It is my very personal and niche opinion but what I think we are seeing here is a social problem.
We ranked pools and then told holders “go select one”. Ofcourse they would select the first ones in the list. And that is the problem. All Cardano applications focus on sorting one way or another on “performance”. Now a lot has been said about this but all things being equal all methods send out the wrong signals because the only metrics that matter will be available next year at the earliest. And in the end, it doesn’t matter to the holder if they make 5.54% or 5.56% ROI
Well anyways I’m of course a little disappointed that what I proposed was neither taken into account yet, nor refuted. But anyways I don’t want to spend anymore uselessly time and energy on that, so that’s good as well that we end this thread here. I think I’ve given enough information, so that the team can make decision without ignoring my “findings”.
really new on community, i feel i face similar question
and i in high level i would say, we need a “load_Balancer” inside the algorithm to decide the resources of the available pools for the delegation.
i dont know should be this solution translated in technical aspect…
I guess unfortunately it is a lot more likely that comments regarding fear of excessive centralization, or cartel problem will age better than those regarding fear of over-decentralisation where a significant part of total stake would be distributed into an infinite number of pools infinitely small.
If you followed this thread, you might be interested by this independent post that proposes a formula that goes in the same direction than I did in this thread. It proposes a parametrizable formula, that for some parameters value ends up being equivalent to the one I propose, but is more general:
