Also want to support this moratorium, as it was this kind of language that caused me to come in so hot and unproductive yesterday.
There’s no sign of such language prior to your posts.
Please remember that this is an open discussion for everyone, not a proposal. There’s no need for defensive posturing, and doing so only causes people to ignore your input, even if it’s valid arguments that are being presented in such a manner.
I’ve noticed most people have mostly ignored your ‘other’ posts and i appreciate your tone has changed somewhat, but you already account for around 40% of the posts in this thread. Please consider that.
@cryptovestor
I think it’s clear that Delegators are acting in completely valid ways. Any language that infers that certain tactics are ‘dumb’ or not valid somehow, is not welcome in this thread.
Observations of behaviour is fine, judgement is not. Let’s all stick to discussing the potential impacts of that behaviour, on the network and its participants at large.
@indexer_payne
Great post, i hope that people will add to it and focus on the content of your data/arguments more thoroughly.
Allowing indexers to move freely inside the protocol without having to have worries about paying tens of thousands of dollars for allocations will make the protocol economy very robust imo, and leads towards a more healthy market.
This reminds me, the idea of funds being “in protocol” as it applies to Delegators could be a solution here, if anything like caps are introduced.
I’ve noticed a few concerns about what will happen to those Delegated to any Indexers who are already over [hypothetical cap].
Regardless of the topic at hand, i feel that being able to change Indexers without a thawing period is something that will make delegation behaviour much more dynamic, and alleviate many concerns of Delegators and the punishment they current face if they find themselves on an Indexer who behaves/performs poorly.
Something to keep in mind, as any changes made should:
- Consider the impacts faced by all participants
- Try to avoid punishing them, simply for participating ahead of such changes.
I want to offer additional views on the situation. One of them is that I think it will be possible to capture close to the full 3% inflation rewards with clever selection of a single subgraph.
I can’t see this being the case once we move beyond more than a handful of subgraphs.
And part of the problem (as pointed out by @indexer_payne ) is that even a handful of subgraphs already has a huge impact on the opex of smaller stakes, to the point where they’re excluded purely by overheads.
People seem to overlook that certain parameters, as discussed here, make other parameters such as ‘100k minimum stake’, completely impractical. I’d say that even telling people to be an Indexer with that amount of stake, after viewing the data within this very thread, would basically be in bad faith. Yes it’s technically possible, but it’s unlikely to prove feasible, and that may (very) soon apply to stakes much larger than 100k.
Finally - I’m not sure on the 2nd part of your post. I don’t think any Indexers who turn to delegation should be treated any differently from the rest.
I’d like to see people to focus on the content of arguments more, going forward. 
There’s already some great posts in here. Please respond to the arguments of those more directly, so that we can see the challenges to/for each point evolve in a productive and progressive manner.
I feel much of the thought and effort that went in to many posts has so far been largely dismissed or overlooked and i would rather not see quality posters discouraged from contributing further.