I want to preface this with a few things: We’ve only seen the initial thoughts on consensus participation The people creating it are geniuses, I am most definitely not I’m just offering my opinions. Take them as that. There’s probably many mispellings and typos That said, I wanted to bring up a …

Some great points here, thanks for sharing your thoughts. We’re trying to balance the amount of Algo online (and the amount of nodes which we also want increased), with the cost of operating nodes for a large amount of stake. The paper is exploratory, so these are not hard decisions, but the lower…

We are planning to provide a pooling service where communities like (NFT community, meme token communities etc) can run their own pools to which community members can stake their algo to run efficient nodes. The profits they make from these pools can be distributed to their holders thus creating uti…

Yep I agree, cap at 10 million, minimum also should be lowered, hostile capture of upgrades spot on as well. Ideally, mining percentage should be dynamic wrt some parameters that can fluctuate with the balancing of the operational cost and algos online

[image] jasonl99: If the Foundation can whitelist pool providers, it goes against the very idea this is supposed to support: decentralization. What do you mean by this? It seems an important point.

I think there is no plan from foundation to whitelist pools.

Just to chime in, I was hoping for some of these features years ago – mainly the ability for regular, non-technical Algo holders to participate in consensus. Somehwat old thread below: [image] Idea for decentralization -- subscribe to participation nodes through wallet General …

I agree completely with your assessment. A naive solution I thought might be interesting to think about is utilising VRFs to decouple node and stakeholder incentives .

Yes, a larger max lowers the operational expense for the node operator. However, everything comes with a tradeoff. The major tradeoff here is risk to network resilience. I would err on the side of caution. The proposed max limits are too high. Is the Algorand Foundation reaching out to node operato…

I think very large pools are not good thing so max cap is good. BUT how that will actually work, because some MegaWhaleNodePool Corp can create node1, node2, nodex… and so on, and basically have large control via multiple nodes. they can control them all same way than one large one. They can unplug …

We have to get community involved and create second layer of pools that will serve as layer of safety

Consensus rewards whitepaper concern

General

myshkin February 2, 2024, 4:59am 5

What do you mean by this? It seems an important point.

Topic		Replies	Views
GP8 Measures DRAFT DeFi Rewards Allocation Q4 Governance Measures gp8	74	4850	August 29, 2023
[Temperature Check] Reward node runners through governance Governance Discussions	18	2007	January 14, 2023
GP8 Measures DRAFT for Community Feedback Governance Measures gp8	42	5538	September 6, 2023
Idea for decentralization -- subscribe to participation nodes through wallet General	7	1449	August 29, 2021
Serious lack of transparency and engagement of Algorand foundation	29	9620	August 16, 2022

Consensus rewards whitepaper concern

Related topics