Hello everyone, as mentioned in a tweet a few days ago we have developed what we think is a fairer sorting of the validators in the validators dashboard.
Basically we have implemented what we think is a fairer way to present the validators list:
when the user selects an attribute for sorting the list, those having the same value are subsequently ordered using a prioritized list of secondary attributes.
I’m creating this topic so we can start a discussion which can lead to an HIP which can support then a pull request with our code change which is ready.
First of all we should avoid calling those improvement HIP, ie there is no EIP to improve etherscan if you see what I mean.
Could you elaborate on the thought process with the current prioritization ? ie why commission rate would be going first vs uptime percentage ?
Currently we simply randomize the validator list, if we have a prioritization list i am worried they would be abuse of the validator ie : I am a big validator, and I will set to the lowest commission rate (ofc I have the money to have a very good uptime), I may also abuse the lower bound to have a high APR. At the end I may end up on top of that list and receive more delegation. If we were to remove the randomness, at least total stake should be first whatever the commission.
I mentioned that this discussion might lead to an HIP because it’s the way to initiate an official governance vote.
The vote might be necessary to determine if prioritization is needed in the first place.
Moreover, if we decide to move forward with the prioritization the majoriy of validators should agree on the criteria. We don’t have to go down this way. I think someone suggested this in the telegram chat. But the discussion here along with a pull request could be enough.
The order I proposed is, in my opinion, the one that maximizes the value delivered to the stakers. The primary purpose of the dashboard is to provide a useful tool for individuals who want to stake their $ONE, helping them find the validator with the best Stats.
Currently, the sorting algorithm seems to be broken to me when sorting unelected validators (I can provide more details if needed), so a change is necessary regardless.
Hopefully, other validators will join the discussion.
Thanks for your reply and for sharing your thoughts on the topic."
This version addresses some punctuation and grammar issues to make the text clearer and more structured.