Validators in the Core Team

It’s a pretty simple question really.

Is it problematic if you work for the Harmony Core team and run a validator at the same time?

I would like to hear the community perspectives on this.

The reasons I ask are as follows:

  • If your total staked amount is large, you carry a lot of vote weight and can actively vote on polls, whilst implementing changes on the network (conflict of interest?)
  • The network is still not decentralized, some of the nodes are federated (run by the harmony network itself), and if you are part of the team that manages those federated nodes whilst profiting while dividing your total stake with BLS keys / Slots… This is a problem because there are currently only 900 slots, and if you take up a decent portion of them, you are not incentivised to release more slots to the public…
  • You have access to discuss grants at the top level whilst potentially profiting from those decisions…
  • You can (potentially) implement anti-competition rules to suit your validator due to your central position in the project…

I understand that there is a genuine requirement for running nodes on a small scale, as this would be needed to check the network status, diagnose issues etc…

If the goal is to make the network decentralized, isn’t a core member of the team also being a validator arguably making it even more centralized?

Come at me bro.

1 Like

Besides team members running their own personal nodes, the end goal is to have the community run them all I believe.

2 Likes
  • If your total staked amount is large, you carry a lot of vote weight and can actively vote on polls, whilst implementing changes on the network (conflict of interest?)

The elected nodes run by core team members have no major influence on voting. Unless this changes, it is not a worry

  • The network is still not decentralized, some of the nodes are federated (run by the harmony network itself), and if you are part of the team that manages those federated nodes whilst profiting while dividing your total stake with BLS keys / Slots… This is a problem because there are currently only 900 slots, and if you take up a decent portion of them, you are not incentivised to release more slots to the public…

100 Slots are still ran by Harmony and it is planned to release them… No ‘member of the core team that runs a validator’ can stop this or have any influence in that decision.

  • You have access to discuss grants at the top level whilst potentially profiting from those decisions…

Who does? There are no requirements to give anything to anyone. If a grant is approved, it is up to the project to decide what they do with those funds. Nothing the Core team members can do about that.

  • You can (potentially) implement anti-competition rules to suit your validator due to your central position in the project…

By what mechanism and by whom? No one but the community via vote can change any ‘rules’ and I doubt consenus would vote to favour 1 particular validator. I certainly would not!

If the goal is to make the network decentralized, isn’t a core member of the team also being a validator arguably making it even more centralized?

Not at all… Why would it? more to the point, why does decentralisation mean excluding people? Decentralisation neither favours nor denies any individual or group of people.

11 Likes

I can’t lie Maffaz, these answers are not good answers if you were trying to answer any of those points. You are asking me questions back. The reason for these questions is to understand whether these points provide a good or a bad point for the network, not to have you pawn off some odd answers and ask me questions back. If you answered the questions then you would not need to ask me questions back, or if you genuinely do not know the answer, then sure, ask the question. But you’re not kidding me with that trick!

But anyway, since you clearly think this was a great answer and can’t grasp the concept behind the questions (which explains why you’re asking questions back because the real answer exposes some potentially uncomfortable truths), let me also break down your points.

  • If your total staked amount is large, you carry a lot of vote weight and can actively vote on polls, whilst implementing changes on the network (conflict of interest?)

You said: The elected nodes run by core team members have no major influence on voting. Unless this changes, it is not a worry

----- I’m going to begin this by answering like you, who says its not a worry? If the president of a company makes an influential pass at a rule that benefits them and it gains support, that is what we on planet earth call influencing votes. It is a worry.

  • The network is still not decentralized, some of the nodes are federated (run by the harmony network itself), and if you are part of the team that manages those federated nodes whilst profiting while dividing your total stake with BLS keys / Slots… This is a problem because there are currently only 900 slots, and if you take up a decent portion of them, you are not incentivised to release more slots to the public…

You said: 100 Slots are still ran by Harmony and it is planned to release them… No ‘member of the core team that runs a validator’ can stop this or have any influence in that decision.

----- You don’t understand the point LOL if somebody was running a node, and they had 100 slots, releasing 100 more slots sooner makes the network more competitive. lols.

  • You have access to discuss grants at the top level whilst potentially profiting from those decisions…

You said: Who does? There are no requirements to give anything to anyone. If a grant is approved, it is up to the project to decide what they do with those funds. Nothing the Core team members can do about that.

----- The core members do. This is possibly the worst reply of them all. If you cannot see how this leaves the door open to malpractice, its because you are biased or blind. The point made was not that there are “requirements”, and I never said there were “Requirements”. But even if there were “requirements”, those “requirements” could potentially be influenced by validators in the core team. But seeing as there are not many stated “requirements” that I’m currently aware of as such, it doesn’t mean there isn’t potential for “undisclosed” requirements. Just saying. Like for example, you gave your friend a job because he was your friend, even though other people were better qualified. Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen!

