FIP-101 feedback thread (default)

[virtual-serenity]

FIP-101: Fractal Standard Data Indexing Service (draft)

Please write your feedback here.

Thank you!

[Lbranchini]

This proposal is clear, well-structured, and addresses a major gap in the current ecosystem. Standardizing the indexing layer will greatly improve consistency, reduce fragmentation, and provide developers with a reliable data foundation.
The revised block reward distribution and the non-custodial staking model are well-justified and help ensure long-term sustainability.
Overall, it’s a strong and necessary step for strengthening Fractal’s core infrastructure.

[nCM901]

I see no problem in tbh. approve from my side

[Avecci-Claussen]

as of my understanding overall, I believe FIP-101 would be a strong long term positive step for fractal ecosystem. A standardized opensource indexer with consistent parsing rules, unified data formats, and permissionless participation is critical infrastructure. It reduces fragmentation, improves developer reliability, and strengthens the foundation for larger scale ecosystem growth. Paying indexers through block rewards aligns incentives with ecosystem health and puts data availability on the same level of importance as security and block production => this is structurally bullish.

Economic Impact & Staking Yield Analysis (Approximates)

using current chain parameters (≈25 FB block reward, ≈30s block time, ≈72,000 FB/day ≈ 26.28M FB/year issuance), the proposed 1:1:1 split allocates roughly 8.76M FB/year to indexing. Depending on how much FB becomes staked, this leads to approximate gross APR ranges (using ~90.6M FB circulating):

10% of supply staked (~9.06M FB) → ~96–97% APR

30% staked (~27.18M FB) → ~32% APR

50% staked (~45.3M FB) → ~19% APR

70% staked (~63.4M FB) → ~14% APR

after indexer operator fees (e.g. 10–20%), realistic long-term net yields likely stabilize around 15–25% when staking participation is in the ~30–50% range, while early adopters at low staking participation could see significantly higher returns. This is healthy and creates natural demand for FB staking without increasing total issuance.

Impact Analysis for Miners

The proposal reallocates miner rewards from 100% of block rewards to 66%, lowering miner revenue by roughly one-third with the parameters above:

today: miners receive ≈ 26.28M FB/year

after FIP-101: miners receive ≈ 17.52M FB/year (2/3 of 26.28M)

the difference ≈ 8.76M FB/year is redirected to indexers and stakers.

while merged mining participants may be less sensitive (FB is often 'bonus' revenue), permissionless miners and especially smaller operators would feel a real margin compression. a clear economic impact statement like this inside the FIP would help align expectations and improve acceptance.

Transitional Plan & Small Miner Considerations

to encourage smooth adoption and avoid miner hesitation or hash-rate volatility, I suggest considering the possibility of running a phased reallocation (e.g. 80/20 → 70/30 → 66/33 over 6–12 months) or a limited early miner support grant funded from the indexer portion for the first few thousand blocks or temporary bonus multipliers for permissionless miners during the transition period.

these options could mitigate immediate revenue shocks, especially for small miners, while still achieving the final allocation. On the indexing side, concentration risks should be monitored as a large professional indexer clusters could dominate stake and rewards. i also didn't yet understand how “valid indexing output” is verified to avoid subjective or centralized decision making around who is considered a good indexer ?

there are many questions for sure yet I support the direction and believe it will prove beneficial for the ecosystem’s long term success ! LFG

PS : i may add that FB based on Homepage stats is storing 3,985,100,424 BRC-20/ordinals inscriptions and 4,643,438,459 Transactions and ongoing. it would logically mean that indexing will be a crucial and not an easy task to do. and this is where i see FIP-101 as a solution.

[nCM901]

Transitional Plan & Small Miner Considerations

to encourage smooth adoption and avoid miner hesitation or hash-rate volatility, I suggest considering the possibility of running a phased reallocation (e.g. 80/20 → 70/30 → 66/33 over 6–12 months) or a limited early miner support grant funded from the indexer portion for the first few thousand blocks or temporary bonus multipliers for permissionless miners during the transition period.

i think this isn't good idea of phased allocation. we may give them grant from advisors allocation $fb instead of from indexer rewards.

