Jump to content

Kevin Reese

Members
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Kevin Reese last won the day on March 12

Kevin Reese had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Kevin Reese's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

2

Reputation

  1. Good day all. Overall I think this proposal is a good one and these are all welcome changes. One suggestion I'd like to make, to aid decentralization, would be for the removal of more Elrond-run nodes to clear out the waiting queue. The waiting queue has seen terrific reduction progress over the last month, as was requested, and greatly aided by the efforts of the validators. However, even with this reduction from about 210 nodes in the queue (if I recall correctly) after phase 3 launch, to now 49 today, there are still a handful of service providers that have had 0 node activations while the top 40 service providers have 8 or more nodes, the top 20 have 15 or more nodes, and the top 10 SP's have at least 45 nodes. Some providers such as ARC Staking have 7 nodes in the wait list to activate to raise their APR, while at the same time, the new service providers that launched have not even activated yet, such as my own Steak4All, and: HAMATek, UnityStake, Bware Labs, and Risasoft have no active nodes and their thousands of combined users are at 0% apr and leaving for largest, established paying-apr providers. This scenario in the paragraph above is causing centralization. The small and newly launched SPs are unable to rewards their delegators who supported them. So they are floundering, possibly not able to survive -- and when these new SPs fail, unable to continue, they will leave the community, their delegators have a bad and confusing time, and their egld will be assigned absorbed mostly by the top handful of SPs. This is not decentralization. I'm not sure if it is even for feasible for more Elrond community nodes to be decommissioned at this juncture. But as an in-term 3.5 phase, I wanted to make this suggestion as a direct way to clear the queue. If it's not doable that's fine, but on behalf of my loyal delegators, some of which are friends and family, I wanted to submit this suggestion. Alternatively, raise the node cap by 50 (yes, I realize this is likely easier said than done, for technical reasons). For my SP, steak4all, thanks to community efforts in clearing the queue, we are nearing activation now, it's very close (node spots 6 and 8! It's been a long journey). It's looking much better for me to activate now. But for other 0% apr SP's, and more importantly, all those thousands of delegators wondering why they aren't receiving egld staking rewards, even after having assigned their hard-earned egld for non paying SP's for over a month and a half now, it would be make a world of difference if only a small number of foundation nodes were removed. Alternatively, two more ideas: Would it be outrageous to put a cap on nodes for SP's? 60 nodes, 75 nodes maybe? Or getting rid of the unlimited egld delegation cap and making it a hard cap according to the number of nodes you have? Functionally phase 3 seems to favor established and the largest SPs, again, the opposite of decentralization. None of the new service providers thought it was going to be easy, starting a new business. But if decentralization is the goal, then it should be possible for new SPs launch, and to do so, node spots need to be available to accommodate the demand. Simply, if there isn't the space available then validators will compete for this space, and in this competition it is more likely the largest SPs will succeed -- not the newest SPs; not the smallest SPs: as was the hopes for greater decentralization. Thanks for reading! Very excited for Elrond's future as always, and happy to be here.
  2. Good day all. Thought I'd do a follow up post to my earlier thread Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, it seems unlikely that my staking service will be able to survive and launch successfully. Which is a bummer for me of course, but thought it would be helpful to post my experiences and challenges. I started the smart contract for my pool, with my 1250 egld (which is a large portion of my total net worth), last Friday on launch day. I had some tech issues on the day around my delegation manager, worked about 16 hours on the Friday and Saturday working on my offering. Around Saturday night, I had about 2300 of the 2500 egld needed to activate. I raised the delegation cap at this point, and began lowering my fees to attract users to sign up with my offering. About a day later, Sunday night, I had many more delegations and was happy to see the delegation over 5000 triggered 2 nodes to be registered and sent to be activation. Unfortunately by Sunday night, and the time my pool had enough egld to activate the nodes, the que already had about 1200 nodes in it. Since then I've been on the node wait list, and my position is moving up very slowly (maybe 5-10 spots a day). My two nodes are now qued at spot 421 and 424. So currently steak4all's APR is 0%. The prospect for me to become an active validator seems very slim. I'm offering additional tokens to people in my pool, and doing everything I can to retain delegators, but how can I compete with 0% against paying pools? I don't see much chance of success. The core of phase 3 -- at least concerning the new delegation smart contract system -- was to enable more community nodes. But the present system, IMHO heavily favors established providers, and in fact, it is almost impossible for a single node service provider such as myself to launch successfully. By the time I reached 2500 egld for a single node the larger providers already had about a 1000 ready to go, filling the que. Looking back, I'm satisfied with my how I launched my service. Sure I could have done a bit better launching my offering sooner Friday, but that wasn't possible for me due to other job commitments. So it seems I did everything 'right': have put many, many hours in; my costs are around $3500 CAD so far for