Open Staking: Improvement Proposals

Web3 Staking
4

Hey Nick,

  1. This one is good. however I don’t agree with bigger validator taking fewer seat. It will all depends on the economical game play. they can purposely targetting on taking more slot to eject more small validator. Reason being is that with the current EPOS logic, as long as your total bid for all your keys are in the range of median stake x 0,85 and median stake x 1.15, your overall earning shouldn’t change too much. So they have no incentives to minimize the number of slot taken.

What if we could introduce an incentives for using less key as possible among that range (15% or 30%) ? For instance keys near the 0.85 would earn much lower reward than those near the 1.15.

I know it is already like that today since their effective stake in between would be different, however I am talking here about adding another layer of logic to increase/decrease the final effective stake and the voting power (derived from the effective stake).

Here is in illustration what I am thinking: let’s assume between the range 0.85 - 1.15 we create 3 sub range:
1/ 0.85 - 0.95
2/ 0-95 - 1.05
3/ 1.05 - 1.15

for each sub range, we applied a new logic to incentivized keys in 3rd bucket ie :
1/ would have 10% of their effective stake being taken away/slashed
2/ nothing will happen for them
3/ the 10% taken away from 1) will be equally distributed to keys in bucket 3)

like this validator will be incentivized to use less key and hence free more slot for small validator.

  1. I have the feeling that it won’t change anything without the proposal above

  2. this is definitely something we have to work on, POPS can surely help the small validator, and P2P issue really need to have a fix applied, SOON !

  3. no added value for me. just a hassle for small validator whenever they hit the new limit, because big validator can just create up new validator and move their delegation around, for small validator, we’ll have to let our delegator know, (please undelegate and lose 10 days of reward, and plese delegate to that new validator …, that is a hassle) unless the re-delegation (wihout undelegation) is existing As you mentioned, it is just cosmetic at the end.

  4. definitely a must to do and should be one of the most prioritized item

  5. definitely a must as well, however, I would as well encourage small validator to combine their fund and unite forces. @Samuel | RoboValidator.com proposed for that a solution I like a lot so I would just copy paste here but credit goes to him:

5 Likes