The Parameter Committee (interim state) meets on a tri-weekly basis. It discusses all parameters relating to the Cardano protocol including network, technical and economic parameters, providing technical advice and recommendations on updatable parameter settings.
Updated list of the Members (interim state):
Chair: Kevin Hammond
Vice- chair: Alex Moser
Vice- chair: Vijay Bhuvangiri
Advisory Group Heads:
Network group: Neil Davies
Technical group: Markus Gufler
Economic group: Samuel Leathers
Advisory Group Members:
Network group: Karl Knutson, Matthias Sieber, Marcin Szamotulski
Technical group: Ruslan Dudin, Michael Peyton Jones, Ashish Prajapati
Economic group: Sergio Sanchez, Philip Lazos, Giovanni Gargiulo
Communications: Tommy Kammerer, Nathaniel Acton, Addie Girouard, Matthew Capps
Domain experts: Martin Lang, Andrew Westberg
Secretary: Joaquín López
The purpose of the Parameter Committee is to provide technical advice and recommendations relating to the updatable protocol parameters, taking into account economic, security, network and other considerations, as appropriate.
Agenda and Updates:
Update on Change Request “CR 107 - Min Pool Cost reduction” & communications
Discuss with advisory groups about current parameter settings
Open PCP process to the community? We are testing the process, we will refine it.
Transition to the Intersect, moving slack and Discord channels to Intersect
Creating a Governance Parameter Guardrails doc
Nominations for the Governance Advisory Group
The Parameter Committee has already submitted the Change Request CR107 and sent it to the signing authorities, given the support from the community. We are now waiting for them to review and approve the document. Dates are proposed and provisional, do not take these dates as predictive and they will be affected by how quickly we can get all the signatures in place.
All the advisory groups have met and discussed the current parameter settings. The Parameter Committee only considers the existing and potential new values for protocol parameters. We are ahead of the minPoolCost halving, and await to see and evaluate the effects. Hence as for now we don’t see an immediate need to change anything else meanwhile as there is no critical or degrading situation.
The Parameter Committee will reconsider the initial assignments for the advisory groups and prepare a living document where anybody can find the latest information about current parameter settings.
Ashish Prajapati from CardanoScan has joined the Technical Advisory Group.
The Parameter Committee wants to open the PCP process to the community and consider their requests for recommendations. We are just testing the first iteration of this process, so we will refine it if needed.
The Parameter Committee is currently in an intermediate state and will transition to the Intersect as a subcommittee of the Technical Steering Committee. We expect to be fully integrated into the Intersect MBO by the end of the year.
The Parameter Committee will create a new advisory group focused on Governance Parameters and their first task will be to create a Parameter Guardrails document that will provide a recommendation to avoid parameter changes that could potentially compromise the security of the Cardano network.
The Committee members can nominate a proposed head for the Governance Advisory Group and we will vote on the next meeting.
Don’t really know if Cardanoscan shows them as soon as the transaction is submitted or only one epoch later when they become effective, but since the date given is the one of the transaction, I’d assume the former.
Hi Dan, unfortunately the change isn’t applied in pre-prod yet. We are still getting all the approvals but we’re making progress. Once we have all the approvals we will make an announcement and communicate the final dates.
You posted your question like 30 minutes before I posted the announcement, so you beat me too it haha. It’s been a long time coming, but yes, good to have it on the horizon, and hopefully this paves the way for much smoother PCPs in future.
There are good reasons to introduce changes step-by-step. Assuming the increase of ‘k’ is going to move stake around, then it’s smart to first change the minPoolCost. By doing so, even smaller, less competitive pools will have a better opportunity to attract the stake that is moving around.
I can understand a step-by-step commitment, like starting to move to k=750. But there is no plan attached to the proposal.
If it’s a step-by-step, may this should be voted again. It does not look in line with what was voted by the SPO pool, the reason I asked why this is being pushed before Sancho Net, in a few months from here.
SPO waited for years with limited input in setting the initial parameters. Now, despite a clear survey outlining both the question and parameters, we’re moving forward without a clear justification from the committee.
A four to five-month period before a final vote, as you mentioned earlier, seems reasonable.
The input from the SPOs was clear, a combined change of 2 parameters, and if it’s a step-by-step change starting from a point where there is no on-chain vote, I can’t agree with 0 modification on the K parameter.
If we’re getting divergences on this, we really should wait for a real on-chain vote, then the committee could lay out a better step-by-step plan based on the results.
@Kevin_Hammond Hi Kevin, I was promised a couple of times in recent months (e.g. via monthly SPO call Q-n-A) that the latest development/research information on the subject of pledge effectiveness / pool splitting disincentivizing by IOG would be presented to general public as a part of some Parameter Commitee updates/blog posts, any updates on how that task is progressing? Thanks in advance (if there is a better spot for me to post such inquiries going forward, please let me know)