On October 28th, IOG released Daedalus wallet 2.4.0. In addition
to new features like saturation indicator for stake pools, the
wallet also introduced a new ranking mechanism that unranks two
thirds of the active pools.
Releasing a Daedalus which unranks two thirds of stake pools
does a great disservice to the Cardano delegator community by
providing an inaccurate and misleading representation of
numerous Cardano stake pool operations’ ability to create
competitive revenue. As a result stake has begun migrating away
from affected pools out of delegator fear and uncertainty. This
leads many stake pool operators to question whether they can
continue to be part of the community.
We [SPOCRA] feel that the changes made by IOG to Daedalus push
the boundaries of the Cardano ethos of decentralization and
promote a form of censorship. We understand that in the current
order of operations, things like Goguen implementation are a
priority. That said, many stake pool operators are hanging on by
a thread and many will not make it to Q2 2021. We believe that
there are steps IOG could take in good faith to help bridge the
gap.
We have created this on-chain poll/statement to let everyone
know where the membership of SPOCRA stands.
Please take a moment to contribute your feedback by casting your vote. It means a great deal!
Why is that the case? Isn’t only 150 block producing pools nearly at saturation level should be only exist (with some sort tailing)?
If not then how do you want to achieve a decentralization that converge to Nash equilibrium, which is based on k or nOpt`? Also, pls keep in mind, voting should be based on stake relative to the all stakes in the systems, and not number of voters.
I think how it should be work though, the proper ranking is not fully implemented yet, but in the next release it will work as expected.
Yeah I hear ya. My line is delegators should not be utterly confused to a point where they are asking pool operators why their pools are offline. The UI is so bad delegation flux is being induced - via unethical and misleading representation.
Individual stake based votes serve well where it serves well. One vote per operation serves well within environments susceptible to corruption and while establishing - now what specifically constitutes a “viable” operation SPOCRA has yet to define - but I think pool stake would be interesting as well.
I can see different scenarios where we would want to lead with conducting either individual stake votes, pool stake votes, one vote per op, or even merit-based voting.
@ADAfrog I have been validated as a SPO on SPOCRA Discord, got a ballot number and generated a .json ballot (which I already have on my node waiting to submit), but I accidentally closed the manual on how to submit my ballot (I remember there was an exact TX amount and other stuff to be able to identify the votes on the chain. Any chance you have it somewhere saved? Thanks.
EDIT: I know how to manually build a Cardano transaction. I just don’t know the voting fee and the tx-out address to send the voting fee.
If you are manually sending the transaction there is no out address - just pay the transaction fee from the payment address utxto and define the remaining amount going back into the payment address from the utxo . Try using 300000 lovelaces to cover the tx fee.
