A community for the latest discussions about the cutting edge of crypto design, it's culture and significant crypto news. Decentralize everything. Check out our [Community Guidelines](https://relevant.community/crypto/post/6122269e61d1cd005a877277/62427d3ed587ad005b647828)
46192 Members
We'll be adding more communities soon!
© 2020 Relevant Protocols Inc.
A community for the latest discussions about the cutting edge of crypto design, it's culture and significant crypto news. Decentralize everything. Check out our [Community Guidelines](https://relevant.community/crypto/post/6122269e61d1cd005a877277/62427d3ed587ad005b647828)
46192 Members
We'll be adding more communities soon!
© 2020 Relevant Protocols Inc.
Relevant
Hot
New
Spam
Relevant
Hot
New
Spam
0
2.3K
0
2.3K
Proof of Stake is at risk of becoming centralized. Dialogue and associated action needs to start happening now to prevent this. My hope is the Defenders help set both in motion.
Proof of Stake is at risk of becoming centralized. Dialogue and associated action needs to start happening now to prevent this. My hope is the Defenders help set both in motion.
Proof of stake is at risk of becoming centralized from the outset. We need to empower dialogue and associated action to prevent this from happening 😬 That’s what the Decentralized Staking Defenders intend to do 💪
Proof of stake is at risk of becoming centralized from the outset. We need to empower dialogue and associated action to prevent this from happening 😬 That’s what the Decentralized Staking Defenders intend to do 💪
I couldn't agree more. I strongly believe that we need to innovate in order to be able to accomplish true decentralization. Clearly, now we know what does not accomplish results and so bringing awareness is the first step in admitting, rather than ignoring the issue without realising the long term fundamental disequilibrium that will even more plague society.
I couldn't agree more. I strongly believe that we need to innovate in order to be able to accomplish true decentralization. Clearly, now we know what does not accomplish results and so bringing awareness is the first step in admitting, rather than ignoring the issue without realising the long term fundamental disequilibrium that will even more plague society.
The fact of the matter is that the higher the staked amount the higher the rewards and the more likely inequality to grow, but why are the rewards higher in the first place? Because it is normal to reward at a higher level the increased liquidity offered, it is, after all, a service for the network. But, if we consider that in other conditions of greater equality, that liquidity would not be missing, but would be decentralized, it would come from someone else, then we could think that there is no point in rewarding accumulation, because it will not bring us superior results. Hence, we could have a reward model that accounts just for that. Instead of simply more is better, a model that accounts for the fact that more equals decentralized and therefore is not better. So rewards could be in fact solved by machine learning with the purpose of dynamically adjusting growth in order to satisfy the conditions: growth but not linear or exponential and at the same time increasing decentralization by decelerating growth if analyzed metrics are not satisfactory. This means that in the long run, it will dynamically move in an interval and will reach an equilibrium. The higher the growth in rewards the more decentralized, then rewards drop inverse proportionally with the size of capital, causing a lack of incentive for the rich and more incentive for the medium. Now the question would be what would be the reasons for which a system that slows dramatically rewards (for the actors that prevent decentralization) would not be a functional system? I hope what I said made sense, if not I apologize.
The fact of the matter is that the higher the staked amount the higher the rewards and the more likely inequality to grow, but why are the rewards higher in the first place? Because it is normal to reward at a higher level the increased liquidity offered, it is, after all, a service for the network. But, if we consider that in other conditions of greater equality, that liquidity would not be missing, but would be decentralized, it would come from someone else, then we could think that there is no point in rewarding accumulation, because it will not bring us superior results. Hence, we could have a reward model that accounts just for that. Instead of simply more is better, a model that accounts for the fact that more equals decentralized and therefore is not better. So rewards could be in fact solved by machine learning with the purpose of dynamically adjusting growth in order to satisfy the conditions: growth but not linear or exponential and at the same time increasing decentralization by decelerating growth if analyzed metrics are not satisfactory. This means that in the long run, it will dynamically move in an interval and will reach an equilibrium. The higher the growth in rewards the more decentralized, then rewards drop inverse proportionally with the size of capital, causing a lack of incentive for the rich and more incentive for the medium. Now the question would be what would be the reasons for which a system that slows dramatically rewards (for the actors that prevent decentralization) would not be a functional system? I hope what I said made sense, if not I apologize.
The problem, in the end, may just be not that we are incapable of changing something, but that we do not understand at a very deep level that we are free to do so and that we are not conscious enough of what should be our objectives.
