Hello Cosmos Community,
I’ve been closely monitoring my daily staking rewards on the Cosmos Hub for ATOM over the past five days and have noticed something intriguing. It seems there’s been a noticeable reduction in the rewards.
Has anyone else observed similar variations in their staking rewards during this period? I’m trying to understand if this is an isolated incident or a broader trend across the network. Any insights into the factors influencing this change would be highly appreciated.
Also, if you’ve noticed any patterns or have theories about what might be causing this shift, I’d love to hear them. Are there any recent network updates or policy changes that could be impacting the reward mechanisms?
Looking forward to a vibrant discussion and better understanding this together!
the max inflation rate was reduced from 20% to 10% so your staking reward was reduced from 20% to 14% but not in the 5 past days… i did not see any change about my staking reward
Thank you for your input on this matter! Like many of you, I also voted ‘yes’ on the recent proposal to cut the inflation rate, under the impression that the changes would be effective immediately. However, something intriguing has caught my attention lately. Post-implementation, there appears to be a noticeable dip in staking rewards. This leads me to ponder a few possibilities: Could the effects of the proposal have taken longer to materialize than we initially thought? Or, perhaps, are there other, more subtle factors at play here, influencing our staking rewards in ways we haven’t yet fully grasped?
I’m curious to hear if anyone else in our community has observed similar anomalies or unexpected variances in their staking returns. Your experiences and observations could shed some light on this puzzle. It’s crucial, especially in these times, to stay vigilant and collaborative in our approach. Who knows, we might be uncovering deeper layers in our system that need our collective attention.
the past inflation was 14% with the bonded ratio of 65%. since the upgrade, the current inflation is 10% (the max limit) because the bonded ratio did not evolve.
Validators and stakers earn a part of this inflation.
following this update the settings were changed immediately and it is therefore normal to see our rewards decrease since then. as soon as we reach 67% bonded ratio, inflation will tend towards 7% in the medium term as long as the other proposals have not been voted on regarding the modification of the lower limit and the speed of slope.
then a lower inflation then a lower staking reward. Untill ICS do not bring us more revenues
With all due respect,
The “bait and switch” that was “with no notice” you are describing is one of the most engaged and debated governance votes that also has one of the highest turnouts in history.
It was also mentioned multiple times on multiple forums, and arguably is a spiritual successor the original ATOM 2.0 prop, which was talked about at cosmoverse 2022, a year ago.
Saying this happened with no notice is extremely disingenuous.
with the same level of respect,
it wasnt just the inflation that was bait and switched.
it was also taxes, and txn fees
ATOM is constantly being altered for the benefit of validators and at the delegator’s expense.
do you mean that validators voted with the most aggregated delegator votes? that the most bots ever to vote was achieved?
saying this this was one of the highest turnouts in history is extremely disingenuous.
I can agree that the min commission proposal was for the benefit of (smaller) validators.
The inflation reduction on the other hand wasnt for the benefit of validators since it is lowering their income. Many validators voted against it and many delegators voted against it. We voted against it because noone could irrevocably demonstrate that it would improve basically anything. Quite the opposite was the case for our analysis, it showed that atom performed better than other altcoins during the high inflation period. Furthermore, we considered the change of such an important parameter to be rushed.
Not all validators are the same and vote the same. If the validator you delegated to doesnt support your opinion then simply redelegate or even better vote yourself.
This endless validators vs. delegators debate wont change anything, but your vote might.
fair. I suppose i generalized validators with those validators continuing to force the 2.0 agenda despite it being rejected. validators control the vote, and it has proved to be a vulnerability for ATOM.
im not sure its validators vs. delegators. i dont think that delegator’s want to reduce validator profits, but it is quite obvious in the effects of parameter changes made by validators that the consequences of the changes are reduced profit potential for delegators.
this includes the constant funding of unsubscribed 3rd party LSD providers reducing delegator returns, higher taxes to award themselves substantial grants for work no one asked for and provided no observable upside for the chain, AAdao funding which has only served to further the 2.0 agenda despite having been rejected.
I had similar feeling lately, noticing a decline in my daily rewards over the past ten days or so, and it seems like you share a similar sentiment. Despite feeling this way, I haven’t come across any concrete evidence that substantial changes have occurred to impact the distribution.
Despite my inability to find tangible proof, I’ve urged our node operators at PRO Delegators to conduct a thorough analysis. The goal is to confirm whether our shared sentiment is just a feeling or if there are indeed noteworthy changes. Be sure that I’ll get back to you if there any reliable findings.
Thank you for sharing your proactive approach and the SmartStake analytics link. It’s quite intriguing that even with such detailed resources, concrete evidence of changes in the reward distribution remains elusive. This situation really underscores the complexity of our ecosystem and the necessity for collective vigilance and investigation.
Your initiative in urging PRO Delegators to conduct a thorough analysis is exactly the kind of collaborative effort we need in our community. It’s vital to differentiate between personal sentiment and actual, data-backed changes in reward distribution to ensure the integrity of our network.
On a related note, I’ve been meticulously tracking my own rewards. I have quantifiable data indicating a noticeable decline in my rewards over the past 8 days, possibly starting 9 days ago. My routine of clearing and restaking rewards every 3 days has provided me with transaction data that clearly shows this decline.
Regarding your analysis, do you have specific metrics or data on your rewards? Quantifiable insights from different sources might help us compare notes more effectively and identify any patterns or anomalies with greater precision.
As a member of SG1, I’m considering bringing this matter to my SPOs attention for further investigation. More data points from other community members would be highly beneficial. Therefore, I encourage others in the Cosmos community to share their observations and insights as well. Together, we can piece together this puzzle and ensure the ongoing fairness and robustness of our network.
Looking forward to any findings from your team, and I’ll make sure to share any additional data or insights I gather as well. Let’s keep the lines of communication open and support each other in these important investigations.
Data has spoken and there is indeed a slight retreat on the distribution. It is tied to the recent increase in staking (+4m ATOMs) but this is nothing sizable enough to be consider a significant reduction.
It seems to further confirm that we both had baseless feelings on this matter. It went down but we clearly have amplified the magnitude.
Thanks for sharing this interesting chart. It’s always enlightening to delve into the dynamics of staking rewards. Speaking of which, what I noticed was a more significant drop of around 35% in rewards over the 5 to 8 day period in question. This kind of variation seems a bit more pronounced than what we’d typically expect, doesn’t it?
Coincidentally, around the same time, I encountered a small hiccup in reaching out to my Staking Pool Operator (SPO) as their customer support system was down. While it’s likely just a coincidence, it does add an interesting twist to the situation.
This noticeable drop in rewards didn’t quite align with the anticipated adjustments following the recent governance proposal, which adds another layer of curiosity. Thankfully, the rewards have since returned to their usual levels, but the experience sparked my curiosity. And is why I was seeking to identify if anyone else noticed similar fluctuations in their staking returns? This may have been an isolated incident, but I am continuing to monitor and would encourage others to do the same.
Welcome to the house of fun my friend. Hence, this tweet
from a user’s perspective, these kind of unexpected or unforeseen changes in staking rewards directly contribute to the feeling that ATOM fs a vague but persistent bait and switch.
I bought and staked ATOM with one inflation parameter, then validators unilaterally changed the perimeter with little discussion about the impacts it would have or to what end the change was being made.
given the high level of risk and uncertainty surrounding the asset purchased today being something entirely different and possibly not nearly as valuable, is no surprise to me that ATOM cant get a bid when myopic validators change the core characteristics of the product.
The vibez in the cosmos are totally harsh.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.