Split FIP-100 into 2 FIPs to avoid governance stalling

[alberto-gonzales]

As the numbers for FIP-100 are slowly revealed to the community a massive push against its implementation from the miner base can be expected (see: https://filecoinproject.slack.com/archives/C01AC6999KQ/p1741006873826779). To avoid the scenario experienced with the SDM series of FIPs i propose to split FIP-100 into 2 standalone FIPs.

• a FIP to remove the batch balancer
• a FIP to introduce the per sector fee

While there is no opposition expected for the batch balancer part of the current FIP, the fee part on the other hand has potential to disrupt the ecosystem significantly and could stall FIP-100 for a prolonged period of time. Splitting FIP-100 would allow for a more effective governance process.

[dannyob]

Hey Alberto: so the key part of smooth governance is settling on a way forward that everyone accepts -- although the final result may not be anyone's ideal solution. The impression I get is that from a cryptoeconomic perspective, the batch-balancer would have to be replaced with something for any agreement, so the two are strongly interconnected.

[Moderator Voice] Another side-note while I'm here: back in November 2024, a number of new accounts on the Filecoin Slack were created in rapid succession. They all began asking provocative questions across many channels, many of which seemed to be more aimed at provoking a reaction more than seeking resolution.

It got messy because all these accounts used names that were the same as real public figures -- some of whom were prominent in history for unpleasant reasons. (I was called in because one of them was best known as the perpetrator of a violent act in Thailand. At the time, many Filecoin ecosystem members, including SPs and developers, were in Bangkok for an event, and they felt that the name could have been chosen as a threat, which is a violation of our code of conduct.

I mention this because, as you know, your github account "Alberto Gonzales", was one of the accounts used that matched this pattern.

You are free to remain anonymous here, but in these discussions I would ask you a) not to create multiple accounts in a similar way, b) please don't use your pseudonymity in these discussions to make overly broad or provocative statements about others that will lead to more heat than light. Cheers!