But you are not – you’re being hypocritical as Block Producers can set their fee to anything they want, including 100% to avoid further stake concentration. No where was it stated that Star Wars winners will be forced to opt-in to liquid staking delegations as the implied basis for allowing the fee to be 10% max.
Chunk Producers have a certain period of time to maximize their buffer income given the buckwheat delegation size handed out compared to the previous poorly-picked Stake Wars (Block Producers) winners. A 100% fee would maximize long-term sustainability probability and no one should be restricted from doing so unless NF itself declares such as a condition.
Its also silly to think that a >10% fee would not be reduced to competitive levels shortly before the delegation is withdrawn by NF (which is another problem right there vs other networks such as Solana for which ongoing delegation is dependent on performance, not a fixed time period). A more convincing argument would be that you want Chunk Producers to collect as much stake as they can in the limited time period so they’re hopefully fiscally-sustainable by the end. That’s more also far more speculative than a 100% fee.
And finally, none of this has anything at all to do with performance. In fact, the odds are on a 10% fee, the Chunk Producers are likely to be unstable except those willing to pay out of pocket to maintain the network.
I higly agree with @JoeSixpack. This 10 % commision does not allow to invest in better servers, or even trying to start a second node (which would improve the decentralization), or highly dedicated and commmited human resources.
There are also other points in your response that are not clear:
Do we have the right to set up a higher fee (which can be higher than 10% and lower than 60% for example for the first year, so we can have a balance between short term needs and long term benefits for all the network, for example) because these are earned NF tokens and not any Pool tokens ? Yes or no ? That is the real question.
Do we have the right for running outside any Pool for some time (let’s say the first year) so we can have some financial incentives to invest in better hardware and manpower from the start (that is what supporting for new validators as you mentioned really means !) ? Yes or no ?
I think that the seeked long term benefits for all (both the NF, NEAR and validators) and the short terms needs of newly onboarding validators MUST be balanced.
That is fair and benefitial for all, both in the short and long term.
But extracting all value from new validators just from the start does not seem good for anyone, or fair, because most of them will leave quite early or won’t be able to sustain performance for lack of investment in better resources.
Hope this is taken into account and we can find a better balance which really benefits us all.
We are actually working to update the reward of fees, but I’m agree with @mariozito and @JoeSixpack, I think maybe a better talk in NF, Metapool, LiNEAR and Pagoda could propose a better solution to make sustainable the onboarding of the new validators, thanks for reading, hope we can make this more balanced @satojandro
Hello people, I agree with @mariozito 's comments:
We must find a balanced solution for this, we take a long road to be a Stake Wars winners, we spend more money than the UNP received and to be a mainnet chunk only producer at least in my case I don’t want to lose money every month keeping my node online. Also if we want to attract more stakers to our nodes we need to spend in social networks, google ads, webpage, backup node, etc…
NEAR is a decentralised and open protocol. Anyone can set up a node.
If you set up your node with private capital, you are free to determine the fee (and choose whether to be eligible for extra delegation from Liquid Staking providers).
I am against NF grants to validators that have 100% fee. This has been explored in a separate conversation by another community member. Any grievances on this issue need to be taken up to NF as they are outside of our control. (SW is organised by Pagoda and three Liquid Staking Providers).
SW III has terms and conditions that do not apply regular validators - such as passing KYC and maximum fees. If you scroll down the list of validators, those who have not been allocated to an organising partner either refused to do KYC or were unable to pass it. These restrictions apply only IF a participant wants to receive delegation from NF (via liquid staking).
Prior to SW III, Liquid Staking providers were critical in enabling the bottom 40 validators to keep their seat. Many SW II participants lost their seat even after initial delegation. This has greatly informed the reasoning for SW III - new validators need to be both proactive in securing more delegation AND be supported by Liquid Staking providers.
