Seems like many will not be able to vote due to trust_level_2 minimum requirement, including me.
This closed circle voting, limited mostly only to ambassadors (of which none even questioned any of dubious premises in the proposal), seems like a centralized motion aimed to unlock the doors to decentralization
This is exactly my position Luca mentioned many good point in his post, and many of them are super probable. And we should listen to what Iceberg Nodes have to say - they have a broad validator experience stretching throughout all of substrate projects, their insight should be marked as extremely valuable.
Unfortunately, like Luca also said, it seems that this motion will have almost none of the desired outcomes (it is unlikely it will increase decentralization, it might only tackle a tiny amount of inflation, none of the current collators will leave the set since they’re over invested due to bear market conditions) but might instead only have undesired consequences - cost cutting through lower quality infrastructure (for permission-less collators) and potential dumping of accumulated tokens that some might have put aside if a new collator spot opens up.
Furthermore, it would be completely understandable if this motion was undertaken in different market conditions, with token appreciating, but this just doesn’t make much sense to me, sorry guys…
Trust level is related to activity here, members with low/no activity can’t vote.
This is nothing perfect and it will change with on-chain governance but it gives a voice to everyone who participate a minimum.
As a reminder: proposals are also open to any community members, nothing is set in stone, anyone can propose to change collators reward (or anything else) later.
Level 2 is reached by any active member in the forum and discussions. This is to prevent bots and suspicious members from voting with personal interests only.
Off-chain and On-chain voting will soon be available.
Not sure that community activity here reflects community activity everywhere elsewhere. In line with that voting here will give schrewed results, I doubt this is something anyone wants.
Than this vote, with the impact it may/will have, should be postponed until every interested community member can join the vote. That would be true governance.
Main issue here, as I see it, has more to do with what will the impact of such change be than with actual size of collators reward.
As said before - I see no scenarios in which targeted outcomes/results will happen, seems to me we’re using a hammer to drive in a screw.
Most of the times it is better to use a proper tool for the job at hand (even if it means giving ourselves more time to define it) than to reach for something that ‘migh do the job’ and end up with unwanted results.
Furthermore, no-one from ‘Aye’ side offered any strong and sound arguments in this discussion. I would like to hear them, since ‘Nay’ voters are cleraly a minority here.
And we’re not on the ‘Nay’ side just because we’re collators but because we have experinece with validator policies on other projects and we might have a viewpoint that help us better asses the (unwanted) outcomes.
Looking at voting results and if there is nothing we can’t affect in this proposal. I am thinking that one way how we can achieve these goals:
Encourage high stake collators to switch from collating to dApp staking
Reduce centralization in collator set
Is to redirect 5% from collators to dApp staking nominees and even revise balance between dApp owner and nominees. In this case above two goals somehow can be achieved by high staking percent, but with current proposal when 5 % will not be issued at all I don’t see if this can be achieved somehow.
But to address goal with inflation for sure there should be burning events.
To discuss this issue, we need to return to our original intention. The problems we want to solve are: centralized unfairness and polkadot’s VM. At present, we have solved cross-chain transactions and on-chain transaction processing through EVM and XCM, but we do not seem to have completely solved the problem of decentralization. Excessive inflation will only lead to our project rights tending to one side, which violates the block The original intention of the chain, I hope we can recognize the essence of the problem, and don’t just stay in our own interests!
Luca mentioned many good point in his post, and many of them are super probable. And we should listen to what Iceberg Nodes have to say - they have a broad validator experience stretching throughout all of substrate projects, their insight should be marked as extremely valuable.
Astar inflation update