[Avecci-Claussen]

Transitional Plan & Small Miner Considerations
to encourage smooth adoption and avoid miner hesitation or hash-rate volatility, I suggest considering the possibility of running a phased reallocation (e.g. 80/20 → 70/30 → 66/33 over 6–12 months) or a limited early miner support grant funded from the indexer portion for the first few thousand blocks or temporary bonus multipliers for permissionless miners during the transition period.

i think this isn't good idea of phased allocation. we may give them grant from advisors allocation $fb instead of from indexer rewards.

true that ! the source of the FB can vary based on the team allocations for the plan. good point

[Lbranchini]

If the proposal ends up being approved, do we have any estimate of how long the implementation would take and how complex the update would be?
I believe having some insight into the amount of effort and resources required would really enrich the discussion around the proposal.

[nCM901]

also how long feedback will be collected. im very excited and want to see it implemented as soon as possible. bullish

[BeMeIster]

This is a solid initiative, especially for the development of the NFT ecosystem. However, in its current form, it does not adequately account for the interests of PoW miners, the very participants who have been supporting the network’s decentralization and stability for more than a year.

It may be worth refining the proposal to involve miners directly in the indexing process, allowing them to participate in data processing rather than excluding them from the incentive model.

Long-term contributors who have supported the project over time should not be sidelined. Their loyalty and continued participation should be rewarded by allowing them to earn, accumulate, and stake rewards as part of the evolving ecosystem.

Don’t forget about the thousands of miners from all over the world.

[nCM901]

It may be worth refining the proposal to involve miners directly in the indexing process, allowing them to participate in data processing rather than excluding them from the incentive model.

i think yes its good idea

[BeMeIster]

It may be worth refining the proposal to involve miners directly in the indexing process, allowing them to participate in data processing rather than excluding them from the incentive model.

i think yes its good idea

Exactly, similar to how it was done on Ethereum and other PoW blockchains with comparable mechanisms.
Miners who process “special” transactions can be rewarded separately for doing so.

[nCM901]

what will hardware requirements to run an data indexer?

[s6rvzhtsd5-dot]

Die Idee ist gut, aber Miner müssen einbezogen werden - das ist die Grundlage jedes erfolgreichen PoW-Netzwerks.
Soweit ich mich erinnere, war die Idee von FB, die Möglichkeiten zu erweitern. Dafür sollte man Minern erlauben, an der Indexverarbeitung teilzunehmen und ihnen entsprechende Service-Möglichkeiten geben.
Ich denke, das wäre sinnvoller, als einfach ein Drittel der Blockbelohnung einer separaten Kategorie zuzuweisen.

[gols-bols]

One thought: instead of creating a separate indexing reward bucket, indexing could be treated as auxiliary work for miners, similar to how some chains historically rewarded miners for processing special transaction types or extra commitments.

Miners could optionally include standardized indexing commitments (hashes / Merkle roots) in the coinbase or block metadata. If the commitment is valid and up to date, the miner receives an additional reward. If not, they just mine as usual.

This keeps base mining incentives intact, avoids sudden reward cuts, and lets indexing scale organically with hashrate. Miners who want higher rewards can opt in; others aren't penalized.

Feels simpler incentive-wise and lower risk for network security.

[nCM901]

Indexing should be near to zero friction task for everyone to achieve true decentralization and work force which has vested interest with fractal protocol as whole. Second fb delegating should implement to distrubite incentives and achieve healthy competition amoung index operators.

…

On Fri, 19 Dec 2025, 3:44 pm gols-bols, ***@***.***> wrote: *gols-bols* left a comment (fractal-bitcoin/fips#2) <#2 (comment)> One thought: instead of creating a separate indexing reward bucket, indexing could be treated as auxiliary work for miners, similar to how some chains historically rewarded miners for processing special transaction types or extra commitments. Miners could optionally include standardized indexing commitments (hashes / Merkle roots) in the coinbase or block metadata. If the commitment is valid and up to date, the miner receives an additional reward. If not, they just mine as usual. This keeps base mining incentives intact, avoids sudden reward cuts, and lets indexing scale organically with hashrate. Miners who want higher rewards can opt in; others aren't penalized. Feels simpler incentive-wise and lower risk for network security. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BG4HHLTOJ7IBJV4EX3MMN6D4CPJITAVCNFSM6AAAAACOQBBBU2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTMNZUGU3DKNJQGI> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[nCM901]

i think proposal should implement in its original form, this way others can participate freely specially operators and stake $fb. miners should not given advantage over other operators.

miners can also be operators with others, and face competition with other operators, everyone should have level playing field.