HIP-22: Show "All Eligible" by default on the staking portal

Summary : This Proposal is to show All Eligible validators by default on the Harmony Staking Dashboard.

Background : Currently, the staking portal show the “Elected” validators only by default.

Motivation : This change will give more visibility to the eligible unelected validators by showing them in the list by default. The ‘Inactive’ ones will be also separated from the list (currently the “All” option mixes the active and inactive validators)

Specification :

  • By default, select the option ‘All’. All the active validators will show up there, the elected and unelected ones but not the inactive ones.
  • Keep the “Elected” option but not selected by default.
  • While the inactive validators won’t show in the list of validators, they still need to be accessible in the portfolio
  • Add a tooltip over “Elected” and “Not Elected”.
    Elected : Elected Validators can generate rewards,.
    Not Elected : Unelected validators don’t generate rewards, but delegating with this validator may improve the protocol decentralization.


  • Yes
  • No

0 voters


I’m strongly in favor of this proposal. I like the idea of adding more visibility for unelected validators. One of the huge barriers for unelected validators is that people don’t know where to find them on the staking dashboard.


Having constant governance proposals to modify the staking portal doesn’t seem like the best use of time and resources. I suggest that one of the DAOs solicit stakeholder feedback and propose wholesale changes based on the feedback received. It’s obvious the staking portal needs improvement or enhancement and it seems we’re just piecemealing changes at this point.


@sophoah @rongjian Can we get a feasibility review on this proposal so we can assign a HIP to it… thanks


Mask made a mistake. It’s here to get feedback. After community / validator feedback and feasibility. Then it will get assigned a HIP (if it passes feasibility).


True, I think we could combine some elements for sure but that is up to the person proposing.

Combining could run the risk of having too much information to digest or having an endless debate on controversial items that could block smaller items like this from getting through.


Maybe even throw in all into one proposal and if there are any controversial items, move the offending parts to their own proposal


I like if they stay concise. On HIP-14 I wasn’t so fond of the 30-7 day change, but could not show it in vote.

I’m in favor of this proposal. I think showing all is the right way to go. Applying the elected filter should be up to the user. (For convenience the last filter could be stored in local storage, just an idea).

Would “inactive” be shot down validators? Otherwise I would call it “unelected”.


Fair points about the controversial ones @Maffaz and @Severin. Some of the improvements just seem not so controversial that could be lumped into one major overhaul of the portal, but we can continue that discussion another day.

I voted No to showing All Eligible first but I would be open to it if proper disclosures about unelected validators not earning rewards were presented.


Love this idea, more opportunies to get a delegator :relaxed:


I am working here as a member of the VDAO, we had a discussion about the suggestions I made during our last meeting.

I can create a new thread with all the suggestions but I am afraid it will become complicated to follow with multiple conversations about different things…

I can directly submit pull requests for the staking portal changes if you prefer?


I think it’s a fair proposal that’s worthy of discussion. My comment was more about the staking portal in general. I would be curious to see a study done on what exactly delegators want for portal features and propose improvements based on the feedback received. There could be a lot of governance voting on staking portal changes if we each individually submit changes. For example, I would like to see the effective stake of each shard presented on the portal so that may be another portal proposal coming down the pipeline and I’m sure it won’t be the last.


Yeah I just made another proposal for the staking dadhboard. I wish it was able to be bundled with some of the other changes but was told it needed to be it’s own proposal. I get that people might agree with one thing and not another, but I don’t think any of us are proposing anything too controversial and we could comment if we disagree with certain parts.


This would show the unelected validators by default and give them more visibility, in the end would lead to better decentralization.


no issue on my end.

Also, for those UI change on the staking dashboard, i believe you don’t really need Harmony Core team feasibility review on it. As long as the community is align here, go for it. UI changes doesn’t have real complexity that requires network changes, unless this is a new requirement (metric that may not exist today on the network)


Thanks for the clarification.

This will certainly help the process. UI only is clear…


Should it not rather be: All Eligible / Elected / Not Elected?

I personaly would love to see those “inactive” removed from the actual staking dashboard. For example those with over 100’000 ONE delegated and not eligible will be shown actual. A good example is Validator Center which lately gained some delegtions. And there some more in the list like Wetez and Figment.


I’m in favour of this proposal, but would like to see it as part of a larger change / redesign of the staking portal as @ValidatorONE suggested.

What would it take to get a bounty funded for a new dashboard?


We cannot remove entirely the inactive validators because if a delegator has delegated by mistake some one, he still need to access to that validator to redelegate to an other validator.

Some “dead” validators are still marked as active juste like OniiOne (that BrotherOne lost access to).
This validator should not appear in the list, a solution might be to turn automatically inactive a validator after 100 epochs unelected in a row?


They would see the inactive validator in their portfolio page for unstaking.

Don’t think there is any need to show inactive validators in the main list.