3rd community review of Metaera Allocator

[CockroachBoss]

Our current report is here: Report Link. In this round, we’ve introduced two new clients, both of which are Web3 media companies.

Our allocation records are available here: Allocation Records.
My pathway's allocation rule can be found here: Allocation Rules.

Details:

1. ABGA: [DataCap Application] ABGA CockroachBoss/Allocator-MediaPlatformData#15
   Allocations were made in two rounds. The first round allocated 400 TiB, and the second round allocated 374 TiB (adjusted due to channel limit constraints).
2. Blocklike: [DataCap Application] <Blocklike> - <Enterprise media data> CockroachBoss/Allocator-MediaPlatformData#13
   Allocations were made across three rounds.

[CockroachBoss]

@Kevin-FF-USA
@filecoin-watchdog
Hello, any updates here?

[filecoin-watchdog]

@CockroachBoss
Allocator Application
Compliance Report
1st Review
2nd Review
1st Review score: 2.5PiB
2nd Review score: 2.5PiB

2.5 PiB granted to new clients:

Client Name	DC	status
Blocklike	1.7PiB	New
ABGA	0.7PiB	New

Allocator has ended cooperation with its current clients and started cooperation with two new ones in this round.

Blocklike

• SPs list provided in the form:
  f03081958 - Changsha
  f03178144 - Tokyo
  f03214937 - US
  f03179570 - SG
  f03151456 - SZ

• The client updated all SPs after DC was granted and use only those for deals:
  f02826007 SINGAPORE
  f02827996 Guangdong
  f01082888 HK
  f03081958 Changsha

• The first report was not the best regarding retrieval rate and duplication, which drew the attention of the allocator, who asked the client for an explanation. The client explained that the bad results of the first report were caused by a reporting error (we confirm that such errors have happened, so it is highly probable). Probably due to that explanation, the allocator agreed to the client's request and assigned another tranche.

• The latest report shows that the client started cooperation with an additional 4 SPs, 2 of which were reported in the original form and 2 are completely new, never reported:
  ['f03179572', 'f03157883']

• Did the allocator conduct KYC?

ABGA

• All SPs used for deals matches provided and updated list of SPs.
• 1 SP sealed over 20% of duplicated data. The allocator should point that out and ask for clarification.
• 2 out of 5 SPs have a retrieval rate of 0%. The rest has bearable (50%) or good (~90%) retrieval rate.
• The Allocator seems to know the client in person, yet the form still needs to explain how the data will be prepared, which is missing.
• Also, since this is marked as private/enterprise data, KYB should be conducted. Did the allocator do that?

---

In general, it is clear that the allocator wants to be a good player and tries to keep the applications in order, but is not sensitive to thorough form checking and clear documentation of KYC/KYB processes.
However, he meticulously watches the retrieval rate and tries to report to clients when the reports are not good and makes sure that the allocation schedule is consistent with their allocator application.

[CockroachBoss]

Hello, thank you for your feedback.

Overall, this time I’ve focused on bringing new media platform clients into the network. Based on the experience from the last review, even when quotas are limited, it’s important to allow clients to test the network with a small amount of data first.

Both of these clients are long-term media partners we’ve been working with, both in the past and currently. Their background and data volumes can be verified through all publicly available channels. Our approval logic for such clients ensures that they work with partnered SPs to upload data to the network as planned and that the sealing process meets the required standards.