Great idea, i vote yes
Anyone change their mind after seeing what happened earlier today with 800 slots available?
why? the extension of the bounds will help with the key management, as well as a much harder time getting below the lower bound for those extra incentives, i think this is still a very valid proposal 
Agreed. The issue we saw today was because seats below the lower bound were incentivized, bringing the larger Validators down to get extra rewards.
This is more to ensure that the small Validators with 1 key can grow, and still have a de melt ER, as they are within the upper and lower bound.
It quite possible that with the 800 seats, and this proposal in placeā¦ we wonāt see seats below the lower bound available again on a scale like we had.
Looks like this proposal is about to pass. I have a feeling weāll be discussing this even after the proposal passes and is implemented. The EPoS is a highly incentivized experiment and I think they jury is still out there on whether the EPoS game theory actually met its intended goal of decentralizing validators as an equalizer between highly staked Validators vs. newcomers / smaller operators.
Validators managing EPoS had spent a significant amount of resources and attention on engineering automations and explaining to delegators (our customers) on what it means on what we do to maximize rewards. This takes time away from building real world solutions
We can learn from Ethereum and Cosmos, where as long as Validators have mining-power/delegations, they have a chance on proposing blocks with a simple percentage.
Ethereum also has a concept of uncle rewards, where if you participate in confirming the signatures within time, youāre rewarded a small percentage of the block rewards. That way all miners are incentivized to continue running even though the chances of finding the nonce is really low.
Cosmos has a mechanism where Validators start with a negative number equaling total available supply, then at every block, the chain ābean countsā by adding the number delegations of the Validator. When the Validatorās bean-counting finally reaches positive territory, they are entered into a lottery to be randomly selected as a qualified signer. When selected to sign blocks, Cosmos deducts the total supply again from the bean counter.
Hence Harmony EPoS can use a Validator use the lottery ticket concept from Cosmos, and uncle rewards from Ethereum. That way, the āactive managementā could go away, we can use a simple bean counter, Validators are encouraged to run great software on resilient architectures and newcomers/indie-operators are encouraged to run Validators, all with the intention to gain uncle rewards (and to be selected as a signer, of course)
Iād prefer to have a way abstain on this vote but there isnāt an option for this on the governance site. It also seems that the network is ready to grow to 1K slots, better yet, 1K validators. Hence weāll support this vote.
This is in all good spirits to enable the Harmony community to be able to focus on the next phases of building meaningful solutions, bridges and platforms for Harmony.
2 Likes
Hey Jack!
thank you for pitching in, i will leave the ethereum/cosmos part to be reviewed by @rongjian and @leo .
As for the abstain vote, we didnt implement it since basically not voting is the same as abstaining with our system (66% needed to pass a vote). But since we obviously overshot this number, we will soon change it to a lower one and possibly include both of the active proposals under this new rule. I believe both are beneficial for the growth of the ecosystem, this one doesnt impose a much greater security concern, and the other one is to make sure validators are able to sustain themselves (since we have so many validators at 0% fees).
If you have the time, you can provide your view on the topic where we discuss the quorum for these proposals. We are trying to find a better solution to it than the current 66% which is too high.
Just for record, this is āHIP-2ā