Request for Alteration of the ICF delegation program Cycle 2

Miscellaneous
3

Dear @Ertemann :heartpulse:

Thank you for raising this topic in a public forum, so that we can collect community feedback and ensure at the same time full transparency on these conversations.
Indeed, for a validator, the potential impact of the ICF delegation program is relevant, even more so during a prolonged crypto winter that we all had to face in the last years.

Saying so, I would like to raise a few notes about the cap system and snapshot in general:

  • the cap point system was introduced with this delegation cycle, having in our mind the will to offer some concrete sign of support and recognition to the many, many validators that are incredibly active and helpful through the whole ecosystem but that, at the same time, struggle on attracting delegators at the lowest positions. In our eyes, this was seriously compromising a. decentralization b. diversity c. the possibility of seeing more meaningful contributions emerge from new and enthusiastic teams.
  • We made the cap point one of the main focus of this year, saying this up from the very first draft of the new policy presented to the community this summer. The community was very supportive and happy to see this policy implemented. It is a concrete step towards a fairer distribution and allocation of resources towards the active set.
  • there were no objections or mentions from the community about the snapshot itself as proposed in the draft, so I finalized the one noted in the draft as it was presented.

Now, a couple of notes on your specific case:

  • We received way more applications this year, with a completely different point system that went from 1 point/contribution to up to 5 (even 10 for the upcoming valuable contribution category). The relevant difference in the number of actual points awarded to validators caused the value of the single point to drop significantly; this, in addition to a lower amount of ATOM made available from the foundation to be delegated (10 millions > 5.5 millions), means that even with the same points of last year, you would have been entitled to way less as per actual ATOM delegated so that the difference would have been sound no matter cap or snapshot. Talking in numbers:
    Cycle 1 - Per Point Atom Amount 12484
    Cycle 2 - Per Point Atom Amount 5562
    Additionally, modifying the snapshot will bring even more points to the table, significantly lowering the value of each point, which would end up around 4k ATOM each.
    In this scenario, even without cap and full 19 points as per your team scoring, you would end with a substantially lower delegation if compared to last year.
  • Even taking off the first cycle delegations, your team would fall in the category with 20 as the max cap: as per calculations, this means that even changing how we calculated the points, you would be entitled to not more than 4 additional points (19 in total), so ~16k ATOM as per today’s projection (more points in the equation = less value per point). Which, again, is still way below your last year delegation. Saying so, I do see value in your feedback, and this was something that we already noted as a possible implementation for next year’s cycle, which policy will be submitted to community attention in August 2024

I’m human, so I’m 100% aware that the policy is far from being perfect.
But at the same time, I think it represents a concrete step towards more decentralization and more enthusiastic and active contributors.

I renovate the request to the community to leave their feedback in this form to collect as much context as possible to ship a newly improved policy for next year. At the same time, I think that comparing delegations received on cycle one, which was supported by a limited policy and with far fewer applications, is definitely the wrong way to improve things. No matter how much the ICF delegations policy is going to be improved in the future, it’s unrealistic to think that it will come to a point that everyone will be happy with it: there will always be someone who will have fewer delegations than the year before, someone who will receive less than expected, or again, someone who thinks that X team doesn’t deserve so much, but this shouldn’t be reasons to change the policy and the rules on the run. Instead, it should be a perfect ground to come up together next year and think of a better-defined policy for the upcoming cycle, working in group to make it the most efficient and on point as possible considering the best interest of the most.

Cat :black_cat:

1 Like