Implementing full transparency although theoretically optimal and fair will be more destructive to our community. The pool picking process is not an exact math based on exact results but a subjective decision of the people in charge of the delegations and based on the criteria they set.
Unless the decisions can be based on exact numbers and predefined algorithms it’s expected that there will be different opinions on the choices made, so what full transparency will do is just emerge negative opinions and heavily dissapointed community memebers eventually giving up all their interest and efforts because of the unjustice they perceive. We should try not to base our work and efforts on enthusiasm of getting a delegation although it can be a heavy stimulus.
We already have this now, so I would rather have those with transparency than without…
I understand your point and CFs effort to make it more public, transparent and fair already backfired. It’s not something CF did here wrong, it’s just reality, as there will always be disappointed members unless the process can be based on exact numbers and algorithms, especially when having so many people doing good work and contributing their most precious asset, their time.
I can understand why CF wouldn’t want to publish reasons for selecting particular tool builders because such would be very subjective, depending a lot on each individual adjudicator’s values.
But, can CF at least let the community know what they now consider to be the acceptable upper limit for the size of a stake pool operator as a fraction of the Ada supply that is staked to all of their pools?
There is a chance that I am missing something here but apart from point 5), everything here seems to me to be off-topic. Thread is about the delegation strategy of the Foundation, not setting network parameters. (which, we also do not determine)
Please let me know where we are not clear on selecting builders or the requirements. The original requirements from Cardano Foundation’s New Delegation Methodology: Supporting the Architects of the Future (October 2021) remain unaffected by these changes. They could be summarized as: we aim to support pools that focus on building infrastructure, setting standards, and developing tools (ideally open source). Additionally, we prioritize those who assist others in a manner that yields a sustainable impact on the Cardano Ecosystem.
For builder tools, this means we look into: who is using it and how, what value it brings, to whom, what problems it solves, frequency of commits, release history, contributors but also basic metrics like stars and forks etc. Technically everything that you would check on any other GitHub project to see if it is healthy.
Why is it closed and when will it be open? Just reading questions would help me understand better.
@adatainment I understand perfectly that CF will use all the metrics that it can in order to determine which tool builders are worthy of support. Of course CF will do proper due diligence. I was simply recognising that I wouldn’t expect CF to publish a detailed report about it’s assessment of each tool builder it chooses to support because, as @mcrio stated, such a report might be divisive to the community.
However, can you please answer my question:
CF: Please let the community know what is now considered to be the acceptable upper limit for the size of a stake pool operator, as a fraction of the Ada supply, that is staked to all of that operator’s pools?
how long will the form be open for and when will the selections made public?
love your work 
I would be really surprised if they had.
In this very post there are Cardano Ambassadors referring to Aggelos as “that guy”, choosing the narrative that we shouldn’t hold on to the founding papers because they are 5 years old. What an embarrassment 
As if modern democracies should look back on their history and piss on it because it’s old
If I were Aggelos, I would just sit back, relax and watch these guys gut Cardano. Then just say: “I told you so”.
Sad, but yes. I have been accused of pushing a crusade, and I guess I am, if that is what you call pushing for decentralisation. I thought that was what we were all here for.
K has no meaning anymore so there is no point voting about changing it. Now we depend on CF telling us which pool moguls are too big that they wouldn’t consider them. But CF won’t clarify that size upper limit. No one knows if it is 2 pools, 5 pools, 7 pools … 10 ???
Please: What fraction of the total Ada supply does CF consider is too much to have staked with one pool operator?
That means less than 123.8 million ADA stake across all pools … probably quite a bit less because it doesn’t make much sense to delegate to them just to let them move into the upper 50%.
Yes, I agree that is a reasonable interpretation. But still, CF hasn’t explicitly confirmed. If those are the numbers then K could be reduced to 250 and everyone can be a single pool operator under this number.
The biggest challenge facing Web3 may be the reliance on Web2 media platforms.
