Yes, I came in with an attitude that was not suited to this format. I was going meta, and unnecessarily preempting a sentiment I’ve seen expressed by many indexers on this forum. It was not appropriate productive- but you are correct, the language is nowhere to be found in your posting. I was reprimanded, I’ve apologized and I’ve attempted to contribute. Still, the language of the irrational delegator is found within some of the responses here, so the sentiment does exist. I also tend to think your original post makes some implied assumptions about delegator ability to understand things like cut vs real cut percentage that you just cannot possibly have the data to support.
Perhaps I need to become a bit more concise to best contribute to the discussion. But as you point out- I have said an awful lot here, so I would hope you could respond to at least some of that more directly.
I agree. Myself and others have made the argument that placing new caps on stake or delegation capacity would be mostly ineffectual to the stated goal of decentralization, largely unequitable, and quite possibly disruptive. We’ve proposed softer measures that may be more effective at accomplishing the goals of decentralization. I’ve yet to see much meat on the bone of any counter argument.
Bad faith? This is a very charged term that I don’t think should be used casually, especially by a council member. Hasn’t any indexer who’s been running on any stake/delegation ratio since mainnet launch (with the exception of those running negative real % cuts) earned a lot of GRT on pretty minimal overhead? And can’t any indexer choose to unstake at any time, more or less? Can anyone claim to be blindsided by 100k being on the edge of feasibility, in the context of 10b tokens? And exactly what claim to hardship would a min-staked indexer have if they simply walk away in a month or two with significantly more GRT than when they started? Perhaps a revised “Recommended Minimum” in addition to the protocol minimum could be added to any literature for prospective new indexers? But the more you make the argument that min-stake can’t be viable, the more it sounds like any Parameter Revisions to change that would need to be quite extreme.
Once again, this begs the question- are there soft measures or infrastructure initiatives that might prove to more elegantly address the problem of over-centralization, such that it even exists?
Since this was flagged as spam, and I have to resubmit this as an edit, expecting to be flagged as spam again in which case it will be up to the staff whether or not to approve the publication of this comment- let me point out that much of the content of this preposal was already addressed here, two weeks ago, and the consensus was generally that the ideas don’t have legs.
. Since the distribution of the query gateways, the biggest centralisation would come from those who has multiple medium indexers distributed globally rather than the single large indexers.
).