Why⊠nowâŠ
Before we start
To you and everyone else. Please define your methodology. Posting spreadsheets is easy but the description on how they work (mathematically) is required to understand (and audit) them.
Spreadsheets (or any other obfuscated and comment-less code format) can have two types of errors: conceptual errors and implementation errors. The first ones can be easily spotted with a methodology section (definitions), the latter ones by inspecting the code. However if the methodology is not given we can cannot distinguish implementation errors from featuresâŠ
Some might think that math modeling is pseudoscience, but you will find it is not (you can consult your astrologist in case of doubt).
The âimbalanceâ
Not sure how nodes to balance is derived or its meaning. Please define how you calculate the âimbalanceâ, going through spreadsheets calculations is tiresome and error prone. I cannot understand how some chains can be âbalancedâ with all the nodes on them. Please define what you understand as âbalanceâ.
It seems that your âbalanceâ is more like a âsaturationâ, i.e. given the current number of nodes, how many can you assign to each chain until you normalize the incomes of nodes in all chains? then the âmoney chainsâ are never âsaturatedâ because their number of relays is too high. If this is the case, the definition of âbalanceâ is a function of the total number of Pocket nodes, which is not related to the number of blockchain nodes. This will impact the real capacity of the Pocket Network to re-assign their nodes to some low-traffic chains.
The âperfect worldâ is not possible
While what you say is true and the behavior of node runners should lean to that, it ignores the fact that itâs much easier for large node runners to simply deploy a lot of nodes on a single chain, reducing their rewards by node but at zero cost. Once you have a node in a blockchain you can spam nodes on it. It makes economical sense to do so, as the hardware cost of adding a Pocket node to an existing blockchain is zero but the cost of spinning a new blockchain node to get more rewards most of the time exceeds the return. This problem is one of the reasons that we argue for the inclusion of a ânormalizationâ parameter (the entropy) in our research thread.
Why is the current pocket ecosystem not like the page âTodayâ of the provided spreadsheet? because it makes no economical sense. The living proof of this imbalance is the average reward of some medium providers (< 300 nodes) that can make averages that are much higher than bigger ones (> 1000 nodes).
I doubt that only setting the maximum allowed chains to 1 (or any other number) will result in a âperfect worldâ.
In other words, we donât have 18696 âwildcard nodesâ, we have a given set of nodes that are run by a given set of operators that have a given set of blockchains. Assuming that all these nodes can be set to any chain in any location is not accurate. Optimality of stake alone is not enough to drive the âperfect worldâ formation.
Rare Chains
Setting MaximumChains
to 1 is a step in this direction but is not enough. Rare chains have other problems, like low traffic or high costs. Calling this proposal a âsolutionâ is too strong IMOâŠ
Independent node running
Yes, this is the strong point of reducing the maximum number of allowed chains; the same conclusions can be derived from our research thread.
In this point you also mix GeoMeshing, which has nothing to do with this proposal, and GeoMeshing effects will remain. Reducing the maximum number of chains wonât affect this at all for small node runners.
Chain Delisting
With or without this proposal we can do the same analysis; I donât know why you include as part of the proposal.
Oh yes it will, and I donât care. However the response that you give to this argument is full of strong assumptions (and strong assumptions are bad).
Donât try to soften the blow, they (we) had it coming, as Pocket Network philosophy is to be decentralized.
One chain to stake them all and One geozone to bind them
or
Multiple chains and Multiple regions
(sorry no pic here).
We make an extensive point on this in our research thread. Other options are non logical, using 3 is just another arbitrary number that emerges as limit in GANDALF just as a consequence of the total number of current nodes and the assumption of free movement of nodes, neither of those are valid reasons to think that 3 is a logical choice.
This claim is too strong (and unreal IMO), this will only happen under your assumptions. I think that without a mechanism that punishes over-staking of nodes, the imbalance will remain. It will be reduced, but it will not be anywhere near the âperfect worldâ and hence the âmoney chainsâ will still be a thing.
An issue thatâs easily solved in V1, with the watcher modulating the rewards to these low QoS nodes and implementing a mechanism that encourages nodes to stake in this chain/region (as we argue in our research thread).
Why now? Why separated from the research thread?
Many of the conclusions that you reach here are the same as we saw in our thread. It is great to see someone reaching the same conclusions from a different angle. We agree with them, but why are we discussing this in separated topics?
This last question is probably related to: why now? why not discuss this in a V1 scenario as we proposed?
The change is violent from a POKT return per POKT invested (economic incentives). A LOT of friction will be created as the staking paradigm changes a lot for stakers. Stake holders who are used to just stake and forget will have to choose chains? or they will defer to the staking service for their staking? Whoâs going to decide which client nodes will be sent to die in low-relay chains (sparse rewards, seeing your node do nothing for days maybe) for the sake of achieving balance?
This friction will create confusion that will be come atop the ongoing pain that ARR has caused node runners. As the optimal staking strategy is achieved among node runners and a new status quo arises the chaos will reign. Dagor Bragollach will look like a camping trip compared to this. I might be a little bit of an alarmist, but the time is not the right for this move. Node runners are already in pain and confused, we should spare them of this until V1âŠ
Also, our choice of putting up this discussion in the context of V1 had other reasons besides making a clean cut from V0 to V1 staking strategies. Defining nodes with a single chain and single region is one and the same (as we argue in the research thread). Setting only maximum chains to 1 is not logical if we keep GeoZones unrestricted (that cannot be changed in V0). There is a larger concept behind trying to achieve 1 Pocket Node == 1 UNIQUE Blockchain Node
; we cannot do that in V0, probably also not in V1, but we are always looking at how to do that. In V1 trying to achieve this parity is more important, as the watcher will modulate the node rewards based on their performance and having a single set of metrics per node address is the best way to do it (and code) IMO. I donât want to keep on talking about V1 here, but it cannot be avoided as this proposal ties in so closely to what the future protocol will look like.