We expect any legitimate business to stand by its products. If an Amazon shipment goes missing, Amazon will replace the order at no cost to the customer. If a restaurant accidentally serves a salad with a fly in the dressing, then we would expect the salad to be replaced at no cost to the customer, and perhaps the whole meal would be complimentary. Businesses show their willingness to take responsibility for their mistakes by compensating affected parties financially in a way that is commensurate with the mistake because the basis of business relationships is financial.
The issue may be that profit is being considered more important than values.
Wouldn’t it be nice if your apology for the insult could be made more meaningful and sincere by “putting your money where your mouth is,” as respectable businesses would tend to aim to do, perhaps in the form of a delegation for a period of time that would help GNP1 to feel properly compensated for the misunderstanding, in order to smooth over and restore the relationship in an attempt to keep a valued, long term SPO customer, to put the concern in terms that may sound somewhat familiar to us as participants in a society?
Such a possibility would be much better aligned with the ideal that “Cardano is for everyone, including or even especially the disenfranchised.” That is why I propose https://github.com/paradoxicalsphere/cardano-improvement-proposals/blob/main/CIP-x/README.md
I left my response on twitter https://x.com/lacepool_com/status/1713181434876236227 if anyone is interested in my opinion.
However, I only noticed the new requirements now. Having two relays registered onchain is a hard requirement now? Wait, what, why!? I even updated my pool’s onchain information to remove one of my relays to only expose one of my relays, living security by obscurity! So, I am excluded now because I care about network security, while you speak about being more inclusive? C’mon, something is really off here.
We care about network resilience, and a minimal technical requirement for pools is needed to achieve this. We saw in the past people getting a lot of stake and then realizing their setup was so poor that they had problems propagating the blocks to the network. We don’t want that, the load from all new p2p clients needs to go somewhere.
While I’m not doing this here, people can easily argue that you are hurting the network more with these “poor” setups than contributing to it. Every relay is not only providing services it is also demanding the resources of others.
Like I wrote on Twitter: if interested, we can organize an SPO workshop on this topic. I have a few great people in mind. (but it must be after the Cardano Summit).
I think most of you reading here are already registered for the “SPO Notifications”. We are informing about SPO Workshops there: https://cardanofoundation.org/forms/spo-notification
yes, and there’s something to be said about SPOs participating in a private relay network group as well
that should definitely be a questions on any application form (are you running a relay privately networked with other SPOs?)
Can you explain why you think this is an advantage? I want to understand more.
Didn’t we “sort of” have a private relay network before with everyone using clio.one to download a topology file where you could add extra peers. The problem with this method seemed to me, that well known pools got more incoming connections and were relatively better connected, but this wasn’t necessarily based upon the amount of stake they had delegated, but rather based upon whether they were friends or personally “well known”.
One thing I have noticed since more people have been using the P2P mechanism is that my relays now get many more incoming connections than they ever did in the past. My relays get around 25-30 incoming connections each now whereas before they used to only get 6-10 each. Furthermore, my average delays in receiving and propagating blocks has reduced considerably.
The P2P mechanism seems to work better, and it prioritises relays based upon how much delegated stake their pool has. Consequently if one was to manually select extra private peers, then this would necessarily reduce the number of peers enabled using the P2P mechanism, since the node can only have a limited number of peers. I think this might degrade the effectiveness of the P2P mechanism.
On the other hand, having some hidden relays, which are not registered on-chain, I think is a good idea because this limits the ability for someone to denial-of-service attack you. Is this what you mean by a “private relay network group”? Because I think these hidden relays might be better running fully in P2P mode too. IE without any manual inclusion of operator chosen known pools.
My reasoning could obviously be flawed, and if so, please educate me.
If you have a network of high spec, strategically distributed, and linked relays which connect to a large amount of high stake block producers (out-connections), you can increase the size of your mempools, block in-connections (only allow ‘your’ transactions in the mempool), you then have the ability to propagate a large amount of your own transactions very quickly - without propagating any other type of transaction.