my cloud costs and websites etc; and I have invested most my networth into launching this service. Yet after all my efforts, it is likely to fail. Going forward it will be even more difficult as well for new service providers to launch a service: how can a new SP attract delegators with 0% apy? If no new nodes are to be added, then you are looking at very big operating cost for no rewards for an unknown amount of time, possibly it will never even happen (having a node activate). My current position is fairly bleak. Users are no longer delegating to my pool as I have 0% apr, why would they? Existing users in my pool are leaving, because I offer no rewards, of course they will. There is always unlimited available delegation spot to stake with the top 20 largest providers who already were offering APY from the get-go, due to have dozens or more servers already staked and ready to go before I could even launch one. I'm currently operating at a loss monthly, so how long can I sustain this, especially if I can't even promise to my delegators that I will ever have an APY for them to enjoy. Besides the operating costs I'm also unable to keep my egld stake not generating any profit as it is most of personal networth tied into it. And I also feel that is a bad deal for all my 180+ (now 140 or so) delegators who signed up for my service. They are effectively staking at 0% rewards with me, where they were expecting to be earning as soon as this week. For all these reasons and more I would say that the odds are incredibly stacked against any small operator starting a new delegation pool, at present, the odds of success are incredibly small. The current system heavily favors established providers, and I though the intent was to encourage more staking providers, not less, with Phase 3. In this present system, the odds of being able to launch a new service offering via a delegation contract if you only have 1250 to get started, are so poor as it almost seems hopeless from my perspective, which is discouraging, as I really want to succeed. I hope this can change, as the economics should be encouraging to new SP's, as this leads to decentralization, which was the main goal of Phase 3. One possible solution would be to allow a node to get a spot in the wait list, with only the DM contract being activated (1250) and assigned to one node. For example my one node that looks like it will not activate, has been an observer node for months. But those months operating as an observer did not give any benefit at all, and hundreds of new nodes could automatically be scaled out by a larger provider in the time it took me to activate a single node. With no incentive for node operators to de stake their nodes, it is conceivable then that there will be no new delegation pools able to launch, as the wait list doesn't really move, AFAIK and from what I've seen. Hopefully this is addressed in Phase 4 as I imagine it will be. But currently, it seems all but impossible for a single node DM operator like myself to successfully launch. Thanks for reading!
  3. Thank you Adrian. Great to read your response, this takes care of my primary worry that if I wasn't an official staking partner, that I would not be very visible to potential clients. If the list of staking providers is derived according to delegation SC owners (or similar) than that sounds great to me. I was getting nervous on whether my status of being an official partner (or not) would either make or break my service offering, but this seems not to be the case. Looking forward to launch! Only mere days now... 😄
  4. One possible suggestion would be for an official 'Elrond Staking Provider Qualified' seal/designation criteria that is made publicly available. This could be a set of criteria for which a service provider must meet in order gain the approval for listing as an official staking provider, which also imparts the value of being visible within Maiar and wallet, linking to the service provider. Potential basic criteria could be: 1) The SaaSP must demonstrate SC basics by setting their own on-chain identity via the 'Meta' IDs for provider name, website and keybase.io 2) The SaaSP must have a website and [x] number of additional social media links (twitter, facebook, linkedin) 3) The SaaSP must maintain at least 1 observer node associated with their SaaSP, so that users can observe the SaaSP's test/dev/net node performance on Explorer. 4) And by offering a stake pool delegation, the SaaSP provider is assigning a minimum of 1250 EGLD to the project. Through a system such as this: management of SaaSP providers is moved more to an automatic system than a manual one, and it is a system that is more equitable and decentralized. For example of this new system: John has 1250 egld, wants to start offering a staking service for his favorite blockchain, egld. John sees that in order to be easily staked with, within the wallet and Maiar, John will need to meet the criteria to be approved as an 'Official Elrond Staking Partner' (or 'Elrond Qualified Node Operator'), as is posted publicly on the elrondpartners website. If John can't qualify, he could try to get his own pool together, but that would be near impossible to raise 1250 egld from strangers -- perhaps at even 0% fees. John fires up a few test and dev net nodes to familiarize himself with their operation, incurring say $1000 in costs for the first month in his local currency for the cloud servers. John goes about setting up his online identities fulfilling the requirements for public visibility, presence, support, etc. With work John fulfills the 4 requirements above. And this is all processed through smart contracts. Upon fulfilling the smart contract, he receives one 'Elrond Seal of Approval' token that confers his qualifications, and then is automatically listed as an available service provider within Maiar and the wallets. The token can be automatically withdrawn if certain smart contract data fields change, such node jailing for example. Perhaps this would be a better idea for Phase 4! Thank you for reading.