  • You can (potentially) implement anti-competition rules to suit your validator due to your central position in the project…

You said: By what mechanism and by whom? No one but the community via vote can change any ‘rules’ and I doubt consenus would vote to favour 1 particular validator. I certainly would not!

---- this is simple. Whatever you in your head doubt does not change the fact it is entirely possible, and you should consider that if you are fair minded. Yep.

If the goal is to make the network decentralized, isn’t a core member of the team also being a validator arguably making it even more centralized?

You said: Not at all… Why would it? more to the point, why does decentralisation mean excluding people? Decentralisation neither favours nor denies any individual or group of people.

----- I think this point sums up the most the fact that you are blindly guided by some sort of cult-like attitude. Excluding people is precisely what an elected validator who is a core team member can potentially do. Sorry to say it but derp.

Can someone with a constructive answer reply next time please. Thanks!

Hmm, I guess we have us a hero. Could you be any ruder to your own peers? I like your comments at the end, “come at bro” and “Can someone with a constructive answer reply next time please. Thanks!”. You sound like a genius with an IQ of 190 or more, I am highly impressed.

If you were truly concerned then I would think that you would have addressed this a little differently. However, the comments at the end suggest you are looking for a fight or something. If you feel this way and you are as smart as you like to make yourself out to be, may I ask where your blockchain is? What is your ticker or white paper so I can DMOR and if it is worth investing in?

As long as I have been on in this sub I have never seen a prick like you attacking his own peers. If you are not happy with Harmony GTHFO and take your validator with you we don’t want or need someone like you. Your points have been made aware multiple times and we understand we are not decentralized and we will never be, any POS will never be 100% decentralized. If you want 100% decentralization you will need to go to BTC.

Anyway good luck and maybe get an attitude adjustment.

6 Likes

Hey “bro” I’ve been running a validator a while now and I am still not elected - your validator has almost 5M staked with less self-staked than me. You should be thankful.

While your original post did have some valid points, and I was hoping you were trying to be somewhat objective but your response to Maffaz was out of line. Like the previous poster said nobody here owes you anything. If you think the project is unfair then leave. I think the answers Maffaz gave were reasonable and hardly “responding with a question”. But instead you come off quite a jerk. I also saw your previous post about the Reddit moderators and also again you are being an ass.

Just like how we all have a choice anyone who doesn’t like HeavenONE’s post is more than free to undelegate from him and delegate with me :
Harmony – Open Consensus for 10B
I am developing a no-loss-lottery for all delegators to my validator. First phase will be off-chain then a smart contract with full auditing. Hope to get the off-chain prototype working end of January then smart-contact enabled by end of February.

Have a nice day “bro”.

5 Likes

----- I’m going to begin this by answering like you, who says its not a worry? If the president of a company makes an influential pass at a rule that benefits them and it gains support, that is what we on planet earth call influencing votes. It is a worry.

Any validator can garner support and influence votes. That is what governence is all about, discussion and debate and voting. I don’t understand your point here or how it relates specifically to validators in the core-team.

----- You don’t understand the point LOL if somebody was running a node, and they had 100 slots, releasing 100 more slots sooner makes the network more competitive. lols.

“Someone” does not have 100 slots… Harmony run those and discussion about releasing is detailed here: HIP-19: 100% external voting power and 100% external slots - #14 by leo

I suggest you direct concerns regarding external slots there.

----- The core members do. This is possibly the worst reply of them all. If you cannot see how this leaves the door open to malpractice, its because you are biased or blind. The point made was not that there are “requirements”, and I never said there were “Requirements”. But even if there were “requirements”, those “requirements” could potentially be influenced by validators in the core team. But seeing as there are not many stated “requirements” that I’m currently aware of as such, it doesn’t mean there isn’t potential for “undisclosed” requirements. Just saying. Like for example, you gave your friend a job because he was your friend, even though other people were better qualified. Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen!

I am not sure how this relates to validators. Harmony can do what they want re funding and grants as is their prerogative. As it is Harmony are pretty transparent re funding and generally fund projects that already exist. You can read more here:

I suggest you direct any concerns regarding funding there.

---- this is simple. Whatever you in your head doubt does not change the fact it is entirely possible, and you should consider that if you are fair minded. Yep.

If it does happen it will be via community vote not by ‘a core team member validator’ they don’t have that power.

