The problem is you’re basing your staking decisions on infactual information. For example, if you see a validator with 120% return in Blits, it’s basically guaranteed you won’t earn 120% return the next epoch. It could be 8%, 10%, or even 0%. I don’t disagree that fee should be better reflected when showing returns, but I don’t see any benefit in “enhancing” a metric that has already been proven to be inaccurate.
4 Likes
When a delegator is asking me how to choose a validator, I must admit I tell him not to look much at the ER but more at the uptime, and also to pay attention at the commission.
Like @ValidatorONE said the ER is fluctuating at each epoch, depending on many factors such as the shards balancing, the shard0 block time etc.
I don’t know how can people think the commission % is directly applied on the ER like 10% ER - 5% commission = 5% ER.
So if a validator has 15% commission you start loosing money when delegating? ^^
Maybe a tooltip over the current Expected Return to show the Net ER might good enough ?
8 Likes
I like that but it would not work on mobile
1 Like
Yes, but on mobile I only see the uptime column anyway 
4 Likes
No problem then 
1 Like
My preference would be that the staking portal present the average network return % along with each individual validator’s current commission rate and uptime average. If we show individual validators returns, we should make it clear that it’s historical returns and not a guarantee of future returns.
5 Likes
Just change “expected return” to “recent apy”. Have a little info bubble appear over “recent apy” to explain “APY over the last 7 epochs/days”
It is an easy fix. Just include it in this proposal. It should not be used as justification to delay implementation of HIP-23
2 Likes
I always recommend the same to delegators but add if you go to their page you can see the latest expected return instead of a 30 epoch average. I never advertise my average ER because I don’t want delegators under false pretenses.
You’d be amazed how many people don’t understand the commission fee, which is understandable considering all the new people in the space.
I really like your idea of making it less confusing on the dashboard for new people.
Personally I’d like to see the average ER disappear and just show the latest expected minus the commission. 
Expected return is just that, it’s in no way guaranteed. I personally don’t see any liability in the wording.
“Expected” implies it will likely happen. No, it isn’t guaranteed. Nobody said it was. But it is expected. It’s also inaccurate
Just be honest with the delegators and say “Latest Return”. Problem solved. More/Accurate information is always preferential to less/inaccurate. Would anybody have an issue with that?
We want [reward % - commission %] displayed because it’s more accurate. Same should hold true for wanting “expected return” explained more accurately as well
I think it’s a feasible solution to show both values. But with this proposal, I want the ‘Net ER’ shown instead of the current ER. So other way around would be fine for me (having 8.72% ER and on hover “gross ER 9.46%”)
@TrickLuhDaKidz @ValidatorONE I would leave the ‘renaming’ of the ER to another proposal. I think ‘Latest Return’ is also a good alternative name to ‘ER’. But I personally think people are more used to terms like ‘ER’, ‘APR’ and ‘APY’. And they should be aware, that it’s just an estimation. We could communicate the calculation better, e.g. by providing a hover tooltip on the column header. But as already said, I would move this discussion to another proposal.
1 Like
Thanks for the feedback. This proposal as-is will likely receive a No vote from Validator.ONE since its an inaccurate calculation. For example, currently there are validators with high expected returns (i.e. 34.81%) on the validator list, but with latest expected returns from last epoch that are much lower (i.e. 9.80%). By mixing in the current commission rate, which can be changed at any time, with a historical return rate, it convolutes the calculation even more.
As for a seperate proposal to rename ER, that may be excessive for a governance vote, but we’ll consider it. Ideally each staking portal change won’t require validator voting, especially when it comes to common sense fixes like renaming expected return. Would love to see a DAO do a comprehensive study involving all stakeholders (validators, delegators) as to what they want to see in a staking portal and submit a bounty for a complete redesign.
7 Likes
How do I go on to bring this proposal to vote?
Can you update the original post with a clear UX that will be developed…
Either like @ONE4All suggested or something else… Then we can formally put it to a vote!
1 Like
As I cannot edit the post above, I’ll put the update below this post:
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.
Motivation:
The most visible performance metric for delegators is the expected return column.
However, it’s misleading that the expected return is in fact an “expected return before the commission”.
Further, it’s disadvantageous for validators that want to keep their fees low.
Which includes hiding the commission advantage of ‘younger’ validators, which was put in place by HIP-1.
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:
Example calculation of the method that would actually report a more
honest ER, which subtracts the commission from the ER:
Investment: C= 20% = 0.2 / R= 10% = 0.1
| Old | New |
|---|---|
| ER = R | ER = R * (1 - C) |
| ER = 0.1 | ER = 0.1 * (1-0.2) = 0.1 - 0.02 = 0.08 |
| Apply To Investment of 1000 ONE over a year | |
| 1000 * 0.1 = 100 | 1000 * 0.08 = 80 |
Taking feedback of the validator community into account, I propose to change the visible ER to the New ER, which takes commission into account. Adding a click handler to the ER value, which shows a popup, that contains the old ER of the validator, the new ER, and an information box, which tells the delegators, that the ER is calculated using the last epochs. As it’s illustrated here:
Suggested voting options
Yes / No / Abstain
8 Likes
Anything that makes the dashboard less confusing for new users is helpful. This will also help out new validators that have 0% commission, so it’ll help further decentralization. I like it!
Thanks for bringing this to a vote @Maffaz @HoundOne_Validator
# HIP-23: Fixing ER, Taking Commission Into Account
3 Likes