Nodes With Duplicate or Gateways With Duplicate IP Addresses
Yes
6
3
9
50.00%
No
7
2
9
50.00%
Tally
13
5
18
Nodes With the Same IP Address as the Gateway
Yes
6
2
8
47.06%
No
6
3
9
52.94%
Tally
12
5
17
The xx Foundation appreciates the input from the community and council members that participated in the polling. Most of the questions’ results give a good indication of what people think should be implemented but a couple require further deliberation before a final determination is made on which filters will be implemented on the Simple Staking hosted by the xx Foundation.
Honestly create two polls when some people can vote on both. (already catch council member using another nickname on the forum…). I can’t really understand the goal/concept of that but anyway results seem almost equal on both side.
Block nominators => 90d penalty
Commission => max 22% (I regret the 20% for match web interface)
Less stake => ignored
High Jinks => ever (not accepted both side)
Duplicate/same IP => ignored
I think that’s good choices for keep an healthy network right now.
I’ve generated a “Work In Progress” list that gives an idea of the number of validators and which validators would be filtered from Simple Staking based on different filters.
The linked spreadsheet …
… is a summary that shows ALL of the filters. However, columns B ~ E, specifically Column E, of the Overview Sheet show which would be filtered based on the poll results.
The applied filters are:
90 Day Nominator Blocking
Fair Commission (Greater than 22%)
Commission High Jinks
The filters NOT applied but the data is available are:
Less than 15k Self-staked
Duplicate IPs
Co-located Node and Gateway
Column E is the result of applied filters based on the polling and no list has been applied to Simple Staking yet.
Again, this is a WIP! There may be mistakes, and I am happy to address those mistakes so there is no reason to kick the table over. Just let me know if there is something that looks off and I will be happy to review it.
A note about Commission High Jinks. Determining and catching this is not as easy as it may seem. There are certainly obvious cases. For example, when a validator has called ValidatorPrefsSet hundreds if not thousands of times since the launch of MainNet, it’s pretty friggin’ obvious their up to something. But when a validator crept up to 90% commission over 6 month, 6 months ago and then dropped down to 10% and is doing it again over the past 6 months, it’s a little harder to catch.
Additionally, there are situations to consider like, a validator started at 2%. Two months later, 8%, then a month later, 18% and for 3 months at 22%. Time will tell if they drop or continue to raise.
Same goes for a validator that tests between 20% and 22% a few times but never breaks 22%.
So there is a bit to digest to come to the conclusion it is “High Jinks”.
If there is a validator filtered base on Commission High Jinks that maybe shouldn’t be or there is one that may have been missed, just provide the validator address and I will be happy to review it.