----- I think this point sums up the most the fact that you are blindly guided by some sort of cult-like attitude. Excluding people is precisely what an elected validator who is a core team member can potentially do. Sorry to say it but derp.

An elected validator has no power alone and would have to convince the community to vote for exclusion.

For any validator, core-team or not to have influence over voting, they would currently need a minimum of 2,335,425,369 ONE staked just to meet quorum and nearly 3 billion to pass in their favour.

5 Likes

A prick like me lolol cry harder. I asked a question if you don’t like it go whine elsewhere!

Sup bro. I will respond how I like, thanks for the input tho, bro. Not. Unlike you, I’m not trying to be liked. I’m asking questions and hoping for honest input but you seem to be so concerned about tone and “how I come off”. This is low resolution thinking bro. Have a nice day too bro!

I don’t recall that I was the one whining or crying, isn’t it you with your “it’s a pretty simple question really” and the other quotes that you have that are confrontational? You are the smart guy here so you tell me. I am just calling out your bullshit and you don’t like it. I get it, you are a guy that no one at work likes because you are always right.

I am off to go cry me a river.

2 Likes

I think to get a clear understanding what is going on we need to figure out where you are coming from. It is almost like you have a chip on your shoulder and pissed off about something. Are you upset because some of these validators have 100 million plus staked with them?

Do you really think that attacking your own peers will resolve anything? I have been here a long time and have never seen another validator attack another like you did. I would go to say that these validators probably helped you get setup and elected?

I think you need to ask yourself these questions:
Why did you invest in ONE?

Why did you become a validator?

Does this make since where I am coming from?

5 Likes

You raise fair points about potential conflicts of interest albeit in a not-so-subtle way. I suggest contributing not only your thoughts but also solutions to the threads referenced by Maffaz. Without providing a solution, it’s difficult to have constructive dialogue.

I know you say “I will respond how I like”, but as stewards of the network, validators should do their best to at least remain cordial with one another. By taking an aggressive stance, you could be hindering your own goal of finding consensus on a solution.

8 Likes

Hey Sir,

Sorry for the late reply.

Please explain how my questions could be construed as me being upset. These are legitimate questions which require answers, not counter questions. I am asking because I want to know, not because I need to question why I’m asking.

Your point about “validators helping me” holds no water. For example, do I owe a debt to the bank because they let me store the money I worked for in there?

Also can you please explain how I am “attacking” people. I do not understand this point seeing as I have not attacked anybody, I simply asked questions and never got answers. This is not attacking people, this is simple asking for opinions and answers from people who maybe believe there are legitimate rationales behind the questions I am asking. If they don’t know the answer, they can ask themselves and agree, but if they do know, they shouldn’t be asking me questions back.

Does it make sense where I am coming from?

The questions I made in the first place were constructive. The answer from Maffaz was not.

I asked the questions to understand the opinions of the community. I am looking for consensus before we can all hang our hats on the idea of dialogue between good and bad ideas… “What people think” is the first step to a democratic dialogue.

well you ask for “what people think”, Maffaz is 1 person among those people, he can have his own opinion, no matter what it is right ?

His opinion is valued, just like any community member. To ask me a question back means he did not understand the purpose of the original question. I did not ask a question to be asked questions back. This is something I pointed out in my reply. I am asking questions for the community to answer or offer their opinion. If he believes there are more questions to be asked, which I am sure there are, that is great. Let him ask them to the community, not the person asking the questions, I do not own this community or its consensus. I want to know the communities opinion as much as everybody else who believes in a democratic fair system.

He replied each of your questions with both “?” sentences & “.” sentences, so he wasn’t only questioning you back, he was also giving you the answers.

You raised a few valid concerns in your original post, but it looks like you aren’t really up to an open discussion with those who want to share their opinion like you did.
I do agree with you, this network is not fully decentralized. Actually I see no existence of a full decentralized network in the crypto space, exception made for BTC and ETH. Although it’d may be an unpopular statement, project’s management has a vast power decision but it has to be like that at these stages. What I’d like to see it’s the management slowly pulling aside as the project keeps on growing: OP you do well understand that efforts’ people should be paid enough for their work, and this power they have it’s kind their compensation.
As of now, Harmony shouldn’t be considered decentralized but aspiring to be, along the community support we can easily become a topclass in this environment.
Also please remember that many people joined this community because it’s considered to be one of the kindest in the crypto space, there’s no need to pointlessly argue with someone you have a grudge to, keep it civil.

1 Like

Again, focusing on my perceived relationship with anybody makes no difference to the original points.
The current situation is corrupt - and if that is hard for people to read, so be it. All this talk about “kindness” and community does not mask that fact.