Are you delegating to a saturated, underperforming, or blacklisted pool?
From pooltool and adapools on Jan 15:
95%+ saturated pools include 1PCT3, FMCA3, ZZZ, SCAR, LEAF, 1PCT9, ZZZ4, ZZZ5, and SCAN1.
Pools with 50m+ staked returning less than 10% include HAPPY, BMAGE, NUTS, MASTR, TIM, 2LVLY, MERRY, ANP, and SAND.
Blacklisted pools include LOVE, SCAN, LION, 247, LVLY, SOBIT, BOI, SPS, 4ADA, LION4, SCAN1, and INQZ1.
Help yourself and the community by delegating to a smaller pool like Squid Pool (SQUID) that is working for the betterment of the Cardano network and community while providing superior ROI. Squid Pool average ROI over the last 10 days is 13.9% and our current ROI is 39.0%. Our ROI Avg from adapools is 17.1%.
I hope you will consider staking to Squid Pool (SQUID) for your ADA delegation!
Thanks.
Shawn
squid Pool SQUID 3.8% squidpool.com
This guy right here is causing no end of problems. Worse thing is he is knowingly and willingly doing it. Please do not delegate to this . LION , LION4
I got the list of blacklisted pools from adapools.org/bl .
Blaklisted pools are those that create adversarial forks - when one pool has multiple instances with the same keys and creates more than one block for the same slot.
You just need to look at the numbers. ATM, over last 5k blocks, LION 105, LION4 62, all of the others listed 3 or 2. @anon44579462 is right. (From https://pooltool.io/health)
Yes, however, for all that fu#@ery Lion is being outperformed by a number of pools on the straight and narrow. I would argue, Lion, If you are reading this, that you are poisoning the network for no great advantage at all. Sure you can take the altruistic stance that you are stressing the testnet for it’s own good, but after a month we can all see the result so it’s no longer necessary.
alright. I’ll swap out my cloned nodes and write a leader swapping script instead in the next 24 hours. I’ve been a die hard core code-is-law person. The censorship and the other backlash made me want to stick to my guns even more, but kinda getting tired of it and your post is a good nudge to move on to something else.
That is great! I hope some of the other forkers will follow your example this weekend.
Earlier I thought I saw you mentioned, that you wouldn’t mind a complete reset of the ITN, but maybe that was somewhere else? Anyway in principle I’m not opposed to that idea even if it meant that everybody would lose all the earnings they have made on ITN so far. I’m just not sure what a reset would accomplish?
The ITN is by far the busiest network and resetting it would mean losing a lot of nodes… at least short term. So resetting would actually make stress-testing the network harder. For this reason I think it is better to keep the ITN running.
Can you be clearer? I followed up and it looked like LION and LION4 are the problem pools you are referring to. Not @shawnim ’ s pool, SQUID. And… thanks @shawnim I think after reading this the answer is yes. I will delegate to whichever pool I want… It may be SQUID at some point, but it will be something to aid decentralization and maybe make some ADA too.
@Miner thanks for bringing this up. I think that bad actors are an important part of improving this network. This is a financial network. Sooner or later there will be bad actors. When a bad actor does things that are bad for the network, the team gets a chance to see modifications and tweaks that need to be made for robustness, quality, fairness and security. I hope that more people like this LION pool guy are vocal if they see anything. Part of a healthy situation here involves blue teamers catching actual threat actors, red teamers doing sanctioned pen tests, and citizens expressing concern either with comments on normal behavior that looks less than ideal, or full on official involvement in bug bounties that IOHK has. The LION owner seems to be causing problems, but to not see that as a tremendous opportunity is a loss. Indications seem to be in favor of not having the severity of security meltdowns other testnet’s have had. But the best thing that can happen to a testnet is security issues surface if they arise and they are visible and they are surmountable. If I start to see that kind of stuff I will have more faith in this project than I already do (which is damn near impossible, this project is such an outlier as far as I can see among all current crypto projects.) I love the airtight math proof approach. I would also want to see that tested and forged with security testing by great teams of citizens and employees at Emurgo/IOHK. Thanks!
I think there are only about 300 viable pools and maybe 500 active.
Because IOHK set the saturation point to 1%, it’s unlikely we will get many more pools than that on ITN.
There is no incentive to open a new pool unless you think you have something compelling to get stake from existing pools.
Hopefully mainnet will have saturation set at 0.1% or 0.2% to encourage more pools, increase decentralization, and give more pools a chance to make blocks.
Sure. Even with 1% saturation you can run a small pool, create blocks and get rewards. The saturation only punishes large pools, it has no influence on small pools.
Reducing the saturation point would encourage people to move more stake to smal
ler pools which would then give smaller pools more opportunities to make blocks
.
Currently on ITN with 10b staked and 1% saturation there are maybe 250 pools that have a good chance of making a block.
If mainnet has 20+b staked and 0.5% or lower saturation then maybe we get to 10
00 pools with a good chance of making a block.
