Is there a good reason to remove it? If not, why waste time doing it? The number of delegators who are delegated with validators are already unbalanced.
You simply start a new validator as it happened multiple times already for exactly that reason so the limit is not stopping anybody effectively to get more stake.
Hi, assume delegator limit removed and most of the delegators start to stake on top 10 validators, What will happen to the rest of the validators? The system will get more and more centralized and whole network will depend on those validators. I think limitation is necessary and current delegator limit is not so bad.
Anyone who wants to remove the limits just wants more rewards/money.
Nobady said ist, but that’s what it is…
There are 100 validators.
Each validator can host 1200 delegators.
That’s 120’000 delegators.
We have of more or less 25’000 delegators.
That means that 80% of the available delegators spots are empty/free.
But yes, let’s remove the limit so that all can go to the top validators.
That’s a good thing for the decentralization of this project.
From what I understand right now, the 1200 delegator limit is still in place in 2.0.0. It is definitely in the chainspec for the RCs. I’m still trying to find out if anything about the technical limitations that underpins it has changed since 1.x.
This is what happens already hence my request of some kind of random sorting and messages/explanations on eg cspr.live, the Casper Wallet etc. that it’s bad to have too much stake concentrated on a few big nodes only.
There are networks which have a hard limit and punish you if you accept more stake than allowed.
And if you check the top 10 validators quite a few have a 2nd node running already because they found ways to attract more delegators than others.
Not sure what the perfect solution is tbh because setting a fixed fee for everyone sounds like communism and less incentives to work for your delegators.
Having it completely flexible favors people who can afford it to run a node for weeks or months at 0% and increase fees later because it’s known that not all delegators will realize it or are fine for paying a small fee. Like a trial period with software which you’re getting used to and stick with it in the end.
Here an example where there is a warning:
I think before this was even collapsed or maybe it was another explorer/dashboard.
Interesting that you’re talking about rewards and money while your own fees are set to 10%
Set it to 0% and a commitment to keep it like that for some time or forever and your message and intentions sound more trustworthy.
Right now there are multiple nodes already operated by the same people so the limit also didn’t stop them.
A few wallets are also very big and they easily are bigger than a few other nodes with thousands of delegators together. So the limit is not really stopping them either.
And yes, for some this is just pure business, they withdraw rewards daily and probably cash out daily as well.
Also don’t forget, in the end this is a decision of stakeholders because they kinda give their voting power to a validator to act on their behalf - the validators are only the executing party unless something changed. This was just never used yet but AFAIK this was the intention initially.
I think this last point, that in a delegated proof of stake protocol part of the equation is not just economics but also delegated decision making, is what will ultimately move the needle on this. Once we make it so that delegators have more than 1 reason to select a validator for (ie. decision making), the game theory changes.
As i said, anyone wants more rewards/money…including myself.
Nad yes, i have one node at 10%
You have three (IIRC)…and one is set at 100%
I don’t care why it’s at 100%…so don’t come at me with my 10%
That’s just my opinion on the limitation…you have another opinion, and thats ok.
We will just wait and see whats happends
I agree with Mehmet.
I understand that people with full nodes want a higher limit for delegators for economic reasons. But this won’t help the smaller nodes because they won’t have enough weight to attract delegators. As a result, people will choose the bigger nodes, leaving the smaller ones behind. This is not good for the network’s decentralization.
I think there might be a confusion about the delegators limit. So, to be clear:
It’s not and was never a political or decentralization-related decision. It was/is a purely technical limitation. We must get rid of it as soon as possible. Then we can choose to keep or put a deliberate limit on the delegators capacity per node, along with other measures which may be decided to achieve better decentralization.
1200 was a technical limit to reduce total records to allow the auction process at the end of era to be manipulable with time. Part of restructure of Condor is to make this more efficient. Once this is released, we can look at real world performance and work on increasing the limit.