The problem, in the end, may just be not that we are incapable of changing something, but that we do not understand at a very deep level that we are free to do so and that we are not conscious enough of what should be our objectives.
But wouldn't large stage holder be able to get around this type of reward mechanism by splitting their tokens among many different accounts? I think that's the fundamental problem that makes it very difficult to combat centralization tendencies via reward models. Assuming the underlying protocol is based on quality metrics (uptime, availability, correctness etc) it comes down to whether smaller & more decentralized players can build more reliable systems and than big players. So the Decentralized Stake Defenders is definitely a step in the right direction. At the same time I can see it leading to a mining pool type scenario with its own centralization tendencies... Hard problem!
But wouldn't large stage holder be able to get around this type of reward mechanism by splitting their tokens among many different accounts? I think that's the fundamental problem that makes it very difficult to combat centralization tendencies via reward models. Assuming the underlying protocol is based on quality metrics (uptime, availability, correctness etc) it comes down to whether smaller & more decentralized players can build more reliable systems and than big players. So the Decentralized Stake Defenders is definitely a step in the right direction. At the same time I can see it leading to a mining pool type scenario with its own centralization tendencies... Hard problem!
Yes, it's a hard problem, indeed! Right now it seems systems are designed to reward accumulation of stake more heavily than the quality metrics you list. So balancing the two is a first step in my mind. While the Defenders could become a pool, my hope is it facilitates more independent operators able to operate independently over the long haul, through pooling of resources, for example.
Yes, it's a hard problem, indeed! Right now it seems systems are designed to reward accumulation of stake more heavily than the quality metrics you list. So balancing the two is a first step in my mind. While the Defenders could become a pool, my hope is it facilitates more independent operators able to operate independently over the long haul, through pooling of resources, for example.
I also believe validator performance should be taken into account. For example, rank validators into tiers, based on performance, then randomly select from the tiers, for a validator to propose blocks. Those in the higher performance tiers get chosen more often than the lower performance tiers. Also, this would be a fantastic conversation to cross post into [forum.stakingdefense.org](http://forum.stakingdefense.org) . I hope you sign-up and do so (or at least sign-up)!
I also believe validator performance should be taken into account. For example, rank validators into tiers, based on performance, then randomly select from the tiers, for a validator to propose blocks. Those in the higher performance tiers get chosen more often than the lower performance tiers. Also, this would be a fantastic conversation to cross post into [forum.stakingdefense.org](http://forum.stakingdefense.org) . I hope you sign-up and do so (or at least sign-up)!
It seems like people need to experience this for themselves. For example, I saw this happen as a Livepeer transcoder. I tried warning the Cosmos community before mainnet launch. It felt like nobody wanted to BELIEVE it was possible. Then it happened and people realized that if it CAN happen it WILL happen, despite hoping it wouldn't.
It seems like people need to experience this for themselves. For example, I saw this happen as a Livepeer transcoder. I tried warning the Cosmos community before mainnet launch. It felt like nobody wanted to BELIEVE it was possible. Then it happened and people realized that if it CAN happen it WILL happen, despite hoping it wouldn't.
I love the ethos of this initiative - "I'm not operating validators to rebuild the oligarchy that exists in the legacy financial system. I'm doing this to build a new system, with new values and rules." Makes so much sense for all PoS - I feel like we should have groups like this for "decentralization" concerns in general. When we start seeing [#daos](/crypto/new/daos) managing and governing more and more assets in the ecosystem it could be a huge resource to have a "defender" group that makes sure risk factor is always being minimized, governance mechanisms are "working" according to design etc...
I love the ethos of this initiative - "I'm not operating validators to rebuild the oligarchy that exists in the legacy financial system. I'm doing this to build a new system, with new values and rules." Makes so much sense for all PoS - I feel like we should have groups like this for "decentralization" concerns in general. When we start seeing [#daos](/crypto/new/daos) managing and governing more and more assets in the ecosystem it could be a huge resource to have a "defender" group that makes sure risk factor is always being minimized, governance mechanisms are "working" according to design etc...
I'm thinking about using a DAO to manage some of the Defenders activities, especially if we start receiving grants. Sunny Agarwal of Sikka Tech is working on a DAO based on the Cosmos-SDK. I'll be looking into how to repurpose it for the Defenders.
I'm thinking about using a DAO to manage some of the Defenders activities, especially if we start receiving grants. Sunny Agarwal of Sikka Tech is working on a DAO based on the Cosmos-SDK. I'll be looking into how to repurpose it for the Defenders.
Some low-ranking comments may have been hidden.
Some low-ranking comments may have been hidden.