For them it mostly does not matter at all. They have little if any outside delegations. operator and delegator rewards both go to them (mostly).
Also because testnet is always just “playing around”. There is no incentive to really carefully selecting a pool (and there are not that many non-SPOs who do not just delegate to their own pool).
You are actually the first person I see who wants an even more cautious change, while there are quite some voices disappointed that minPoolCost=0 was not on the poll (and is also not seriously in discussion by that committee).
So the overall reward is about 1/4 of what it was 200 epochs ago when minFixedCost was first deployed.
There is a problem with that comparison.
When Shelley started, the d parameter was high and the percentage of blocks generated by the community was smaller than it is today.
Currently, I think that the pool that can make 65 blocks has about 70M ActiveStake, but in the early days, the pool that can make 65 blocks should have had a much larger ActiveStake than 70M.
From what I can see, the ActiveStake of the pool that produced 65 blocks in the earliest period was around 170M.
I think it should be compared with the same amount of ActiveStake and the same luck, not the number of blocks generated.
For the rest, I agree with HeptaSean.
In addition, if minPoolCost is lowered, I think some pools, especially smaller pools, will immediately lower their poolcost to be more competitive. I expect that number will not be small.
But it’s just a guess, so I don’t know what will actually happen. We have not lowered the minPoolCost on the Cardano mainnet yet, and I don’t think anyone will know, so we should be careful.
Thank you for the information you gave me.
I would like to think that there are some people among the silent majority who, like me, want to be cautious, but have no choice but to compromise because there were two options this time (this is my own guess).
minPoolCost=0 doesn’t fit my opinion, but I don’t think we should rule out the opinions and discussions of those who think like that.
After all, it was wrong to choose from the two options prepared by the Foundation, and I think there was a problem with SPOpoll.
I would like to request that the parameter committee please consider adding disclosures and information for the following areas. Thanks for your consideration.
How are members selected to join the committee?
Who selects members?
Does the committee have to vote to add a member?
What is the role of the “Chairs”?
Are the “Chairs” members that vote on recommendations?
What is the role of the “Advisory Group Heads”?
Are the “Advisory Group Heads” members that vote on recommendations?
What is the role of the “Advisory Group Members”?
Are the “Advisory Group Members”, members that vote on recommendations?
What is the role of the “Others”?
Are “Others” members that vote on recommendations?
For each member can we get short bio of projects they work on in the ecosystem and if they run a pool?
Can we get how many members of committee voted in the poll?
Can we get a list of how they voted in the poll?
Can we get a list of the pool names run by committee members?
Can we get a breakdown of members that are single pools and that are MPOs?
I think providing this additional information will add to transparency and help prevent any appearances of conflicts of interest. The answers to these questions may raise additional questions, so I hope the committee is open to additional disclosures. I 'm sure I’m missing some questions that others in the community might have, so please feel free to add to the list.
I hope the committee will consider having a public community call soon as well. I requested on last SPO call In July with IOG that we have a community call with committee, and I was told it would be conveyed to the committee. So just requesting again.
I know the road to self-governance is tough, but I appreciate everyone’s efforts. Thank you!
I see, interesting thought. Although if you want to do a more apples to apples comparison you probably also need to factor in the price of Ada and minimum hardware requirement evolution too.