Aug 17, 2023 | Voltaire era: Parameter committee intermediate state

I’ll clarify. I mean to be combative. I’m sorry. No more rose glasses.

He knew about the k and a0 parameters, but in interviews said: “Well if a participant is big enough it’s ok if they run multiple pools”. It’s too ethical to expect large stakeholders to delegate stake to dozens to hundreds of decentralized pools. IOG, CF, and Emurgo should have done that from Genesis only operating 1 pool each, obeying their own k parameter, as they expected members of the community to do. The ego of supporting decentralization, but only a controlled decentralization number. Unfortunately, they messed up RSS and it didn’t even achieve that level which is why CIP-50 exists. They missed the principle that you shouldn’t control decentralization in a permissionless ecosystem. However, the stagnant decentralization, control via RSS & genesis keys, and anti-competitive minPoolCost is perfect for investors and early insiders. Aggelos is/was IOG Chief Scientist.

Aggelos knew the minPoolCost was not included in the RSS paper/study but was included on Cardano Mainnet. He knew it promoted multipool operations and did nothing to protect against low-pledge sybil-leverage, yet interviewed on RSS preventing sybil behavior (false). He has partial responsibility for those decisions. He was/is Chief Scientist lead of the research team and responsible for including that parameter to disadvantage small participants.

He did no monte carlo style stochastic simulation of hundreds to thousands of participants over hundreds of epochs for many RSS’s with reserve emission and many potential parameter combinations. He isn’t at that skill level. The RSS paper was basic and needed to be rejected pending a proper analysis (not just theorems). Only after CIP-50 did he ‘discover’ (learned from CIP-50) that MAV is an industry-standard block production decentralization figure of merit, ‘3000’ pools didn’t matter, ‘k=500’ didn’t matter because k-effective was ~40 and MAV was half that ~20. CIP-50 destroyed the vanity metrics. He still won’t acknowledge the difference between k and k-effective. He was/is Chief Scientist lead of the research team.

He has been tasked to and expected to deliver the EDI, and I cannot click on a link in my browser to open a dashboard of the EDI. Charles first talked about it more than a year ago. Balance Analytics is younger and currently far superior for Cardano block production decentralization. I expect EDI to have something like BalanceAnalytics for many blockchains. Wen??

You can praise him for his accomplishments but it is also necessary acknowledge he hasn’t been perfect, has made decisions for the benefit of investors, he has made technical mistakes, and isn’t the most intelligent on all these topics.

You are allowed to be annoyed when I’m highly critical of a colleague you greatly respect, especially when I’m being combative. I would have had more respect for Aggelos if he resigned from IOG a couple years ago when all of this became obvious on mainnet. I would believe there was absolutely no conflict of interest if Aggelos didn’t hold a C-suite position at IOG when IOG donated $4.5M to his university. C’mon, this is basic conflict of interest stuff.

This parameters committee cannot sign with the genesis keys and is just another stall/cope layer. Many people tried the CIP process with CIPs-[7,23,37,50,74,75,82] with no result. So, we are back to:

Why? Why does any of this make sense? Why put Voltaire governance last, not first?

  1. Genesis key control of treasury spending.
  2. IOG promises to ICO investors using RSS yield boost.
  3. IOG is controlled by the investors.