Suggestion: Fixing ER, Taking Commission Into Account
Summary:
In the current staking dashboard, the ER does not take the commission of the validator into account.
This can be easily inspected by checking the 100% validators:
Background: background information of the proposal
Motivation:
Most delegators select their validators by the expected return column.
Therefore it’s misleading that the expected return is in fact an “expected return before the commission”.
It’s disadvantageous for validators that want to keep their fees low.
Specification
Change the current expected return (R) to an actual expected return by taking the commission (C) into account applying the following formula to the frontend:
ER = R * (1 - C)
Example:
Investment: 1000 / C= 10% / R= 10%
old (misleading return without commission)
new (expected return taking current commission into account)
This is a great idea and will show at once the information that is actually relevant.
It seems that many users cant interprete correctly the fee and this would eliminate the need of interpretation.
The fee change would apply directly to the ER on the “Portfolio”. By the way, once you delegate to a validator the fee is not shown on the “Portfolio” section anymore and a delegator has to open the validator to check the fee. This is especially problematic when a delegator stakes on 10-20 validators.
We cant expect users to go constantly to smart.stake to check if there has been a fee change. The whole thing is not that user friendly and seems to be trying to hide the fees on purpose.
Your idea is even better than showing the fee on “Portfolio”.
I’m just wondering, is just this a suggestion and ideo or a proposal you wanna bring one day into voting?
Because it’s places under Indeas. When you would like to propose this over your Validator we should move it to Validator DAO - Harmony Community Forum or if you wanna propose this as a community member we should move it to here Community - Harmony Community Forum.
Oh it was intended for the Governance section, don’t know how that happened.
It’s meant as proposal. But was not unsure how to name it. Suggestion was one suggestion in the ‘guide’.
Could not find a consistent nameing. I saw: Proposal or Pre-HIP. We can rename, no problem.
Could we get some more information in the tool tip on the “Expected Return” field to explain the value better too. e.g. “30 epoch average expected return after commission”
@StrongMindsHold I think I didn’t find the poll option and wanted to edit it later. But I can’t edit the post anymore. Maybe because I created this new account
Are the beforehand polls important? Even for small proposals like these?
It’s pretty much part of the process so we can see what the community thinks overall of the proposal idea and if it should be moved onto official voting via Snapshot.
Unsure about this change. It could cause more confusion by not providing a granular picture of a validators standalone ER. The fee could be changed at anytime either by the validator or by the rolling 100 epochs for newer validators, so delegators may prefer to evaluate validators earnings not taking into account the fee. I certainly understand the motive behind the proposal, but it may not be as simple of a fix as prescribed in the proposal.
