This is a terrible update.
You’re better off scrapping the whole delegation system entirely and just do it behind the scenes.
Do you really think that Small Single Pool Operators are going to feel like they have a chance?
Just my two Lovelaces.
Sergiu - ELIK Pool
This statement is baffling at the very least.
CF’s actions should reflects its values, which in turn should be 100% aligned with those of the network they vow to promote and protect.
Pool splitting hurts the network, Prof. Agellos Kiayias has been quite clear about this👇
https://iohk.io/en/blog/posts/2020/11/13/the-general-perspective-on-staking-in-cardano/
The guy whose “game theory” predicted that we should have 500 fully saturated pools by now and all smaller pools should have long voluntarily given up?
You are quoting my sentence out of context. 
My point was that if the Cardano Foundation would delegate in the sense of Cardano’s fundamental concepts (pure game-theoretical incentives), then it would have to do so to maximise its profit. A delegation strategy that is looking for impact would not exist - just pure selfish delegation.
I can only agree with him. That does not mean it will not happen.
K=500 represents an ideal # of saturated pools. I hope we can agree that an ideal situation doesn’t often correspond to reality.
IMO, the ideal # should actually be 1000, as that is a lot closer to the current # of minting pools (albeit not saturated). That’s what i voted for in the poll…but hey, we all know what that’s worth.
But why listen to me? I’m no cryptographer and have never been Chief Scientist for Cardano.
Sorry Tommy,
Ok, yes, I cherry picked the sentence. I apologise🙏
But please, delegating huge bags of ADA to already established multi pools (which by splitting with pledge below saturation do wrong by the network) can be interpreted as a decision driven by self interest.
Yes I agree that unvetted use of chatGPT is dangerous and somewhat stupid but if it is used properly and responsbily then not so - if someone composes a response and asks chatGPT to fix up the grammer, spelling and punctuation without changing the content then that can be OK. This is provided the user reads it again and changes any errors that it may have produced. AI is the future and we will reach a stage where you wont even know if it has been used or not. Sorry I guess this is getting off topic but I was seriously pissed off by the response given by the CF member.
Now that does only make very limited sense. If you agree that pool splitting hurts the network then the single pool ideology should really stay in the CF delegation rules.
I’d argue that it’s not that simplistic. That the saturation point is kind of arbitrary and can be suddenly changed by the powers that be – irrespective if those powers are the founding entities now or a majority in a more or less decentralised governance in the future.
So, I won’t agree with him that running multiple pools is bad in all cases.
I wrote my thoughts down as a twitter thread here: https://twitter.com/Quantumplation/status/1712856972188414285
But the TL;DR is: I can understand the motivations behind these changes, but believe they are, as stated, significantly flawed; I suggest some changes or clarifications that would address my concerns, and may address the concerns of others.
Well I thought you will go in the way to support even more SSPOs I guess you are going oposite way.
Trashy response.
I strongly agree with your point that they should clarify why the chosen pools are chosen. Because for some current CF delegations I honestly wonder what exactly their contributions are (I don’t say they don’t have contributions, just that I don’t know them).
Very disappointed to read about the new CF delegation strategy.
For example: how is a single stake pool operator expected to compete with an MPO business in terms of developing tools or building on Cardano? If single stake pool operators are really the backbone of the network then they should be treated like so and given fairer chances.
Hey adatainment,
Some notes: The typeform link is closed
Additionally, the effect of choosing fewer pools but adding MPOs in seems like it will be way more centralizing. Any words there?
Cheers,
Chris
Disappointment with Cardano Foundation’s Delegation Strategy
I must admit that I am disappointed by the Cardano Foundation’s new delegation strategy. While the Cardano ecosystem has always promoted decentralization and supporting a diverse set of stake pool operators, the recent decision to delegate a significant amount of ADA to multi-pool operators raises some questions and concerns.
Why Support Multi-Pool Operators?
One would think that the Cardano Foundation, with the option to delegate from a wallet, would have chosen to delegate a smaller amount to more single stake pool operators. The question that arises is: why would the Foundation choose to support multi-pool operators rather than more unique single stake pool operators?
Possible Motives Behind the Decision
It’s important to consider the motivation behind this decision. It might seem like the Foundation is making this choice to reduce the administrative burden and make their job less time-consuming. While this rationale is understandable, it doesn’t necessarily align with the principle of promoting a decentralized network, with a larger number of unique stake pool operators.
Supporting More Unique SPOs
Many in the Cardano community would agree that the strength of the network lies in its diversity, with a wide range of single stake pool operators. It’s these small operators who contribute to the decentralization and security of the network. Supporting them with smaller delegations could have been seen as a more appropriate way to ensure network health and resilience.
Why not delegate smaller delegations (like 5M instead of 14M) to more Single SPO?
