In our space we have implemented delegating to validators in our metaverse UI utilizing Gather.Town. We want to showcase the top 32 Validators based on a list of metrics and would like some community feedback and suggestions.
I think the metrics you mention are fine. In addition to this, I think itâd also be great to have a bunch of smaller validators on there to help people distribute their stake and help with decentralisation. Maybe even new unelected validators for people who want to show support.
Iâm definitely a fan of Harmoforce and Orion and supporting smaller validators. Have a few of the smaller validators included but it comes with a lot of added risk which wouldnât be as much of a concern if Binance didnât have 902 million ONE sitting in 21 keys which could decimate smaller validators chances of election without warning.
Yes I understand the risks. Still might be a good option to include them with a callout that mentions the risks. This is so that people who are still willing to take that small risk for the sake of better decentralisation have the option to do it. Would just round off the selection of validators pretty well imo.
The other reason we need a solid 32 that wouldnât risk longterm un-election is we will be implementing one click delegating across all 32 evenly. It takes a lot of time to delegate individually and is one of the UX issues with staking that reduces decentralization.
We feel that having an option to stake across 32 trusted delegators with one click, one transaction, will help decentralize while diversifying the delegators portfolios. Until we further develop our advanced staking tools and make all of this a lot easier.
Yes, you could include a few reputed, stable validators, but also you can give special mentions (with warning people) to small or unelected validators. Thereâs less than 200 validators, and we definitely need more.
Absolutely agree. Even with unstable, on the 900 cusp validators, that bounce in and out of election, the higher returns during election compensate some for the unelected epochs. Having it spread out across 32 means each validator is contributing about 3% to the portfolio so with the right balance it can support smaller validators while still generating optimal returns.
If you want to include some new, unelected or unstable validators, I suggest you follow Harmoforce, they have the current supported âthe Podâ and also a waiting list for the next ones to be supported when the Pod is stable.
The other criteria you suggest for more established validators are good too.
@OneUnitedPower Saw the deleted post and thought Iâd comment on it to clarify. The number of Shards a validator validates only matters if they are large and have the capability to split across shards.
We understand the costs of running validators and want to make sure everyone gets a fair chance to create a sustainable revenue stream.
Also would like to see smaller validators raise their fees up, even if only temporarily, donât think the community will mind. But might as well check.
Would you UnDelegate if a Validator Raised their Fee%?
Definitely, at current ONEâs price with a total 5mil staked at 5% commission, we are actually losing money if using dedicated cloud servers as the requirements to run the nodes are getting higher.
Voting Record - Used Harmony Node Validator Info for voting records on snapshot with a few changes to the code. This going forward will most likely have to change though depending on new voting platform / standards.
Communication & Engagement - Manual search through talk.harmony, reddit, discord, twitter, telegram and bonus for any private channels of communication that are actively utilized. It also does matter that a communication preference is included in validator info.
Contributions - @FortuneValidatorvStatsBot is a good example of contributions we look for along with other launches / bounties supporting the staking community, along with participation as a governor / signatory on VDAO.
Happy to have assisted the validator community. Currently working on a page that we recently used for tracking validator node versions. This helped create a smooth transition on the latest hard fork.
The amount of shards validating should be taken with a grain of salt. That can mostly only be achieved by larger nodes being able to hold enough keys. I would not say that is a good measure of their performance. A good measure for multishard nodes is whether or not they help balance the shards vs them simply splitting stake on shards to keep more keys post hip-16.
Self stake I would not say is necessarily pertinent in validator performance or trust per se. You can have a node that self stakes a large amount but is awol.
Aiming for the middle in terms of keys I would argue is not necessarily âgood performanceâ as well. As validators we need to uphold the network and part of that is getting new validators on board. If you have large nodes holding keys between lower and upper bounds (and dropping a key still puts them in this range) is relatively senseless. It takes up a slot another node may have had for election. IMO nodes should bid towards the upper bound and add keys if they go over. However, staying in the middle does provide the benefit of adjusting possibly less keys with large swings in stake. I will argue this by saying with the autobidder thats out there, there again is no point in bidding lower than you need to - it will do everything for you.
100% agree, to be a multi shard chain we need validators to responsibly validate to their ability to balance the ecosystem.
I think from an investors stand point with slashing a risk factor it is important to show commitment to self stake over time for large validators. Obviously this is not possible for many in the current market though.
100% Agree, think that is the true Goldilock Position. Same returns, without stealing keys from new validators.
I wish more nodes would realize this point. This alone would help elect alot of new nodes. Yes ER will drop marginally as more nodes are available to stake on with higher reward and the network stake would increase, in theory. Difficult how much rate of return would change, likely very marginal. This would make for a good HIP.
Results from Reddit poll. Seems pretty evenly divided which is a no go unless you want to risk a decent drop in delegations. Poll here was a little more forgiving but not a great sample size.
Second poll started a great conversation on inflation and tokenomics. Super interesting topic (at least to me) in determining if inflation / deflation of a token, within a range, has significance, in a highly correlated market.
Kenny, this may change in the future as well. I agree it is interesting to discuss but I believe Harmony is looking to modify the specifics behind rewards distribution. RJ mentioned to possibly pay validators gas fees from the blocks (or distribute them). This would affect the current issuance as the gas burn would be affected? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6io7NCh4mg Good discussion nonetheless!
