It may seem good until you start thinking about consequences of abandoning the fairness of proof of stake and implementing an unfair system of proof of “having any pool”.
So what is fair here?
That the devil always makes shit on top of the biggest pile ?
That Binance runs 60 nearly saturated pools and stakes automatically the assets deposed on their exchange in their own pools?
That people having recently jumped into Cardano have effort wo a realistic chance of getting rewards ?
That big stakes cause nearly the same effort as small ones but are higher rewarded ?
That marketing and access to social media wins over best ambitions and energy is waisted for promotion?
Mist likely fairness is not a common understood term
I have choosen my first pool to stake according to their mission, that is funding social projects, with the result that the pool disapeared after six weeks due to high cost and low revenue. I was not looking for income, just good ethics- was naive.
Why not implementing a „stake anywhere“ button and a „dismiss this pool“ button ?
I do not want to miss an important argument: consensus in the right time. From the papers I found I did not get a clear definition except that the longest fork is validated that confirms to the genesis block- does anyone have more precise infos or a good link here ?
Thank you and cheers
I think your dissatisfaction and sense of unfairness is due to your attitude being fundamentally opposite to cardano’s.
Cardano is about regaining or improving freedom and control of your financial and(in near future also social ) contracts. This goes hand in hand with responsibility to bear consequences both good and bad.
You, on the other hand, want the system to take decissions instead and to deliver you rewards.
completely nonsens- the system takes decisions every slot. You state instead of arguing, dismiss arguments and this is a dangerous mindset for any good idea.
This is exactly why I wanted to start a thread like this. I felt there is improvement in the world with the Cardano network however there is definitely a lack of an equal opportunity…(ironic bc that’s apparently what Cardano is trying to do)…even if our conversation becomes heated, keep in mind we are all trying to improve the network and we should totally participate to the best of our abilities into bettering a diamond in the rough. We cannot be undecided we cannot apply the same treatment we do in our day to day life such as tap out or look the other way. I’m tired of corrupt systems that pray on us…don’t forget what we are fighting for. Let’s all contribute so that maybe one day we come close to a fair system that we all can enjoy…I love Cardano for being able to provide even just that Hope…maybe it’s impossible…but that doesn’t mean we can’t try…it is far from perfect…but it reached a long way… Absolutely great and valuable information has been shared in this thread and I thank you all. Cheers
The principle of cardano’s POS is described here.
If you claim that there is a systematical unfairness, then prove it. For a statistically meanigful timeframe ( 3, 4 , 5 months ?? your choice ) please provide pool names or IDs, how many blocks they were nominated to, how many block they should have been nominated to acc. to POS, how many block should they have been nominated according your proposal and explain why that exact many.
Let’s see if, based on real data, we can steer the discussion from calling other opinions a nonsense back to reason and mutual respect.
In the conversation there seems to be (2) implicit assumptions:
The current PoS algorithm/protocol as designed is working as intended and is indeed fair
There is an inherent flaw in the design or implementation that creates an unhealthy bias towards the haves and “honest” have-nots face an increasing barrier to entry and are denied a fruitful participation in the network
If the current PoS is well-specified should be able to model any number of stake pool network scenarios and calculate distributions and compare then to reality ( the current reward distribution). If the distributions match with-in some reasonable tolerance, we have validation that the PoS is working as designed, if not then ouch – gotta iterate and fix it.
Once the PoS has been validated can look at fairness.
First some kind of specification is needed, like a child mortality rate, so one can quantify, measure and hopefully agree on and specify a healthy metric. One could then model how the current network responds to new stake pools and this new metric.
There is a lot of complexity here and there may be hidden/implicit assumptions that are being violated clock skew, network speeds, randomness collusion amongst federated stake pool …
My sense there is a lot of work in this domain that if not addressed will first have us yelling at each other and in the end tarnish the integrity/dream, perhaps the success, of the platform.
Would hope Cardano Foundation or one of their University partners would pursue some hard research/analysis and publish publicly. Think that would be good first step and help frame discussion.