I’ll restate the former point just to be clear - a 100% validator with only 50,000 NEAR or less delegated to it is unlikely to keep its seat for long. Anyone joining with only 20,500 NEAR and fee under 10% is likely to receive delegation from liquid staking and push them out.
The economy of running a validator on mainnet is a large topic. The current bare market clearly has a impact on it, I totally understand the concerns.
However, we have to look at that topic separately from Stake Wars. The goal of the program was to help those interested in joining the validator community. Stake Wars is not a gateway to profit, but more of a getting started resource.
As @satojandro said, for Stake Wars participants the received delegation requires them to cap the fee at 10% max. This rule is aligned with the NF expectations. Outside of the Stake Wars program, anyone can join mainnet and can set any fees without restrictions.
What does this mean? What is the effective difference between NF delegating tokens directly to a chunk-only producer, the three pools distributing the tokens received from NF by delegating to a chunk-only producer and a liquid staking pool delegating to a chunk-only producer using its Treasury that got topped up by tokens received from NF?
The NF is providing the funds (NEAR) but were not actively involved in the organising of Stake Wars or in the allocation and distribution of the funds. The organising of Stake Wars was a community effort from Pagoda, Meta Pool, Linear, Evestake and Open Shards Alliance. The final distribution of the NEAR to each eligible participant will also be handled by LS providers. (NF is not going to be delegating directly to 150+ participants).
The three LS providers have received the exact amount of NEAR tokens to delegate to the eligible SW winners in the amounts listed above. We are just an admin body passing on the SW delegation to winners as determine by competition.
As every NEAR received by LS providers has already been allocated to winners, overall LS ‘treasuries’ (we are non-custodial) but I understand what you mean in regards to total amount of TVL available to be distributed does not increase. In this sense, there is an effective segregation between the ‘regular’ NEAR deposited into LS providers by everyday users, which gets distributed to validators based on performance, fees, and concentration, and the NEAR allocated by SW for the specific purpose of granting the list of validators above the specific amount they’ve earned.
Hope this clears things up.
The question which would remain is - what happens to validators who are entitled to received delegation from NF but never join Mainnet? We are working to establish a time period after which that delegation can be redistributed to other SW winners (TBC)
Thanks for asking. We also want to complete the delegation to validators ASAP.
But we’re still waiting for fund from NF, and have been pushing NF to move forward with the process sooner. The process takes more time than expected due to the holiday. Will let you know for any update.
As an update to this, I postulated there may have been overlapping snapshots downloaded. There seems to be some kind of pseudo-pruning going on when making snapshots, so I wiped data and redownloded just one latest snapshot and the total size decreased to 415GB synced. My criticism still stands about the lack of configurable options for a node’s chain size though. It does not need to go past 500GB except on archive nodes.
My guess is you have non standard config settings that result in this increased disk space over time. My disk space on mainnet currently is 421 GB and the node has already been running (idle) for three months, increase of only couple GB in this time, very manageable.
I’d recommend to monitor the disk space usage of your node in the next days and If you are running out of disk space fast again, check your config.
I just found this and registered, I can see my “zilinear2.shardnet” has 0 delegated tokens and it’s OK, but in previously released sheet I had 110 UNP and 40 DNP and I hoped I will receive UNP on the mainnet even though I don’t run anything anymore? I passed KYC right when I received it on October 20th. Don’t know where else to ask, I deleted Discord account long time ago because it was too much traffic for me, never used Telegram. (mainnet: stiavnik.near, or you can check my stakewars manual on medium - took me whole weekend back then, link in profile, I was taking this seriously)
Sorry for interruption and good luck, it seems things are getting better at the moment. Thank you.
Hey everyone, LiNEAR has finished delegation to all the validators that have submitted the form and assigned to LiNEAR.
If your validator is also assigned to LiNEAR and you’d like to receive your delegation, please fill in the form, DM me your mainnet staking pool ID on Discord (churn#2908) and keep your validator online.
For any questions, please feel free to reach out in #validators channel in LiNEAR Discord server.