You don’t really have to trust your pool. As soon as the pool ranking works properly in daedalus, a delegator only needs to regularly check if their pool is still in the top k pools. Those top k pools will be the most reliable, with relatively low fees and high pledge.
I’ve said this elsewhere, I don’t think many people will care about who operates the pool, just as they don’t care who is mining their bitcoin. And this is not a negative thing the system is meant to be trust less.
I understand that for the individual behind the pool this situation might be frustrating but from the way the incentive mechanism was designed, it is clear that only pools with high pledge will survive.
I do not want to go into too much details, but it’s wallets dependent feature, meaning might be Daedalus enabled it but have not gathered the required data yet to have an educate level of the averaged apparent performance or any other reasons.
Because, the ledger-specs wallet API is ready for use for some time, but might be Daedalus is not using it for some reasons. Might be it will be enabled on Daedalus Flight first.
Similar applies to the Yoroi.
But, ttl I have no details, but if it would be fully functional on the wallets, the ranking would be very-very different.
P. 30:
The stake of the pool, and the amount of stake that the owners of the pool contribute
(in order to check whether their pledge is honoured) is taken from the current stake
distribution (calculated from the current UTxO set and delegation relation on demand
when the wallet performs the ordering).
So the saturation doesn’t rely on snapshot data but on actual live stake.
Yeah, I raised some issue, to consider the pool saturation in the ranking and desirability too, cos an over-saturated pool can push out some non-saturated pools from the ranking and therefore from their non-myopic stake will became only the pledge, which would affect them.
But, I do not think that my proposal would be efficient.
According to the specs the ranking should be based on formula 3 in 5.6.4. This formula calculates the expected rewards based on all significant parameters. An oversaturated pool will yield less member rewards r_member,nm so it should go down significantly in the ranking.
Yes, it will goes down definitely, and that’s why I think that over-saturation checking in the desirability is not really required, but would be a nice to have feature checking the oversaturation there to allow some others to be fit in the k number of pools instead of the over-saturated.
What I mean is, and that’s the part that is written strangely in the specs, that the ranking is actually not based on the desirability formula but based on the ranking formula.
Depending on the stake slider in the daedalus delegation center the top pool will be the one yielding the highest RoS for the individual user.
Yes, it is clear now, I completely missed the Section 4.3, as it was not referenced in the 5.6. But, in my understanding, there is no such ranking formula but the non-myopic reward formula of which the ranking in Daedalus is based on. Also, afaik that slider is for the delegators to set their stake intend to delegate as the pool list will be filtered based on their choice of delegation, which does not seem to be implemented. As an example it could filter out those pools which would be oversaturated if she will delegate to them etc. of course other factors will be considered to by that filtering. Also, desirability is important as it splits the pools to two initial distinct groups, based on the pool parameters and performance. The lucky ones who van use their stakes for further calculations and the unlucky ones who just can only use their plege only. Anyway, tomorrow I will check how much impact this non-myopic sigma could have on the unlucky pools.
That’s why I meant the design specification is is a little confusing. It also took me some time to piece the info together.
This way of ranking pools by expected delegator rewards and the slider are bit implemented currently, but charles said in one of his last videos that they are working on it.
I have been following Cardano for a few years, I ran a pool on the ITN test net and continue to run one on the mainnet. I have also arranged meetups. I am glad that IOHK have 20 pools and hope they continue for a long time. For them I am sure this is not all about staking rewards and that they have the best interest of the Cardano blockchain at heart. If they did not have their 20 then maybe 1PCT would have a lot more.
Moving to a decentralise system is a big and risky step, so I hope it’s done very gradually.
I am sure there are a lot of decent people who care about Cardano and think about this when setting up a stake pool or choosing who to stake to. We can’t rely on this though and so fairness doesn’t come into it. We need this to work no matter what. Anyone can set up a stakepool and for all we know IPCT might have many more not named 1PCT. They may even run another multi pool. (This is not a criticism of 1PCT or trying to judge them in any way.)
the a0 parameter may need to go up but I am sure Charles and IOG etc. have given this a lot of thought. If it goes up too much maybe it could put an end to small pool operators. There are a lot of very rich big kids out there who could put the odd $10 million into this just as an interest. That would allow them to set up a lot of pools with a reasonable pledge to each.
Keep in mind, pools are not about the numbers, but stakes. So anybody could run hundreds pools, without any impact on decentralisation. The issue is like when those hundreds pools of one entity could gain power by accumulating stakes somehow. The system was designed to eliminate this kind of attack too, what (I think) we will see in some time in the future. Also, keep in mind this too,as we are talking probably lot of billions of USD when we refer to IOG, though ofc they are incentivised working on Cardano.
power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. From Acton
Actually, 6% of 2 billion ADA ia 120 million. It does not make any business sense to not keep it. 2 years from now that much ADA could fund several hundreds of small projects.