No, we should leave it as Fernet. Adding build ahead is a (likely) potential future improvement that we have decided should not be in V1, not that it should never be implemented.
What do you mean by this, sorry? When do we finalize it? I currently think we should still finalize per block until we have done a more thorough economic analysis on the potential impact of tx prices. I do not believe this is a decision that has reached internal consensus yet – at least not as far as I’m aware.
My understanding is that you would have a “backup phase” after the prover commitment phase, in addition to the end of the cycle. That way you can guarantee in all cases a block will get produced during a given slot.
Doesn’t it have X amount of additional economic gurarantees? eg. $5,000 extra that is saying this block is more likely to be finalized, than if we do not do a bond?
I think we should wait until we do broader economic analysis to worry about this one. Again, I do not believe this is a decision that has reached internal consensus yet.
Isn’t this related to the prover commitment deposit, not the sequencer’s? While I acknowledge you’re referring to it in the context of vertical integration, it should be referred to separately. Additionally I’d suggest we refrain from using bond as public nomenclature, as it’s not a 1:1 analog with the historical/tradfi definitions.
I believe that this is something @LasseAztec and the smart contracts team are doing some initial analysis on. Further this is something that the cadcad fernet simulation should help us have a more informed understanding of it’s potential impact. I think once we have those two bits of additional information we can spend further time evaluating L1 congestion and what can be done about it.