Propose to block individuals running 100% commission from simple staking.
The Simple Staking app does not select validators with 100% commission because a validator with 100% commission leaves 0% return for a nominator, which will never be the highest return.
NOTE: The app does not know or attempt to predict if a validtaor will increase their commission in the future.
Think of it this way. You are planning a weeks long vacation. You speak to a travel agent about Hawaii and express concerns about volcanoes. The travel agent looks up the current state of volcanic activity in Hawaii and there are no active volcanoes. Based on the current state, you decide to go to Hawaii. Two days into your vacation a volcano in Hawaii erupts.
So to be clear, currently Simple Staking does not select validators with 100% commission.
If you are suggesting there should be some sort of predictive model incorporated into Simple Staking, can you elaborate? What criteria would be the basis for Simple Staking to predict a validator will increase their comission to 100% in the future?
Final note, if you think you have found a bug and it is in fact selecting validators with 100% commission at the time it is selecting validators for the user, please let us know. You will need to provide a screenshot of the list of validators Simple Staking selects at the time of selection.
2 Likes
He’s suggesting that any validator that has historically set their bounty to 100% at any time be banned from being selectable by the service. This is reasonable.
I would go further than that and say anyone who has set it above 50%.
2 Likes
I see.
I’ve submitted this as a formal proposal, #16.
0xd00d70a753f4b9e648ff1e6e7c2a6161c549b3452b12339bfba06f9ac8a83b58
1 Like
Honestly it’s a tool for help nominators who not want to take the time to check each time all validators.
So I even propose to set 20% (the actual default web interface limit) or 22% the threshold limit decided by community for TM.
I not think Simple Staking is here for select validator at higher rate honestly.
Just what happen for people not yet elected ?
Simple staking elect them due to higher percentage or are discarded by default ?
For the permanent ban, I propose a check of the 90/180 latest eras. See that like a cool down period
2 Likes
Those “smarter” approaches are needed as well, but would require more implementation effort and may be implemented but not within weeks.
So the 100% ban thing is something that is relatively straightforward to do compared to checking multiple criteria on different schedules, etc.
Regarding permanent ban, normally I’d also prefer for some number of days, but then every time the system runs it also has to check whether a candidate is or isn’t under ban, how many days are left, etc. I don’t think we should spend time developing those features because:
- Node wallet doesn’t get banned globally, but only from Simple Staking
- Any validator who sets 100% to scam Simple Staking users should be removed from Simple Staking for good in the first place
- It’s easy for bad validators to move coins to another address, so you can’t really catch them that way either
I agree that for say >30% short-term bans, etc. should be implemented. Personally I’d remove anyone with >50% from Simple Staking for good. It wouldn’t mean they can’t get nominated or validate (or self-nominate and set 100%)- it’d only means they can’t get nominated in Simple Staking.
2 Likes
A 100% commission is a distortion of competition to the detriment of the other examiners. Unless they have 100% commission and the stake is above average.
Just as bad are examiners who block all applicants in order to have a lower stake.
1 Like
That’s an interesting point (stake > avg_stake). I’ll think about it.
Well, that’s a difficult one. I like to say: Phragmen doesn’t work well for the validators, it works well for the network.
If the blocking validators aren’t allowed to block, they’ll set commission to 85% and unblock. What then?
Also, it’s not necessarily a bad thing, like I said if you’re a validator who nominates own node plus another 3rd party node, Phragmen sometimes dumps your entire stake on your node or some other node you nominated, causing your node to either not get elected, or get 450,000 XX instead of each node getting 150X-250K XX.
Phragmen works well for the network, so changing it would cause other problems, while not allowing validators to block would not give them any tools to protect themselves from it.
I wish there was a solution to this, but I don’t see it.
-
Do you mean the validator’s stake or total stake?
Because you can’t know what the total state will be until Phragmen is done running. Or unless you’ve blocked nominations and all wallets nominating the node don’t nominate other nodes, so it’s easy to know how much will be staked. -
Do you mean “above average elected node stake” or “above average validator stake”?
I just want to make sure I understand exactly what you mean…
Of course they don’t want to remove - it’s Free Shit ™. Why would they want to remove it?
How many government employees vote for lowering their paychecks? Why would they?
I wanted to remove TM. Now that it’s almost gone, I notice that had absolutely no consequences for my node. I have the same number of nominators, getting elected without any problems, etc.
interesting. but, i guess i’m a little “clueless”.
but isn’t the lowest possible total stake of a validator determined by the waiting list. so the TM only has an indirect influence.
- when I wrote about the average, I meant the “above average validator stake”
- the total stake of a validator. when you have 100% commission and your total stake is above the average then your returns are not optimal.
to optimize your income, you need to have your total stake below the average.
yes, blocking is sometime useful, when your node is far above the average stake
1 Like
The lowest possible stake is determined by a validator’s “relative” amount of stakes (which includes validator’s own, plus their nominators) yes. Generally you could get elected with 1K XX validator stake over another node whose validator has a 200K XX validator stake, as the total is what counts (and Phragmen decides how stakes from nominators who nominate multiple nodes are split across (some of) those nodes).
TM has (soon: had) an indirect influence, but it’s free money for the validator.
If I have a 210K XX validator stake and a 25K XX TM, I will likely get elected (today’s situation).
If you have a 220 XX stake and no TM, you will not get elected before me.
You saved (and then invested in validating) 10K XX more than I and you still need to chase a handful of medium size validators to get over my total (210K + 25K TM = 235K XX).
I have just 210K XX and don’t have to do any work - can get elected with 0 XX from validators. So why why I vote in favor of winding down TM? I would only if I think it’s better for the network and my coin. I would not if I want to sit on my behind and get elected w/o work.
I should define the scenario i’m referring to, sorry. i thought it was obvious. I’m talking about the validators blocking all nominators. what is the least amount of coins they need to nominate on their node and get the maximum profit. how far below the average stakes can they be to get to the next era. this is dependent on the validators that are on the waiting list. they define the gap. not the TM.
That is not true, as I explained above the difference is that the validator with a TM employs less capital to get elected compared to the validator with the same own stake.
If validator without the stake has to borrow 50K to make up for the 50K advantage the other node has due to TM, it’s unlikely he could borrow 50K XX for less than a person can make nominating.
And how much is that?
A node makes around 170 XX today, and with 300K on a node with a reasonable commission of 15%, 50K gives the nominator with 50K XX about 24 XX a day, or 8,640 XX a year. That’s a 17% ROI (with simple addition & no compounding), so the benefit of that 50K TM is around 8,640 in (loan) costs avoided.
A simpleton would say “if you don’t have TM, you can still get elected” but obviously the 15-20 people in Waiting did not get elected.
If TM wasn’t helpful many people would have exited it a long time ago (it wasn’t “mandatory”, and you can set it to zero at any time).
Yes and why we need continue to have a certain amount of validator in the waiting list. What happen during one big validator disappearing is a hole and people running with any amount of coins.
1 Like