apillon platform becomes open-source.
⧓ Apillon’s product offering is governed via Polkadot governance.
⧓ Apillon’s NCTR token is removed from the open-source project; the main token used
is DOT.
⧓ Apillon becomes the first Common Good Infrastructure project on Polkadot. It does
not pursue a parachain slot in the first year of operation.
⧓ Apillon continues large-scale marketing activities and establishes clear adoption
KPIs.
This seems well thought through and could become a model for other common good / system chains that do not fit easily into current 'parachain / L1/L2 frameworks.
I guess in answer to my above questions, since value accrues directly to DOT and not KSM, it makes most sense to only include parachains bonded and incentivised via the DOT token.
Fee structures also seem smart.
Final question
Why do you think Polkassembly’s off-chain interface is more official that say here?