The protocol defines probability to be the slot leader.
with 21b staked in total and 21k slots per epoch your long term probability to be a slot leader are
1M 100% every epoch
166K 16% once every 6 epochs = once a month
100K 10% once in 10 epochs
14k 1,3% once in 73 epochs = once a year
10k 1% once in 100 epochs
1,4k 0,13% you still get a slot once in 10 years.
Each of these gives around 5% ROI p.a.
Your NEVER applies to pools with exaclty ZERO stake.
This of course is only true if you are the pool owner and your cost of running the pool is zero. If you are a delegator to the above pools, you’ll have to substract the cost of minted blocks, which is roughly as follows …
340 / (64 x 720) => 0,7%
340 / (32 x 720) => 1,4%
340 / (16 x 720) => 2,8%
340 / (8 x 720) => 5,6%
340 / (4 x 720) => 11,2%
340 / (2 x 720) => 22,4%
340 / (1 x 720) => 44,8%
The last two lines are actually not quite as bad, because according to Bernoulli the chance of winning zero blocks with 1m is a lot higher than 0%. Therefore, you’ll also have epochs with > 1 blocks - hence the annual cost will be less than 73 x 340 => 24820, but that is only true for small pools. As soon as a pool reliably makes at least one block per epoch it is a constant 24820 p.a. plus the pool’s margin.
When you own the pool, you can also keep the 340 but you will have to pay for running the pool. Assuming you have a close to optimal running cost of $600 p.a. and a pool with 0% margin, you will approximately need to have 10m to break even with “just delegating to a 64m pool”, unless you find delegators who are willing to shoulder the above cost so that you can keep more.
That cursed 340. It is the only unfair parameter in the system and how much damage does it cause. I can’t even promote my small pool among my friends knowing they would get better ROI elsewhere.
There is a dirty solution - split and share the 340 with delegates.
A good system should not need to be hacked to make it work, though.
I would not call it ‘dirty’ but smart😬! That’s actually what we do with our cooperative approach. With smart contracts in place it might even bring us much more creative opportunities.
Do you mean something like this?
I have thought about this and I don’t know whether this is good for an explanation - here my 2ct …
If you cannot have an unbounded number of players (i.e. k => infinity) you must have a mechanism that clusters a finite amount of resources around a defined number of players (e.g. k=500). If you then accept that the system needs to converge towards k saturated pools (e.g. 500 <= k <= 10000) you must somehow discourage k => infinity. What we have with 340 fix is that lever of discouragement - it is unattractive by design to delegate to small pools, instead it is attractive to delegate to the top k pools. Its a way for the system to stay lean/healthy.
We have seen that k=100.000 is not sustainable for a number of reasons. And no matter what specific value of k you assume, there will always be those that are not among the k players and those at the fringes will likely eventually give up because simply delegating is not such a bad option either.
Yes, that semi-automation of the proces is even better than I thought.
What a waste of your energy on a problem that should not exist in first place and it would not exist if the 340 wasnt mandatory.
I feel your pain. But, you still little bit luckier then me I got 17 Epoch without even single block minted to my pool.
I cannot say any word, but if your delegation is less then 1M ADA, frankly speaking, it’s tough. I really hope that IOHK and CF can work something to save us small pool in the future.
Maybe by limiting the ownership of pool one entity have.
Anyway, wish you good luck.
I checked my own pool and a couple of the other smaller pools i know. All of them stop at epoch 253! There seems to be an issue with pooltool?
It seems so. We at least know now it’s not from us…so that’s a good thing.
Yes, pooltool is undergoing back-end migration. Pools that do not mint a block are not being updated. It’ll fixed soon.
This is so priceless it made me sign up to get an account just so I could post my first ever comment. I am not tech savvy. I am new to crypto and am an ADA holder only (at the moment anyway) because I was introduced to crypto by another ADA holder, did some research (to the best of my unknowlegable ability), and REALLY like the concept/foundation/goal of Cardano.
I was wanting to delegate to a pool. I’m was looking for the fees each pool charges (can’t find that anywhere). When I came upon this forum.
Javix, you hit a walk-off in game 7 in my opinion.
So, having said all that… I’m still wondering where I can find the fees associated with each pool and the rewards I would receive (some have said zero rewards?). It’s only a small amount but the amount is HUGE to ME.
Kindest Regards everyone!