Choosing Which Staking Networks to Validate On


#1

Hello all,

@Mira of Zstake and I want to take a look at building tools to help us better evaluate which ledgers to select to build staking infrastructure for. We’re proposing a call at 8am PST this Thursday (June 6) via this link to kick things off. Hope as many of you as can will join us!


#2

Hi, not sure if I will be able to join the call, but here are my thoughts:

Apart from Cosmos, I will be focusing on Sentinel hub and Polkadot relay chain. The reasons are because I invested in these two and I know the communities quite well. Also I think this two projects and tokens have a lot of potential. Maybe I will consider Dfinity also.

Irisnet for example is a great project, but since I didn’t invest and was not involved in the community I think the chances of getting delegation there are lower in my case


#3

Thanks for starting this initiative @ConsensusNet :pray:

I’d suggest changing the topic title to “which staking networks to validate on” or something like that. Many people associate ledger with private permissioned chains and/or the Nano S, which some use to prevent double signing :wink:


#4

Thanks for hosting! I’ll try to be there.


#5

I spoke to a couple user research interviewers about my Livepeer experience. They asked the exact question this call is intended to coordinate an answer to. I sent them the link and they may join.


#6

I unfortunately can’t make the call.

Here are some thoughts to consider regarding selection criteria -

Selecting a network to validate on is a form of investment analysis. As validators, we’re investing time, attention and capital into supporting the networks we choose to validate on. Smaller validators have less margin for error in this analysis, because our resources are more limited than larger, well capitalized staking companies who operate validators.

The paradox is that our analysis resources are limited too. This makes it difficult to spend the time and attention required to complete proper analysis. The current reality is also that quantitative analysis is a big unknown. It depends quite a bit on project future performance of an unproven technology.

For these reasons, I add equal doses of experimentation and trusting my own intuition, as well as quantitative analysis into the equation.

That said, here are some of the factors that influence my decision process -

1 - Project Mission and Values

Do the project’s mission and values align with mine? For example, does the project believe in using blockchain technology to make a positive impact on the world, by enabling new and disruptive paradigms and operating models, particularly in those areas of power controlled by oligopolies in today’s society?

2 - Team

Do I have confidence and faith the team is well-intended, aligned with the projects mission and values, capable of solving hard problems, as well as executing on a plan to deliver a real product people will use?Am I able to connect on some personal level with one or more team members?

3 - Timeline

How far along is the project? Is it new enough that I can make an impact and develop a reputation and trust in the community? Is it not so far away from becoming reality that I need to run on the test nets for an indeterminate amount of time, especially greater than 6 months?

4 - Validator Program and Community

Who else is validating? Are any of the larger staking companies involved? If so, my sense is they’ve at least done some preliminary analysis to make validating on this network worthwhile.

Does the project team treat validators as equal participants? Do they remember that there are human beings behind the machines? Do they communicate clearly and consistently, via a limited number of communication channels?

Or, do they expect us to jump when they say jump, with little advance notice. Do they communicate in a haphazard, reactive and inconsistent way? Do they not remember/acknowledge that validators have lives outside their network? Do they appreciate the investment validators, particularly the smaller independent ones, are making to support their network?

How about decentralization? Does the team really value it or simply say they do? Are they supportive of a diverse validator set or favor the validators run by the big funds who are early investors in their project?

5 - Incentivization

Are the test nets incentivized? Iris has pioneered this approach that rewards validators for participation. While few and far between now, my hope is this becomes more commonplace. I can see this criteria become more important if/as it does.

P.S. - Originally published on the Chainflow blog here.


#7

Thanks to Mira and Gavin for being on the call today. Over the next several weeks we hope to deliver a framework for Validators to evaluate potential Blockchain Protocols. If you were unable to make the call but are still interested, we are putting together a shared folder to collaborate in and we’d like as much input/feedback/help as possible! If you’re interested, please DM me your email address and I will add you to the folder.


#8

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to make it but would love to follow along!


#9

Hey all, for live chat, we’ve started up https://t.me/StakingHub and we’re talking Edgeware right now.


#10

Ztake’s high-level criteria are the following:

  1. Amount of self-bond required. Some projects like Loom Network require a large number of the token to be self-bonded and, at the moment, are not within the reach for us.
  2. Performance to business case. It is critical for us to join the network that solves a problem that currently exists in a practical, user-friendly, inclusive way. Ideally, network usage will generate enough transaction to cover the majority of our capex and opex costs.
  3. Quality of the software. Poor quality projects are not delightful to work with and requires a lot more involvement.
  4. Validator economics.

#11

Good point. Big buy-ins are a concern of mine too.


#12

Could be some interesting criteria to consider here @ConsensusNet & @Mira :point_down:

https://stakingrewards.com/


#13

Fantastic input so far! I will try to consolidate as much input as I can and will set up a time next week for another call to go over the details.


#14

@ConsensusNet @cjremus @Mira @hector_validator
We’re going to try doing an AMA about staking on IDEX with Julien from Stake Capital:


#15

Nate and I want to schedule a call to chat more about this next week. Any interest?


#16

I’m interested but on vacation this week. How about sharing a working doc, so the group can collaborate asynchronously?


#17

Gavin and I planned for Wednesday at 11am PST, if we have enough interested parties. For now, I’ll share a document in the next few days for group collaboration.


#18

We’ve decided to host the call on Friday, July 12 at 2pm ET / 11am PT / 8pm CET. For those interested, here’s the calendar invite.

@hector_validator @Mira @cjremus @Adriana_KalpaTech @jbibla


#19

No idea why the calendar invite won’t work. Here’s the link to the Google Hangouts meeting: meet.google.com/byx-qqgo-hft


#20

Hope those who are able will join us in a few minutes. Here is a shared document that can be used for additional brainstorming and notes during our discussion: https://docs.google.com/document/d/135bY8dkKI30EmlZmgnMvvFpxlD_eQ2V_ID9UkItU8_Y/edit?usp=sharing