Also, it says that the typeform is now closed
I always support the CF’s work, i know that they are doing a difficult job and it s hard to please everyone, but i think this time they got it wrong
I m looking forward to hearing other s people point of views
Good!
I’d personally like the k parameter be gone (or equivalently set to 1). It doesn’t work. Entities that can rather freely manage large amounts of ADA (exchanges, custody services, …) can always circumvent it. Meanwhile, the community engages in in-fights if OGs with fiveish pools or builders with two are already evil MPOs, if running multiple pools on behalf of others is just as bad etc. pp.
Just remove saturation and let SPOs honestly concentrate all their efforts in one pool!
Restricting leverage directly, setting saturation to L times the pledge for each pool individually, would be the much more elegant solution that does not incentivise or even force pool splitting.
I won’t consider Kiayias as a definitive voice. The simulations done for the reward sharing schemes have spectacularly little to do with reality. And especially that quote does not make much sense in that generality:
Consider a whale having 70m ADA, so roughly the amount to saturate and pledge one private pool completely. If they do that, there are no delegators to gain something. If they split into two pools and pledge both with half their ADA, delegators worth 70m ADA get the opportunity to delegate to a pool with a spectacularly high pledge. If they split into four pools, they could still pledge them with 17.5m ADA each, which is still very, very good and would give 210m ADA of delegators the opportunity to delegate to a highly pledged pool. This goes on as long as the pledge is significantly more than what is usual for the other public pools in the market.
If that were the case, Cardano would be doomed. The vast majority of delegators will only do research as far as “How do I delegate to get a good profit?” goes. And that should be fine.
Parts of the community …
I don’t think an entity consisting of a lot of different people necessarily has to have a consistent stance on that.
Maybe what has been said in this thread is just the truth: That the ones responsible for the delegation did not want to be forced to exclude valuable contributors to the community just because they run two pools.
Which does not say anything about the opinion of the ones responsible for decisions on parameter changes.
Maybe part of the reason was also being fed up with the constant “According to my research that pool you delegated to is an evil MPO!!!” whining after each redelegation and the ensuing debates if a pool with no stake that happens to be still registered or pools run for others, but using the same relays, count.
Welcome @Quantumplation , this is a very reflected and sober thread. Not sure if you want me to address every Tweet on it’s own or only clarifications on the selection process.
Because technically, there are not many changes. We handpicked a bigger list before with the same criteria, then did a random draw. Now we are picking them directly. There is no deviation from the core strategy of “Supporting the Architects of the Future”: https://forum.cardano.org/t/cardano-foundations-new-delegation-methodology-supporting-the-architects-of-the-future/79594 . Sample excerpts:
We want to support the people who create value on Cardano; who build the tools that others can use to build on Cardano; that contribute to projects like the Developer Portal ; who create Cardano Improvement Proposals (CIP) ; and participate in the discussions to define new standards.
We want to encourage people that are active in the Cardano Stack Exchange (CSE) and the Cardano Forum.
We want to encourage people to build what that community needs, create open-source solutions, and help the ecosystem thrive.
I thought the main point of the CF delegating to SPOs was to help them attract additional delegation by helping their pool produce enough blocks during the delegation cycle to generate rewards for all newly attracted delegates.
We are 1 of the 454 shortlisted SPOs that have been running a pool since Feb 2022 with only 1 block produced since inception due to struggle to attract delegation. As I’m sure you’re aware, its hard to attract delegation when your pool does not produce blocks due to the recursive nature of attracting delegation when your pool does not produce blocks thus not rewarding delegates.
However, we always felt that could easily change if we were selected for delegation from the CF. Every 3 months we felt we had a chance. Just continue to contribute to the community and keep the pool running, and just maybe during the next delegation cycle we’d make it off the shortlist and be recognized and awarded delegation.
However, with these changes, we believe all of that goes out the window. The 3 biggest changes that hurt our chances of ever getting delegation from the CF are:
First and foremost, allowing MPOs is clearly wrong. Plain and simple. They already have enough delegation to warrant 2+ pools, they clearly do NOT need additional delegation from the CF to help attract delegation to their pools.
Decreasing the number of pools awarded delegation hurts every pool, especially SPO with only 1 pool in the running. This is simple percentages. I don’t think I need to explain that any more.
And lastly, the extension of the delegation cycle from 3 months to 1 year really hurts SPOs that struggle to attract delegation. With a 3 month cycle, at least we only had to continue running for another 3 months before another chance, now we’ll have to wait a whole year.
I believe these changes will undoubtedly cause pools to shut down. It goes against all things decentralized about Cardano. And it really hurt SPOs like ours, [CLYDE] Stake Pool.
This is sad day for Cardano and all SPOs.
agree 100% Captain