  5. Good day all. Had a question. For the imminent phase 3 full launch, staking providers will be listed within Maiar. My question is: will only the official staking partners be listed in Maiar and the wallet? If this is the case, I'm concerned as a small single node (hopeful) delegation pool operator, worried if I will even be able to compete with larger pools and reach my first 2500 pooled egld needed to launch my service. If it is only official partner staking providers to be listed, would that be a 'make or break' qualification to be listed in the app? In other words, won't the top 15 or 20 staking providers that are official partners completely dominate the network staking, and all single node operators be crowded out in this design? If a single node provider isn't an official partner, is there anything the node operator can do to improve his chances to be so? There is no published 'official staking partner' requirements or submission process ( that I'm aware of) so for an outside perspective, for an outside observer, it seems arbitrary who is 'official or not, and this being or not being designated an official staking partner, basically allows or disallows you from offering your staking service within Maiar, where the vast majority of users will be selecting from. For my own SaaSP (steak4all.app ) I'm offering a unique NFT reward for my pools, been staying up late optimizing my builds, and have been working on 6+ test nodes for over a month, testing testing testing,setting up my delegation manager etc, but I'm getting worried that if I'm not an official staking partner, there will be very little chance of me be able to launch my service successfully -- not due to the value of my service provider, but because users would have no way to find me. I'm spending time on promotions (which is not a specialty, I'm a technologist foremost) yet I don't feel much optimism that I'll be able to reach the needed number of delegators to even start my service offering. And if I can't launch on April 6/7th, then there is no way users will wait until I reach 2500, they will pull their egld and go to a node operator who is automatically opening his 35th or 40th node, not his 1st on which his entire service offering depends on. In summary: will the list of staking providers be a 'live list' that is automatically collated from available pools, listing the fees? If so that's awesome. If it is only the official staking partners, this system will heavily favor the top 15 existing staking providers leading to heavy centralization to a small amount of node operators, which seems against the primary reason for going to Phase 3, which is decentralization.
  6. Good day. Was reading through the delegation documentation and noticed what I'm fairly certain to be an incorrect word: This is on url : https://docs.elrond.com/validators/delegation-manager/#unstaking-nodes Under the heading Unstaking Nodes, the line is: " IMPORTANT "Validators are demoted to validator status at the beginning of the next epoch after unstaking. This means that they stop receiving rewards." I believe the second 'validator' is actually an observer: "Validators are demoted to observer [node] status at the beginning of the next epoch after unstaking. This means that they stop receiving rewards The [node] I added in, I believe it is more clear specifying it that way. Thanks!
  7. Fantastic answer! Thank you. I have seen these other users on the various telegram channels with similar questions regarding storage -- I'll start referring folks this way for an informative answer on the matter! Also, in regards to the PoS blockchain reminder: that's a very succinct and effective way to consider the PoS function and I haven't thought of it like that before, makes sense. Thanks for mentioning that as well.
  8. Thank you once again Elrond team for this magnificent blockchain. I have considered three ideas recently, that I would like to submit for consideration or discussion. idea 1: automatic node queue scaling mechanism I think it would benefit to take a closer examination of timing and the rate as to node expansion happens. In the current proposal, the maximum number of nodes, and the rate to which they are introduced, happens via a new version of the software going out, and the new numbers for maximum nodes are enabled in one change upon update. I think it would be a better system to introduce an automatic 'node queue scaling' mechanism that takes affect at set epochs in reaction to changes in the numbers of nodes, both active and waiting. For example of the automatic node queue scaling mechanism, it could scale proportionally to the number of nodes in the wait list such as: if node wait list < 50 increase node maximum +n * (4) per shard if node wait list > 100 increase node maximum +n * (3) per shard if node wait list > 400 increase node maximum +n * (2) per shard if node wait list > 1000 increase node maximum +n * (1) per shard if node wait list > 4000 increase node maximum +n * (0) per shard The numbers in my above example are rough guesses, but the automatic nature of the mechanism is the more important aspect. Automatic node queue scaling would automatically adjust ques at every set interval of [x] number of epochs. idea 2: Lottery bonus payments exclusive to non-staked validator nodes We coould incentivize (or nft game-ify) the economics of the Observer/Wait list node queue through an additional 'lottery' bonus created/staked at the end of the epoch interval. How? I am thinking a simple additional staking mechanism using what is currently done but one that is only given to nodes that are not in active delegation. Why? Not active nodes do play an important role, at least for testing, and there is currently no rewards for doing so. The possible reward amount could be very small, but at least the random chance of 'winning' a bonus would be very enticing. Or even more abstractly, you could mint egld NFT tokens as rewards, which are 'free' to mint, but would accrue value as NFTs on secondary markets. The NFT smart contract for this is not complex but the economics quite potent! idea 3 'golden handshake' incentive smart contract: node retirement bonus for active nodes Third recommendation that I have considered: I feel that stake operators do not have enough incentive to UNSTAKE in the current proposal. As we all know, an EGLD stake is a substantial amount of money/value now. And with the defi tech of egld wrapping, and other market dynamics, I see very little reason why a stake operator would ever want to unstake, causing a 'slow movement' of node que cycling. I propose consideration of a node egld limit decay mechanism. On an extended interval of epochs, if the node wait list queue is above x (for example, say 5000), a random active staking node wallet receives a 'retirement smart contract' incoming transaction. What is this? The node operator is offered a bonus payment of x (a value that scales, say 500 for example) egld for UNSTAKING their node. If they fulfill this smart contract, the node operators gets a big bonus 'retirement' payment that adjusts to node conditions and queues, and then this node is removed from active staking, place on the end of the wait list, opening a new node spot. This mechanic would introduce a greater rate or velocity of 'node cycling' which is better to have than a more stationary, or slowing moving queue system. Thank you for this wonderful blockchain technology, it is really inspiring.
