Dynamic Saturation

I’d be interested to hear everyones opinion on a Dynamic Saturation method that ties a pools pledge to the saturation. No matter how much a SPO splits up their pledge across pools, they still have the same saturation limit.

Let me know your thoughts and any flaws you can think of.


Hello @caseygibson

Love the fact that you and others in community are thinking and trying to solve issue of large multi-pool farms. :heart:
This approach may work for deterring a large investor or a scammer, but unfortunately it will not do much to stop Binance and others like that.

You, like most of the people in crypto, keep assuming that Binace is a decent (however greedy :money_mouth_face:) player in a crypto space. By assuming that you may think that Binance just opened a bunch of pools and people delegate to them because they don’t know any better. If this was the case for all Binance pools, then the method you suggested would have some positive impact.

However, Binance in reality acts more as a predatory corporation then good crypto organization. ADA held in those pools is almost 100% controlled by Binance and it would be very little work for them to get their devs to move part of the money to pledge from stake. The reason why they do 1 ADA pledge is because it is easier at the moment.

But how do they get that ADA? (you may wonder :thinking: )
Easy! By misleading investors using borderline scammy adds/promotions to take their ADA away and use for them selves. Like this one:

Yes! You are seeing this correctly. If you stake your ADA through Binance you can get UP TO 17.7% APY while staking. While at regular ADA pools (such as yours) you get around 4% to 5%.

But you run a pool and you know that this is a lie. So, what’s going on?

If you look at the add you will see that minimum is $20 and there is a chance for 50 people to get a reward from 4,200 ADA pool. Which is actually 3 ADA each if you win. So, if you got about 15 to 20 ADA winning that 3 ADA is actually already 15% to 20% so TECHNICALLY the add is not lying. Some of those 50 people that win will make on average 17%.

Second part of that add you should notice is that it’s LOCKED STAKING!

Yep. They take away that ADA and place it in their own pools. If your ADA is locked they can put it as a pledge and before you take your ADA back they sucker bunch of other investors in so they can just pay back with new ADA so they never have to remove any pledge amount. Worst case scenario for them would be having to open 1000 pools and distribute all that ADA. That’s only 1 time payment of 500k (500 ADA per pool) and they would be back in business.

So while you and other stake pool operators are being honest and telling the truth to investor. Spending your time helping the community. Improving and securing the network. Binance just convinces people to handover their ADA with misleading adds on one of the very few networks that offers no lock staking. :rofl:

And yes some people will say that Binance ADA is also used for futures or Binance loans. True, but while it’s not it is sitting in those stake pools. There is a lot more ADA just sitting in Binance stake pools then being borrowed at any time of the day.

The only solutions that I can see to this is finding a way to get people to remove their ADA from exchanges and keep it in their wallets. To this effect I’m hoping that one of DeFi projects coming up will allow ADA users to provide liquidity/ leverage/ loans trough smart contracts while keeping ADA in their own wallets until the time when the loan/ liquidity/ margin is needed and called for. For example, I wouldn’t mind having ADA locked in smart contract in my wallet and used when need to fund loans/ margins or liquidity so I can make a few % more a year.

So to solve this specific (Binance) type of multi-pool problem there should be some incentive to move ADA away from an exchange to private wallets.

Otherwise I think your idea has merit and it could help overall security :+1:. Especially if they add a dynamic where during overflow times (or missed blocks) blocks are distributed for minting (reminting) to small cap pools. This can only be done if devs decide to have reserved ‘silent’ blocks between regular blocks which would be accessed only if network needs them. For example: to 21,600 block nominations per epoch add another 21,600 ‘back-up nomination blocks’. This way if network gets congested or block leader misses blocks, then small cap pools pick up the slack. I don’t know if that would be feasible, but I always thought that there should be away for Cardano network to extend and maximize resources available even beyond protocol parameters in times of need.

…and to everyone that is reading this and still keeping their ADA sitting on exchanges. Be your own bank and support individual stake pool operators through your own wallet. :v:

Not your keys, not your ADA. :ada:


Thanks @Neo_Spank for the “comment” / post :slight_smile:

In regards to Binance, the point is not about how many pools are running and slapping the pledge to each pool. Pledge should be linked to Saturation. If you want a higher Saturation, you have to lock up more pledge. The idea is as Binance grows their stake, they also have to up their total pledge. This forces an incentive in that if they want to be a major contributor to the ecosystem, they have to put a significant amount down as “risk”.

Binance out of all the multi-pools does have the resources to continue to create multi-pools with this method. I always knew they would no matter the method used, but the idea is to make them use the system as it was originally intended.

I’m not sure how this would work as currently the slot schedule is calculated before the epoch begins. There’s already parameters in place to adjust both the block size and the rate which blocks are produced. Both of these are network parameters that IOG fine tunes gradually to keep the system stable.

Also, small cap pools shouldn’t be given extra blocks just because we think it’s fair. The Ouroboros concept relies on the amount of stake to “dictate” your blocks. Adjusting this to give smaller pools more responsibilities would increase the chances of bad actors (51% attacks).