We are at 55% participation now. At this point those that withheld their vote and oppose the proposal can vote no to increase your governance participation or try to beat the 2/3 threshold.
All the votes are in! The proposal passes with 51.2% in agreement. Thank you to everyone who participated.
6 Likes
Here is the result of the % of participation (Quorum)
3 Likes
Just so everyone knows why I voted to Abstain from this one, itās because even though it might be a step in the right direction, it completely threw everyone off from the original problem that was to be addressed which is validators holding so much stake weight, that they themselves virtually centralize the Harmony validator network. This is not a fix to that, nor does this proposal/change matter at all when weāll never reach full proper decentralization as long as these certain validators arenāt willing to give up some of their massive profits to help make room for more validators.
We should have at least 1000 validators independently owned and operated for true decentralization, stability, speed, and resilience against attacks. At the very least 500. But we canāt even reach 500 validators with validators holding hundreds of millions of delegated ONE on them. Itās mathematically impossible. To reach 500 validators, no single validator could technically have more than 15,000,000 delegated to them. If even.
So, until we address that issue, and continue to be distracted from it with things like this, changes such as this are pointless IMO. So I abstained since this was nothing but a distraction from the real problem here. Think about it fam, this proposal was put up by the largest validator there isā¦ and tbh I didnāt vote at all until it reached consensus in hopes that it wouldnāt reach consensus and we could get back to addressing the real issue here.
Hmm letās see, Robo has like 306 million stake weight right now, just that validator alone has enough ONE delegated to allow for 20 more validators to be fully elected with 15 million each on them, or 60 validators at median stake. How was this even allowed to happen is my question. Why? A fatal mistake for sure. And unless we can solve this problem, we can kiss Harmony goodbye. Because a few hundred validators with a handful holding most vote power and stake weight is not decentralized at all, and no serious money will ever invest into Harmony. Nor will Harmony survive like many other Sh*tcoins out there.
Bitcoin will be just fine. It is completely decentralized in every sense of the word and a very solid investment. Iād love to be able to say the same about Harmony but until we get even somewhat close to that decentralization model, Harmony is in imminent danger of failure. And we all lose. And I love Harmony, the community, the team, everything about it. Absolutely love this space. And I really hope we can all work together here to save it from imminent failure because itās a great project and we are like one big awesome family 
If not, well I guess weāll all just make our money while we can and then move on to something greater once this fails. I just go with the flow but definitely hope for changes to save Harmony.
And please do not take me wrong, I have nothing but love for every one of you, even the large validators not so willing to give up their profits and can understand from all points of view here. Just hope we can come to some type of compromise here to save Harmony. If not, it is what it is, and Iāll just go with the flow and make money while itās here to be made. Then move on to greater things. More solid and properly decentralized projects that actually have a real future ahead of them.
5 Likes
Oh and btw, if the Harmony team gives up their voting power before the real problem here is addressed, at that moment in time, Harmony becomes centralized with these large validators nearly fully in control of things. Donāt fool yourselves, we arenāt reaching decentralization AT ALL until the real issue here is addressed. Harmony gives up their voting power before that, kiss Harmony goodbye. That will seal its fate permanently at that instant.
6 Likes
Well said, couldnāt agree more!
1 Like
How was this even allowed to happen is my question.
Robovalidator became the largest validator because a single whale delegated 186 million to us which is 60.8% of our total stake. See https://harmony.smartstake.io/delegates/11
There are a handful of wallets that control the vast majority of ONE and they only delegate to a handful of validators. Iāve started another thread to address this problem by proposing to cap the maximum amount a delegator can delegate to a single validator to spread the stake more evenly. I think this would do more to decentralize Harmony than a strict max key cap which is unlikely to pass due to stake weight voting and lack of support from large validators.
https://talk.harmony.one/t/cap-the-amount-that-can-be-staked-per-validator-for-each-delegator/
2 Likes
Thank you very much for your reply and your help with supporting the decentralization of Harmony @RoboValidator . I hope we can work this out because I truly love this project and everyone involved here. Care for each and every one of you and want to see everyone succeed. Fiat is a sinking ship and we need a safe place for people to turn and they will always have Bitcoin, but I would like Harmony to be there as well. Itās great to know that you are with us here and working to help decentralize. It will benefit us all in the long run and is the right thing to do. Commendable TY
3 Likes
I am with you on that, it is impossible to have a resilient blockchain with a handful of validators having of the networks ONEāsā¦only to be exacerbated by the Binance Staking validator. This needed to be said and we need to come together and move the network in a direction to spread the ONEs.
3 Likes
100%. Though this obviously has security implications, itās bigger than that. The lack of true decentralization is handicapping Harmony in the broader market.
The examples of centralization are so tangible.
Example: Thereās an election happening in 15 minutes.
Slots 799-900 are occupied by nine validators
Yet if youāre between 1 and 2 keys, itās ālooked down uponā to take 2 slots in the 890-900 range. So the single key validators with good intentions bid into slot ~205 while people with 10-20+ keys chill in the 800 slots.
Put another wayā¦
A 12 million $USD validator goes for their 24th key by choosing to chill in the ~850s
A 0.75 million $USD validator goes for a 2nd key in the 890-900 range.
The latter must choose to only use 1 key and bid into the 200s, or be accused of ābottom feeding.ā
Am I the only one who sees the humour in this?
5 Likes
as someone who runs a 6M+ total stake validator, I can feel this as well, but my thought is slightly different: ābottom feedingā is a risky choice, I donāt always bid for 2 slots, because I donāt like ābottom feedingā either, and also thereās the risk that Iāll lose both 2 slots, but very other epoch or 2 I have bid for 2 slots, otherwise my average APR will drop if I stay on 1 key & people wonāt delegate to me anymore, or even worse they could undelegate from my validator, which means my validator will stuck at 6M-7M total stake range for a while.
2 Likes