I loved Itn and Cardano, but I may not love mainet because of a0!

Staking & Delegation Stake Delegation
121

Summary

Apparently we are making a pause in our discussion. So I’ll take this opportunity to thank you for this conversation which has been a very interesting so far, and to make a checkpoint and try to sum up what we’ve discussed so far to make sure we’re at the same page.

Let’s focus on the 2 formulas’s/schemes’s properties, comparison, and flaws. Because we’ve been a bit dispersing in many discussions that might not be that central.

Please correct me if you don’t agree with the following, or if I missed something.

Current reward scheme

formula2
You admited that it had the following bad properties, in lack of better :

  • Not really fair

  • Complicated.

You did give an answer for the following problem:

  • The cartel problem : You said it would not happen because of a « desirability » indicator and pool ranking you will provide to people. I told you I thought people will not follow an indicator in the long run, if it’s not really in their best interest, so the existance of an indicator cannot solve or change anything in itself, in comparaison to what incentives the protocol itself really gives to people. You did not yet reply any further.

You did not yet give a detailed answer to the other flaws I pointed out :

  • Partial protection against Sybill attack. especially about the nasty side effect of introducing a0 on Sybill-resilliance, discouraging people to delegate according to who they know and trust.

  • « DDoS on a pool » which does not seem easilly solvable with a0.

The reward scheme I propose

If we simply switch to the formula formula (wether or not also we implement the change of how to distribute rewards within a pool, but without any other change), I claim that we have the following good properties :

  • Nash equilibrium with k pools

  • Sybill resistant

  • Fair ( i.e every ADA gives the same rights, whoever owns it )

  • Simple to understand

  • Not weak to cartel attacks

It is really unclear to me, at this point, if you admit that it has all these properties or not. If you don’t, can you say clearly which one(s) you think it does not have, and which one(s) you admit it has, so that we can make demonstrations, for the ones we disagree on.

If we also implement the change on how to distribute reward within a pool we also have :

  • resistant to « DDoS on a pool »

You said multiple times that you doubted the scheme could have all the good properties but you did not yet point any precise property that it was definitly missing, that your scheme had, or am I lacking something ?

2 Likes