# IIP-74: FLI Economic Model Upgrade - Future Gas Costs **URL:** \ **Category:** Proposal\ **Tags:** IIP\ **Created:** [12 August 2021 10:46 UTC](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/iip-74-fli-economic-model-upgrade-future-gas-costs/2354 "2021-08-12T10:46:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3
**Author:** ![puniaviision](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/gov.indexcoop.com/puniaviision/32/173_2.png) [@puniaviision](https://gov.indexcoop.com/u/puniaviision)\ **Post date:** [16 August 2021 00:40 UTC](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/iip-74-fli-economic-model-upgrade-future-gas-costs/2354/3 "2021-08-16T00:40:49Z")
This is a special situation IIP post that I don’t have a good mental model for. Fundamentally, product improvements flow through the PWG and EWG. This process makes sense as these two teams have the most amount of context on the engineering difficulty, existing pipeline, security concerns, etc. Most other contributors have different things they are accountable for so it makes sense that they would have less context here. The way engineering and product are working together now is through Pods. In this case, the Leverage Indices Pod led by @afromac. Any new product improvements are vetted and tracked by the pod and implemented if and when makes the most sense. This IIP assumes a solution, but doesn’t provide the level of consideration that would go into a real product decision done by the PWG and EWG teams. For example: > [@Matthew\_Graham](#): > > Comparing FLI products to existing industry standards, there is precedent for users to bear the maintenance cost of holding the product. What industry standards? I would be skeptical of any existing in an industry so nascent. This also really isn’t a deep enough consideration as all protocols and their tech stacks can be quite different and make a series of different assumptions. For example, some special considerations for Leverage Indices that Felix highlighted here: [FLI suite streaming fee offer - Request for comment from the community - #6 by setoshi](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/fli-suite-streaming-fee-offer-request-for-comment-from-the-community/2360/6). > [@Matthew\_Graham](#): > > As the FLI products scale, with multiple offerings across L2s and L1 it becomes operationally more efficient for these costs to be built into the product itself. Not sure what operationally efficient means really and why that is a main consideration. For the Coop, the most important thing is security which isn’t really talked about as much in this IIP. Again, it would be hard for the proposer to actually consider that given that we separation of responsibilities at the Coop for good reason. > [@Matthew\_Graham](#): > > This change is expected to lead to up front developer costs, which are scalable and spread across an entire portfolio of FLI like products. Super unclear that it is only upfront developer costs and that those costs are scalable. Again, not sure how that assumption is being made without feedback from EWG. Additionally, EWG can not be expected to vet every single product idea a community member has, hence the use of Pods to prioritize. > [@Matthew\_Graham](#): > > This change will also pay for itself over time in the way of improved profitability across the product offering. Not sure how profitability gets improved. The economics of the product seems to be the same. * * * As a final note, I just want to flag that we don’t have an existing system to deal with product improvement IIPs such as this one. It would be my guess that we need to have a more defined delegation of powers between Working Groups and only use IIPs for what falls outside of that. It would also be my guess that even if this IIP were to pass, it would effectively go to the same prioritization process anyways and still may not be implemented if it were deemed to have too many security vulnerabilities, or a better solution was found. Flagging to @overanalyser for his thoughts as well. --- _[View the full topic](https://gov.indexcoop.com/t/iip-74-fli-economic-model-upgrade-future-gas-costs/2354)._