  9. Good day Elrond community! I was wondering about disk usage for nodes. First question: where is the free space needed? I've been experimenting running my node in Azure cloud now. In Azure cloud, VM's start with a small OS disk of 16GB and then you can attach additional disks, and mount them in Ubuntu. However I'm not sure what directory is used for the needed disk space? Is their a variable in the config files that determines what directory is used for empty disk space? Second question: I believe the 200gb disk requirement is mostly for temporary or cache storage use, is this correct? As I gather from this amazing blockchain sharded design, the entire blockchain is not saved to disk like older coins. Is that correct? So the 200gb requirement is for 'burst cache storage' in times of extremely high network demand? Third question: Neither my test nodes or prod observer nodes use much disk at all, I think they run around 10gb. As I'm just an observer node at this point, seems an unneeded expense to pay for 400GB of storage that is not being used. For observer nodes or test nodes is it fine to run a limited disk? What kind of issue would be caused if there was not enough disk space? Thanks !
  10. I've been involved in bitcoin since the GPU mining days. I have been trading crypto since Mt. Gox . All I can say to folks in this space is Buy, Buy, Buy, Buy, Buy. There is absolutely no way on the planet that egld will be less today a year from now than it is now. Superior technology rises to the top. 'nuff said. Buy, buy, buy, buy, stake,stake,stake this, don't even consider selling for at least a year.
  11. This is fantastic answer . I love this project, from the cutting edge tech to even this 10/10 level of community interaction, I could not be more optimistic about ELROND. I see your reasoning, as you have so well described it, and it makes sense to me. I also have been really studying EGLD this week, and have been monitoring the que sizes etc, to see what kind of time intervals it will take to delegate, and learning more. Besides the technology, the economics of this are also very unique, I don't think anyone has tried just this sort of design (in terms of the APY, staking, ques, and the unstaking period, etc). If there is just one little tweak I would recommend for possible consideration, would be for (small) rewards for Observer nodes. Perhaps in years to come, perhaps a small fraction of fees or stake could could to observer nodes? I would recommend this as it there are no incentives for observer nodes, but they are good to have, and while many users will not have 2500 egld to start a node, they could help the network with a differerent tier of observer nodes. Hmm... However perhaps with your brilliant shard design here, maybe observers are not really needed much for any additional smart contract processing resources, as the sustained transaction throughput is already quite high. Thanks again for the well considered answer!
  12. Good day. I just discovered this amazing crypto last week, and have been reading as much as I can since then. I really want to invest a significant amount and start my own validator node, as I have done for many other coins in the past (like I have been running DCR nodes for the last few years). However currently 2500 EGLD costs upwards of $90,000 US, which is a massive sum for an enthusiast such as myself. I see that EGLD token price has rapidly sky-rocketed with this bull run, so I was wondering, are there any plans to lower the staking amount to something more affordable? Or if I could set up a validator node in observation mode, would there be any economical benefit to do so? I also read that the number of validators node is set to constant, so perhaps the need isn't there to establish thousands of more nodes, but if that is a goal, I imagine it'll be really difficult to convince new comers to the coin to jump in with $100k to set up a node, that is unaffordable to 99.999% of the world. Curious on any thoughts on this. Did I just miss the boat? Or will the 2500 egdl amount be adjusted to promote validator nodes spawning? Excellent project with a great future, thanks!
  13. Good day Internet people and Elrond fans! My name is Kevin. I've been in crypto since the gpu mining of bitcoin days. I recently came across Elrond and have been very impressed by the team, technology and rate of development progress. I set up a validator node the other night, was a bit bummed to see that it requires 2500 EGLD ($80,000) so don't think I'll be do that anymore, but certainly will be following this project and purchasing a few coins. Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...