CF should abstain from delegating "their" Ada

[HeptaSean]

@Terminada

I only said that I didn’t take issue with their previous policy which was explicitly focused on improving decentralisation, and they only staked with single pool operators.

On the one hand, how many of the chosen pools in https://forum.cardano.org/t/announcing-the-stake-pools-chosen-for-november-2024/139205 are not single pool operations? I only see CSN1, but might have overlooked something.

On the other hand, by your argument – I still don’t buy that at all – staking to single pool operators is very much “overriding the community consensus”. The “community” put almost 70% of its stake into multi-pool operations: https://cexplorer.io/groups It’s clearly “community consensus” that multi-pool operations are preferable, isn’t it? You can “read it on the blockchain”.

@Terminada

Who said anything about CF selling Ada?

You said multiple times that they should “simply” put the money in a fund. I don’t know any reliable enough fund on Cardano. Do you? I already asked in the post you were replying to because then they wouldn’t have to sell their ADA. Otherwise, they would have to move out of Cardano to put it into a fund. That’s your suggestion, so, in that sense, you were saying that they should sell to put into a traditional fund and not disturb the holy “community consensus”.

@Terminada

I am suggesting that instead of doing it this way, why don’t they take some of their staking rewards (Ada) they will otherwise earn and send it directly to the developers they want to support?

Where do they “otherwise” earn staking rewards? This whole thread still has the heading: ”CF should abstain from delegating ‘their’ ADA” How do they earn staking rewards when they are not delegating?

@Terminada

That even gives them more flexibility because now they can use the same funding mechanism to support “architects” that don’t happen to run a pool.

You still argue as if “We want to support these people. How do we do it?” is the question. I very much do not think it is! Rather it is: “As ADA holder, we want to stake. How do we do it?” And there they decided to support SPOs they believe are a good choice … as every ADA holder should do it.

Your alternative

@Terminada

Maybe CF should just run their own private pools which are fully pledge saturated.

is maybe viable to avoid the constant mourning of a few SPOs.

But only maybe. It prevents the envy towards the chosen SPOs, but it still takes away blocks and rewards from all other SPOs and gives them to these private pools, it still “overrides community consensus of block production” in your argumentation (that I still do not follow).

@Terminada

But, one disadvantage would be:

• The decentralisation measurements (EDI) scores would look worse. But these are vanity metrics and the reality wouldn’t be any different since CF could spin up its own pools and move its Ada to them at any time already.

Wouldn’t even affect the Nakamoto coefficient that much. A CF private pool group with the 500 MADA they have would end up between Everstake and Wave among the groups. The smallest groups among the largest half that makes up that coefficient have around 100 MADA, so it would maybe lower the coefficient by 4 – replacing the lowest five by one?