no, why would a 5% minimum commission help decentralization when most validators already have at least 5% commission?
something like making the top 15 validators subsidize the rest of the lower validators with <1% of their rewards until your choice of decentralization KPI is met would increase decentralization by making the bottom of the set more competitive with their commission rates.
you said:
How does this reduce validators ability to compete, other than forcing stakes to choose at random now that the base commission is 5% across the board?
again, I dont think the incentive of +/- 1-2% is a windfall for most takers. I’d even say that most expect to pay 5% as that is the average across the board from what I’ve seen.
This is why I said that really nothing changes.
If I understand what yo mean by “competition”, the degree to which this changes would affect said competition and appeal for staking (even less so) is minimal IMO.
Maybe you are a validator and have a purview I don’t as fas as validators but as a staker of ATOM for years, I don’t see how its hurts.
it eliminates a validator’s ability to differentiate itself within a metric that delegator’s care about
then why force a 5% minimum if its irrelevant to where delegator’s stake
you just said that 1-2% reduction in rewards to stakers…while not a change for validators, it is a change for the value proposition of delegators. it not being significant to you is immaterial.
I mean one of the few ways validators can differentiate themselves and attract delegators other than their validator pfp and name.
You do see how it hurts, you have literally said you think the amount it hurts is irrelevant to you…How does it help?
I’m saying it doesn’t matter either way but I the spirit of the OPs proposal I thin its a move in the right direction of the ecosystem as a whole. If you don’t think so, create another proposal with your proposed solution.
I said plus or minus, thats different than just a reduction as some will go up, some will go down. I said this is just my opinion, so whats immaterial is you opinion, and can be said to be immaterial as well.
Some have websites with mission statements, specs for hardware etc. I wouldn’t say the pop is the end all, at least not for those who really care.
You can fault me for having an opinion but your picking at straws when you try to say I’m admitting it hurts when I mention to what degree it doesn’t hurt as being the same thing as hurting in general Thats a red herring or better yet, a straw man argument. I think you can gather that I am not sayin that it really hurts at all one way or the other. I do think it’s at least trying to address the issue. Again, if you dont hint the best rout, create a proposal stating how you think the community can help.
what?
only nerds visit validator websites or care about their hardware. I am talking about regular users, simple people that just want to gamble their fiat.
you said it reduces delegator rewards, i think you meant above that a 5% minimum would do nothing because most already have 5% commission, or it would reduce delegator rewards…so at best 5% minimum harms the value proposition for staking ATOM.
|
|
|
▼
How does this proposal address the issue?
Insults get you nowhere and doesn’t negate my point.
I don’t get your point. If all in all nothing really changes, how does a 5% minimum hurt???
…this was my point
Just my opinion, but I think small validators should try to gather delegations from other sources than lowering to 0% their commission just to attract new users, then increase later on without warnings. They should attract more delegators by offering value (BD, working with prospect protocols and chains, growing their community, be informative,…etc).
I don’t think either that big validators should be able to lower their commission just to attract even more voting power (definitely not improving decentralization). Also, it seems that we have issue running consumer chains because a part of the set operates at a loss… maybe they wouldn’t if they weren’t at 0% commission?
isn’t that the justification that validators give before voting to pay themselves from the community pool? Cryptocito, informal, notional, CosmicValidator, etc…*which is a reason that 5% minimum because you hope it will just inspire validators to do work for free is silly.
This is just one parameter, we could have both a healthy minimum commission rate AND work towards validators adding more values with other parameters (PSS, Power voting Tax, governance, building tools … etc).
Tbh, 0% commission makes no sense to me and I’m only a user/staker. Maybe 5% is too high and some mechanics could be applied to allow some validators to go lower IF their reach some criteria.
If that’s your point, I won’t disagree but it’s a different one than the original which was how the minimum hurts.
The minimum does only hurt. You say its justifiable harm because it doesnt hurt staker’s significantly and seem to be unaware the level to which 5% minimum reduces competition amongst validators. so, while you admit there is a non-zero level of harm that results from a 5% minimum, you provide no reason to think it would help.
5% minimum commission on other chains has done nothing to support the claim that implementing one does anything beneficial for decentralization nor validators adding value to the chain or whatever. there is no “race to 0% commission” 10 validators out of 180 validator’s have 0% commission.
The benefit has been laid by OP. Oppositely you’ve only seem to muster a reason why not, nothing of benefit, seems to m you have an outsized reason not to and thats or only concern. I haven’t seen anyone else here so fervent about reason wh not.
“how is it a race to zero? it seems far more like a race for skin in the game. validators with more self stake can set their commission lower.”
This exacerbates centralization of voting power and is terrible for network security. Besides, 5% minimum commission waa already approved in proposal 826 and goes into effect with the next upgrade, scheduled for February. Link below.
Really well thought out. Thank you. As a smaller validator who needs to weigh costs and time involved with supporting consumer chains, we love to see this.
Fyi, 5% minimum commission was approved last year and from what Informal Systems has said, goes into effect with the next upgrade. Link to proposal 826 below:
no, validators being able to use aggregate votes of their delegators exacerbates centralization of voting power and is terrible for network security.
Yes, validators have voted to arbitrarily raise the minimum commission and pay themselves more for no rhyme or reason. That validators can vote with delegator’s votes to pay themselves more for no additional work illustrates the problem.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.