# Tweaking Fernet **URL:** \ **Category:** Aztec\ **Tags:** sequencers\ **Created:** [November 22, 2023, 7:44pm UTC](https://forum.aztec.network/t/tweaking-fernet/2567 "2023-11-22T19:44:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 2
**Author:** ![cooper-aztecLabs](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/forum.aztec.network/cooper-azteclabs/32/130_2.png) [@cooper-aztecLabs](https://forum.aztec.network/u/cooper-aztecLabs)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2023, 8:23pm UTC](https://forum.aztec.network/t/tweaking-fernet/2567/2 "2023-11-22T20:23:04Z")
> [@spalladino](#): > > _Note that this turns Fernet into pretty much [Sequencer Schmequencer](https://forum.aztec.network/t/proposal-sequencer-selection-sequencer-schmequencer/478). Should we switch to that name?_ 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. > [@spalladino](#): > > Instead of implementing [proof batching](https://hackmd.io/@aztec-network/fernet#Batching), we still submit a proof per block, but do not verify it in order to save gas 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. > [@spalladino](#): > > we propose adding a “backup phase” at the end of cycle if no block has been successfully proven 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. > [@spalladino](#): > > though the signal has little value if prover and sequencer are vertically integrated. 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? > [@spalladino](#): > > We propose sequencers to be allowed to put down a bond during the proposal phase that provides a boost to their VRF score 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. > [@spalladino](#): > > The cost of purchasing the option is equal to the burned sequencer bond (plus potentially a fixed slashed stake), 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. > [@spalladino](#): > > ### L1 congestion slashing honest sequencers 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. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.aztec.network/t/tweaking-fernet/2567)._