You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Most existing blockchains now have "whale" validators, who get a lot of voting power. Although this is surely well deserved this may harm the blockchain idea of decentralization.
Will you consider the following:
The bigger the voting power of a validator is, the lower rewards to its delegators are. That way you will encourage your network decentralization. The expected result is that delegators stake to smaller voting power nodes to get a better return, thus to reduce the influence of whales. This can reduce the commission competition, too, especially those infamous 0% validators. Delegators will have to keep an eye on the status quo and may have to re-delegate to a different validator from time to time to keep their stakes working well. Not to bad taking into account that this is "paid" for: they spend some time to get better returns.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi. Thanks for raising this here at my suggestion. I now realize that https://commonwealth.im/agoric/ might be a better forum for it. If you agree, please raise it there and close this.
Most existing blockchains now have "whale" validators, who get a lot of voting power. Although this is surely well deserved this may harm the blockchain idea of decentralization.
Will you consider the following:
The bigger the voting power of a validator is, the lower rewards to its delegators are. That way you will encourage your network decentralization. The expected result is that delegators stake to smaller voting power nodes to get a better return, thus to reduce the influence of whales. This can reduce the commission competition, too, especially those infamous 0% validators. Delegators will have to keep an eye on the status quo and may have to re-delegate to a different validator from time to time to keep their stakes working well. Not to bad taking into account that this is "paid" for: they spend some time to get better returns.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: