Summary: This proposal is to edit the expected return (ER) and uptime display data on the staking portal; as well as adding additional information for delegators.
Background: Currently, there is much confusion concerning which expected return (ER) data is the most factual; both on the staking portal and smartstake. Validators use different metrics to advertise; often using erroneous data. The ER displayed upon clicking “Validators” on the staking portal is a 30 day average and often not a factual display of current expected return. Case in point is the inflated ER often seen after a new validator gets elected well under the minimum stake required. In addition, the latest expected return found on each validator’s page is the last epoch’s ER and can be much different than current. This disparity is usually the result of a drastic shift in shard population or management of keys; both factors are constantly changing. Smartstake individual validator ER data is not accurate and shouldn’t be used as there is a 4-5% difference between it and the staking portal data.
Uptime percentage displayed on the staking portal is also a 30 day average; this was affected greatly by the network attack which occurred during around epochs 600-605.
Regarding the additional info needed for delegators; currently there is no information on the staking portal informing delegators they will start earning rewards upon next epoch start. Information is also lacking informing them that upon un-delegating they will continue to earn rewards until the current epoch ends. Additionally, no information exists informing them that rewards are only displayed in whole numbers and not fractions.
Motivation: To provide the community one metric to ascertain current ER information. Ensuring there is only one metric available will eliminate confusion and false advertising; enabling delegators to make informed decisions when choosing a validator. To provide an uptime percentage that captures a length of time but isn’t so long it takes 30 days to recover from events out of validators’ control. To ensure delegators are informed while performing staking actions of the correct timeframes and reward appearances; alleviating premature un-delegations due to unnecessary frustration therefore preventing loss of rewards.
Specification: Remove the “latest expected return” from validators’ profiles on the staking portal and shorten the 30 day average displayed on the front list to 7 days. Shorten uptime percentage timeframe from 30 to 7 days as well. Coordinate with Smartstake on display options to include removal of ER information, masking ER data, or insertion of disclaimer statement advising members the data is not factual. Add information statement to wallet confirmation when performing staking actions to ensure members are aware of timeframes and reward whole number appearances.
Suggested Voting Option: Agree or Disagree with the proposed changes to the staking portal.
Surprised to see a lcak of discussion here but there does appear to be a lot of support… Maybe @StrongMindsHold outlined it so detailed!
Can we confirm @sophoah@rongjian@lij that this proposal is feasible and if so @StrongMindsHold can you confirm that you would still like this to be put forward to a vote.
I would reeeeeeally like this but also in the Porfolio view!
Right now I spend time going through my validators one by one to check their latest ER to see how they are performing, not really when deciding who to stake with, but when already staked and checking how my validators are performing.
I usually check the latest 3 tho, so wouldn’t mind to have that info. But at least showing the latest would already be awesome!
Totally support this for the validator overview but also for the porfolio pls!
Currently we only have the ER there as an avg which is not really useful for me at least
I support this. Not only will this benefit delegators, but also validators. If you have a low stake and get elected, you’ll get a high ER, which is nice because it’ll attract more attention your way.
However, let’s say you have 2 newly elected validators, Validator A with 50k and Validator B with 400k. Validator A will naturally have a much higher ER. By the end of the epoch Validator A already has 1m, and Validator B is still at around 400k. If both validators get elected again next epoch, Validator B will get a higher ER than Validator A. Nevertheless, this won’t be reflected on the staking portal and Validator B won’t get the traction that he should have.
Just noticed that I was used “days” instead of “epochs” when describing the averages displayed on the staking portal. Days are incorrect; it should read ‘epochs’ as that is the correct data being shown.
Totally agree. A lot of my delegators get confused with the info provided in the staking portal, and I find myself guiding them to the portal and to smartstake and back to the portal to help them make sense of things - especially the ER.
You have my support 100% This sort of goes hand-in-hand with the whole “education” or
“eDAO” idea that I’ve been talking about… stressing the importance of better educating the community about Harmony, and the many ways that could benefit every single one of us in the Harmony family, as well as Harmony in general, especially with adoption and growth. Like I said the other day, people fear what they do not understand, and the lack of understanding of Harmony leads to fear and confusion or uncertainty, which when money is involved and potentially lots of it, is obviously not a good thing. It makes people extremely hesitant to invest in or utilize the technology. Thus, hindering the growth of Harmony (which still seems to be going extremely well regardless).
So yes, I back this one 100%. This is a great start to further informing and educating the community, and being transparent as well.
The truth is, the more someONE is educated about Harmony and the more that they learn about it, the more comfortable they feel investing in it. I’ve seen it with my own eyes in real life with people that I have taught about Harmony. They were very hesitant and afraid to invest initially, but once educated on it a bit, they were ready to throw their entire savings into it. I suppose that I can say that my hypothesis for the education thing, is more than a hypothesis at this point. It’s a theory with some evidence to back it
This sort of goes hand-in-hand with the whole “education” or
