Announcing the stake pools chosen for April 2022

Again, what are you defending? or are you simply disagreeing for the argument of it?

These are merely 2 examples, but certainly not all or most of them. I’m not going to spend hours combing through data just to have it ignored and removed from conversation. If CF was willing to entertain a conversation with intent to improve then I might be willing. There are simple on chain analytics that can be done like figuring out how which pools were created shortly after each announcement that conveniently fit their minimum criteria perfectly. This will also show how their irrational delegation mythology is negatively impacting the network.

Think of it like this, somebody could run a single 2 mil pledged pool and have 0 chance of getting CF delegation or they could could run 80 25k pledged pools. Which is more decentralized? (rhetorical) Specifically targeting low pledged pools is promoting sybille behavior and there are plenty of examples of it being exploited. However, this is easily corrected. Instead of starting at lowest pledge first they should start with highest pledge first within their other criteria. CF has continually taken a stance AGAINST pledge, first starting with their inaccurate reward calculator and continuing into their delegation methodology.

Yes, 25k is WAY WAY WAY too low and over-leverages operators with very little stake of their own in the system. If every single 1PCT pool was saturated they would still have lower leverage than a single 25k pledged pool that is saturated.

"The lower the leverage of a blockchain system, the higher its degree of decentralization." - Prof Aggelos Kiayias

It just hasn’t received CF delegation yet. The first pool would also be failed too if it weren’t for CF. These are 2 pools of a group of at least 3.

I’m disagreeing, because I do not see the big problem you are constructing out of it.

You found two examples that may in a very strong interpretation not fit the requirements:

Yes, the communication of the operator of ADA is problematic, but there is zero proof of him operating other pools. He is providing hosting – allegedly for free in many cases – and support according to his own exposition, which is probably okay. If he has SPaaS customers is open, if SPaaS is multi-pool is also open.

For ZW3RK, I have only seen the two pools on their website and the second one hardly counts (to me), honestly.

These two are definitely not examples of pool splitting or sybil behaviour. You are making the problem (if it exists) way bigger than it is.

If it is so easy, show examples of actual exploitation of the CF methodology! You have not shown pool splitting! You have shown two pools that got CF delegation that have run for quite some time before getting the delegation and have not splitted, faked to be a small pool, or anything like that.

Another way to look at it is that you want only wealthy people to be able to run stake pools. Might be okay, but be honest about it.

“Stake pool operators may prove to have skin in the game in other ways than pledging stake of course; e.g., they can be very professional and contribute to the community in different ways. You should be the judge of this: high leverage in itself is not a reason to avoid delegating to a particular pool, but it is a strong indication that you should proceed with caution and carefully evaluate the people behind the operation.” – Prof. Aggelos Kiayias

His ideal leverage of only 1 is only ideal if everyone operates their own pool, not if nobody stakes except for a few wealthy guys operating fully pledged, fully saturated private pools (which have a leverage of 1).

Do you have any indication that they even applied for it? And have not simply forgotten about it?

It had 4.5 million stake before CF delegation. I’d hardly call that failed.

And where is the third one?

congratz @all