Based on feedback, we’d like to have the community vote on some aspects of the original proposal that are still up for debate.
0 voters
0 voters
Bootstrapping is a great opportunity to bring transparency and data collection to the validating process. I propose bootstrapped validators track and share their revenue, costs, equipment and labor data. Tracking the incentive structure for early validators over time would allow perspective validators a better idea of the risk/reward.
I’d be happy to help collect, analyze and share results. Also, in full disclosure, I’m hoping to be one of the bootstrapped.
If “no restriction” is an option then “0%” should also been an option in order to remove bias
I’m not sure 0% is a viable option since the minimum for many validators is 5% (100 epochs after they were elected for the first time). We discussed that possibility when writing the proposal, but it seemed strange to make the minimum conditional depending on what the validator’s minimum is (0% or 5%).
A minimum of 0% for validators under 100 epochs, and 5% for those over 100 epochs doesn’t seem too difficult for participants/the community to understand or the DAO to implement?
Just pointing out that potentially allowing a 100% commission - as unlikely as that would be - but not allowing consideration of a 0% commission gives bias to the poll
The only thing to factor in for max commission is validators that have a higher commission for a cause or to give delegators something different like OpenX for example. Just thought I’d through that out there. Do we want to exclude anyone thinking outside of the box? If it’s because we don’t want any rewards other than ONE, then yes it makes sense to leave the max commission as low as possible. The expenses of a harmony node rising so fast, is another factor to think about. In 2 months the size of db 0 has increased about 200% and you need more CPU and ram to handle it. Making my expenses 5 times more than originally planned.
Great idea. Since we are on the validator support subject, I have some input.
Harmony Wallet - 2 (according to Smartstake), currently stakes around 10 MILLION to validators that stopped trying to stay elected (CoinMarketCap.One) and some even ustaked their self-stake (MyCointainer.com) and haven’t been elected in ages. There might be others as well.
If that’s really a Harmony wallet I think they should review their stakings periodically.
I don’t know exactly whom I should tag, but yeah, @stse @lij
P.S: If I am wrong, please accept my apology - haven’t really looked much into it, just thought it’s on point.
I see, may you need to tag @Jacksteroo for this, for CMC the VDAO has not contact to. MyCointainer is the problem they have a max fee of 3% due to this they can no more activate there Validator again because minimum fee is 5%
Its gonna be great program for unelected validator and decentralization! 
With Staking Derivatives not far out has the Validator DAO discussed running a noncustodial staking service via smart contract creating stONE (staked ONE) pegged to ONE plus earned rewards.
This will pave the way for algorithmic staking that can be programmed based on the mandates of the VDAO and updated through voting. Will also cut down on labor for coordinating and distributing bootstrap funds.
Implementation of the smart contract logic looks pretty straightforward. GitHub This is the work submitted for the Bounty.
Quick list of benefits:
Auto stake reward compounding.
Spreading risk and rewards over many validators smooths out APY and allows a competitive yield while still supporting unelected validators and the mission of the DAO.
Ability to un-elect re-elect funds quickly if validator goes down temporarily.
Reputation of VDAO should help in onboarding investors.
A small fee to fund the DAO indefinitely.
Possibility of Launch Grant to support testing and a speedy implementation of the service.
This was an idea that we talked about in our meetings. We are very interested in it but the issues we see right now is not having a Multisig wallet that has staking capabilities available. The other issue is security from the smart contract. I’m not a Dev but from what I heard that the smart contract can carry a security risk for the funds. I believe further development is needed before we can get something like this operational.
If it is possible in a smart contract, then it should also be possible from the multisig.
There is an option to call a Smart Contract that would only execute with x signatures…
Looks like the No and the 5% is the wish of the VDAO Community, if so we can go forward to have a Vote on Snapshot to ratify this as an annex of the Charter 
I chose Yes for testnet as it may not be necessary for many validators that are waiting to be elected now, it is hard to say who might bring them up and apply later and we would definitely want some sort of system to filter out validators that will not run before Harmony drops $1,000,000+ worth of ONE on their validator to get and keep them elected.
In regards to max fee, 5% is plenty to cover operating costs while coming up even with only bootstrap amount delegated to a validator. Therefore I chose 5% and I also believe this should be the minimum fee as well, no more 0% but that is another topic. Even if ONE does drop in price from here, I honestly don’t see it dropping that significantly that it wouldn’t cover server costs for a new validator running 1 BLS key or so.
The last hours of the VDAO Term 2 and as a good bye we just posted the Voting on Snapshot
I am a staker of Harmony One through mycointainer service. All the stakers 5million+ Harmony One tokens have be frozen for 27 months! Mycointainer says they are waiting on a resolution from Harmony One team.
Maybe this is why my and 5million+ Harmony One tokens are still frozen at mycointainer after 27 months.
They could simply unstake, and build up a new validator. There’s the most obvious thing to do.