Hi!
This is the place to discuss the xx network economic adjustments proposed by the team.
You can find the post and proposal here:
https://xx.network/archive/economic-adjustments/
Please keep conversation to this thread to keep it tractable
-xx network team
Hi,
in the introduction it says “flat 18% commission”. Later on page 5 it says “flat maximum commission of 18%”
Which one is correct?
It is flat. I will update.
So to be clear don’t we bring the nodes without TM in a vulnerable position?
Or do I miss something?
190 slots to go without TM and profitable for validators with TM.
Do I miss something
Relative to nodes with TM I think they will be more vulnerable to not making it into a set but that was always going to be the case i think…you do bring up a good question though…
Im not so sure these fixes were meant to “help” non team backed nodes.
These fixes were more meant to make sure team backed nodes were being helped.
I think @benger would be able to give a better explanation ? hopefully?
Does that really mean those who want to take TM cannot set commission rate below or above 18%?
That my take as well.
Pretty sure you can do what you desire as far as what % you want to put. Just keep in mind the risks regarding team MP.
You can set below, just not above
Ok, thanks. Because above it was said “flat” which I took to mean non-variable across the board regardless of both one’s preference and amount at stake.
No, it is the maximum rate qualifying validators can set without losing the benefit of TM.
It’s not a bypass, everyone’s coins (among those who qualify for TM) are locked in the same address.
28 day unbound can be eliminated because no one can move coins elsewhere in any case (due to a lock completely unrelated to staking or nominating (and related to Beta/Proto/Canary programs)).
It seems to me what will happen is overall commission rates will drop at least slightly, which is good because it will increase competition.
It’s easy to see that with loose slot management commissions have been going up which - from the network stakeholder view - represents unnecessary handouts.
The proposal looks good and very helpful and will solve 80% of main problems (the last 20% will be coin mobility) for time being.
In the proposal stake simulations starts at 0 xx; it would have been visually less confusing if x axis started at 14,000 xx because below that validation is not an option. Although it’s perfectly fine to nominate with less than 14,000 xx, you can’t get validator commission for that investment so there isn’t much value in having it in there.
It is a very good proposal from the team, very well thought out and elaborated, it will probably solve most of the current problems. In theory it seems the solution, hopefully in practice it will be too. 
Timing-related comment: as some of those coins sold last November are supposed to be distributed this week, it would be less disruptive if that got done before the first batch of fixes gets applied.
That would make it easier to plan and assess the situation.
In general, I agree, but there are doubts. While the token is not being traded, you can try. In addition, you need to distribute bonuses 50% from last sale, they can also affect the whole picture.
I agree. Is 18% the maximum or fixed for everyone? if this is the maximum where is the formula?
Sound like a well thought out plan. I like that node operators get fair compensation and will also be able to stake their coins on other nodes. This way we can find the most profitable nodes to stake on or help out nodes to take part in the active validatie set.
Sounds like the best of both worlds that solves all mentioned problems. Big thumbs up!
When it comes to choosing the commission rate, it’s exactly the same behavior as it was prior to this change.
I don’t know what they plan to do after coins are unlocked.
I expect that the final version (which would need to come before listing) will not allow bypass. Originally ProtoNet had one controller and multiple stash addresses so I think we’ll return to that approach and normal policies will be in place.
You can ask in Discord or maybe someone from the Team will respond here.
It’s fixed maximum for everyone who qualifies, regardless of their stake amount.
if this is the maximum where is the formula?
There’s no formula. It’s the maximum that’s available to everyone who wants TM.
You can set your commission to whatever works (if you don’t care about TM) or to 18% or lower if you want TM.
Edit (Feb 12): they added a formula (not for the multiplier but for the max amount of TM) at MainNet Transition Program Configuration and Commitment Applet Instructions - xx network
Can you please elaborate on the following statement from the economic adjustment proposal?:
For a node operator, it seems easy to jump to the conclusion that not having their full stake backing the validator directly could put it’s place in the validator set at risk, however this is not true. We note that if a node operator always nominates their own validator as one of the (up to 16) nominations, if the stake is needed in the validator, Phragmen will ensure it goes there.
I think I don’t fully understand that sentence. How does Phragmen know, for instance, that my nominating non-validator wallet belongs to my own validator, so that it protects this validator of not falling out of the active set, even if I nominated 15 other validators that also do not want to fall out of the active set?
What comes to my mind is, why not hard-code this 18% fee for everyone and make it non-adjustable? This would also immediately cancel the fee race to the bottom, which can be seen in most other PoS blockchains. Having adjustable fees always only favour the big validators, as they are not dependent on income from fees as are the small, independent validators. VC backed validators often set their fee to 0% to attract nominations by at the same time out-competing the small validators, who cannot sustain running on 0% long-term.
Moonbeam, a Substrate-based parachain to Polkadot, is pioneering this fixed fee system (set to 20%), and it is working well so far.
