I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with. This policy absolutely incentivizes every SPO with over 2M pledge to split it up into smaller pools. You can personally think what you want about an SPO “has issues” (not even sure what that means?) but that doesn’t change the math.
Re 2M pledge cap, take UKADA pool, current pledge is 2.14M. If I were this SPO I’d now be reducing my pledge so I’d qualify, is this the behavior you want to encourage?
Please notify us of any change in eligibility parameters few days before next selection.
While I’m sure they will not change for at least next several cycles or until multi-staking feature comes it would be appreciated and allow us to prepare if possible.
Pledge as it is currently modeled does not matter unless you can pretty much saturate your pool with the pledge. I agree in cases like this when a pool is so little above 2M pledge it is likely the SPO will reduce pledge and delegate the rest to himself outside of the pledge. Many pools already did reduce their pledge to almost nothing already. This does not mean it hurts decentralization that a pool like that will now suddenly decide to run two pools. We all hope the curved pledge reward CIP will get accepted to make pledge matter.
As I read it pools with 0% do qualify.
Have a normal operating cost of less than 5% variable rate
How often, or when are the lists made or compiled, for stake pools to be eligible for delegation from the Cardano Foundation? Is this recompiled every Epoch? Or are there other further rules that we do not know of?
- Jorge (BRUN Pool)
Bravo!!! I commend you for this action.
I guess, if you disqualify 0% pools, there are many intelligent people out there that would simply change their margin to 0.01%. In that case, what will be your next qualification criteria?
Agree. This 1 item should not be included in the criteria. It is counter to the idea that they want to attract more stake pool operators. That one major thing that makes an SPO stay in this pool game is be able to mint a block in the earliest epoch possible.
Id say the Cardano Foundation will allow itself some measure of curation of the qualifying pools in order to avoid such gaming.
Or maybe they will just sharpen the rule definitions in the future?
I think it is an excellent start!
Hi Chris, thank you for your answer! I do believe my approach is not against decentralization, but understand your point.
Those pools are not pledged, they are not producing blocks, but serve as part of the network as well. Also I’m not hiding them so if I’m not eligible I will consider removing them or have to accept that the support doesn’t apply to me.
Good luck to your alliance.
I would not approach published parameters in such a dogmatic way, I believe they will be judged individually and sensitively. It certainly won’t be the case that 2M pledge passes and 2.01M no longer does.
After all, it’s going to be a manual process at the moment…so human being decides.
I get your point, but this could be endless debate: Why 3M and not 4M and so on…
The article mentions that the parameters will be revised continuously, always after several epochs, so I think this is a good start in combination with the other parameters…
wow this is awesome, great start CF
I have a proposal in catalyst for a non-profit Pet Registry dApp that offers some real utility to not only all pet owners that hold ADA but all pet owners around the world.
However for it to be a success it needs to be sustainable and the core part of my strategy is to setup a 1% stake pool with all fees funding the non-profit project.
In order to succeed I’ll need just 2m in delegation, would the Cardano Foundation be interested in supporting this? As i said it is a non-profit and has massive potential in driving new users to the Cardano system, not only via utility but word of mouth.
Maybe if the difference is small (e.g. 2.1M) but I doubt a pool with 3M+ pledge is going to spin up another pool or miss out on rewards because there is a small chance they get a 64M stake delegation. There is also the risk of losing loyal delegators. And imagine ‘one to many’ delegation is added in three weeks and the CF changes their method after you removed 1M of your pledge. Or if they split up their stake to more wallets and you only get half of that 64M.
I don’t think this is an issue.
I don’t. It makes very little sense. Just increase a0 instead.
Maybe this CIP is something to discuss after d=0 and K and a0 have been adjusted accordingly. It’s way too early to make such drastic changes. First we need to know how the current system works.
Hi all. We have been pleased by your reactions and feedback so far. I am not going to address every individual but rather focus on the individual questions as far as my knowledge lets me.
Please also be aware that nothing is written in stone yet and that we are open to your feedback. If there is something on your mind please let us know!
It doesn’t. The reason why is that we delegate to “proven” pools - i.e. being sure that they are properly configured so that it is a benefit to the network.
We would have loved to satisfy everyone but at the end the focus is somewhere between community and security, hence not delegating to “unproven” pools.
Our goals are adding security to the network and bootstrapping community pools. We understand that some of them are having a hard time to attract delegates and therefore currently having low % margins so in a sense it is expected behavior. We will still delegate for a duration of 3 epochs as it stands now, but we are collecting feedback from the community and nothing is written in stone.
It is likely that we will split them up in the future but as far as I know this wasn’t possible yet due to technical limitations/challenges.
Multi pool owners are not eligible for the golden tickets. Please refer to the criteria;
Per each new rotation of the Cardano Foundation delegations to the stake pools, so that is after each 3 epochs as seen in the OP.
The 3 possessors of large amounts of ADA are going to help small pool operators in getting rewards. Isn’t there something wrong with the financial situation of Cardano? The slogan is: Bank the Unbanked, help the poor countries.
How can small pools finance themselves when they are not supported by the Whales?
Change the financial system. Give every stakepool operator a fix amount of 400 ADA each Epoch to run his business and not based on creating blocks. Would be fair to the delegator too. When a small pool is supported with a few million ADA maybe 1 block is produced. Out of the reward of that block 340 ADA is reserved for the pooloperator, leaving the delegator with only a small reward. Delegating to large pools is therefor an advantage to them
Your idea of giving SPOs a fix amount of 400 ADA per epoch will not work as this would be exploited and is not helping the network stabilize. A rogue SPO would then boot up 1000 pools with no relays, no pledge nor stake, 100% fee and get 400 ADA per epoch per pool for nothing.
Sorry, but you didn’t answer my question. You replied an answer to someone or something unrelated to mine.