Prior to this “transparent” methodology (I will grant you that this is their new approach) the staking did not meet the criteria published above
If you look at the staking done prior to the allocation yesterday you will see that the 10 stakes came from these pools: DIGI, (very high probability DIGI2 before it went to LOVE 12 days ago), LOVE, AHL, CLIO1, STKH1, AAA, ADLT, RDLRT, CRDNS, NUTS. So stakes of +/- 60M ADA at DIGI previous epoch and another at DIGI2 too a while back? I assume the DIGI2 stake is CF because that stake which moved to LOVE was then subsequently moved to one of the pools above. (Follow the money!) Still Rick getting 2 times a staking that big by chance? I would say no…, that would be statistically very unlikely using any simple randomizer. Also, DIGI belongs to a multipool owner. Like ADLT, AAA, CRDNS which are also operated by multipool owners. This is why I have to call them out for being subjective to choice of pools to delegate to prior to the publication of this forum post.
For more transparency, could you share eligible pools list to all community members please? This will help the pool members to know if they really are part of this lottery? Also community will be able to validate the list to ensure criteria provided above is actually fulfilled.
This is a good start. Hopefully when multi-staking from one wallet becomes available we will see a large spread by CF and IOG. These kinds of things are necessary to promote decentralization.
Aloha Cardano has been producing blocks with nearly 100% uptime. We hope we get a chance to prove ourselves!
Dear CF, I’m still thinking about the idea of capping the pledge and how it should help any of the goals that you described, such as increasing decentralization.
Could you explain that?
I’m not so much interested in the number (2M, 3M, …) but rather in what it is supposed to achieve.
Example:
Pool A: Has a high pledge and 5M of live stake
Pool B: Has a low pledge and 5M of live stake
Why should Pool B get support but not Pool A ?
Before I lower my pledge from 2.1M to under 2M, I would like to better understand the idea behind it.
By the way, I just looked at pooltool and only counted 6 more pools that would be eligible for delegation if the cap was removed.
If a pool already had produced blocks it means is doing rather well… You should consider delegation to pools that have not produced blocks yet, as that doesn’t mean they would not produce them with the right amount of delegations.
I think this is an important step to help smaller stake pools. I can understand the critcism in here about the requirement to have validated blocks to be selected. However, I can also understand Cardano Foundation: They need parameters to select reliable pools who have clear intentions in running a node. And having at least one validated block shows that the SPO of this pool has already put much efforts in his node - otherwise he wouldn’t have one validated block. It’s a tough part to get there.
I know that there are many SPOs out there who worked hard and didn’t receive any block so far. This is the thing we have to work on. Among these SPOs there might be gems who are hardcore IT professionals and who have best server capacities, but who missed to step in early and who missed the ITN. I think it is important to pick these ones as well to build a solid decentralized base for Cardano.
There are “players” who come and leave all the time. Cardano needs to be prepared for that. A few of them will remain for a long time, maybe for decades. And we shouldn’t miss them in our decentralized system.
I hope to be selected one day as well. So far we have validated two blocks. We are proud of that and are looking into future to validate our third block. Maybe this happens tomorrow? Maybe in two weeks? Who knows! For sure is that our nodes will stay online - regardless of the profit! We want to support Cardano!
I would like to take this opportunity to give my comment about SPOCRA, committees, etc: In a truly decentralized system there should be openness and freedom with fair and equal chances to everyone! When the biggest stake pools form alliances then this reminds me very much about our problems we have in society in real world: It becomes even more difficult for newcomers to have a chance against these huge alliances of companies.
A truly decentralized system should be capable of handling the most different operated nodes. It should have a diversity of stake pools around the globe with different standards to be most robust and resilient. I don’t want to blame anything. I just want to remind that all alliances, guilds or committes which are about to be created fullfill the philosophy of Cardano.
We all (yes, you, too) built up a decentralized systems which gives every single unity / individual / person the same fair equal chances. And I hope this fairness will last long time.
Appreciate all the help us small pools can get. Although we are not eligible yet, no blocks produced, I understand the reasoning for the blocks produced criteria. However, we have produced blocks on the various testnets since ff. I know this is a stretch and probably not worth the work for CF, but maybe give small pools like that a chance too?
They need to keep soliciting delegation until they mint a block. It took us about 2 month, but we finally got ours (and at that time we only had 217k delegation which is very doable).
Aloha Andy, checking in about this rotation. Are you expecting CF to make their new rounds next epoch, 226? We’ve got our fingers crossed, it’s been a rollercoaster ride these last 4 epochs, 2 of them dry, tough holding onto delegators.
, it’s understandable. However, I’m quite sure you understand the implications.
