Sorry, didn’t read any of your crap. 
Thanks for the bump though! 
Shalom! 
1 Like
Thank you Rabbi for reading, even if you deny it anyway.
If not, why would you thank me “for the hit” what do you call it? I thought we were simply talking about a matter of luck or no luck.
It’s just a matter of how you perceive things. Things can’t be one way when it’s positive (luck) and another way when it’s negative (hit). It is still the same fact every time. A proposal that is either approved or not. Very simple.
Have a nice day.
Blessings.
Namaste!
2 Likes
he was saying your shitty proposal didnt pass because it very much goes against human behavior.
What’s the status or the option of enforcing the minimum 5% commission which passed governance in proposal #11322? Is the L1 team working on this? Does anybody know?
Many validators have not increased commission at all and are at 0%, while some have changed to 5% or are moving towards it.
If the community passes a vote on something it should be respected, unless it is overturned by governance. Whether you voted YES, or NO (like myself), you should already be changing your validator to 5% commission or have already done so.
I only know of one validator in the list with a maximum limit under 5%, and there is no reason for the rest to wait for code on something that can easily be self-enforced by the vast majority of validators.
Here are a list of some of the top validators who voted YES on #11322 but are still at 0% commissions. Why?
Orion 8.9% VP
Thor 8.2% VP
Crypto Plant 1.64% VP
Safepoint 1.16% VP
LUX Blockchain 1.15% VP
LUNC Validator 0.88% VP
Target Nodes 0.69% VP
8Moon 0.25% VP
Crypto Genesis 0.15% VP
Peace-Freedom 0.14% VP
Here are some of those who voted YES but still have low commissions and have not changed their commission since #11322 passed:
Stakesystems 0.58% VP
Luna Punks 0.52% VP
OneStar 0.41% VP
It’s been 8 days since proposal #11322 passed and these validators voted YES but have not increased their commission whatsoever.
Here are some other top validators at 0% commission:
NITAWA 4.62% VP
TerraCVita 2.83% VP
CryptoKing 1.47% VP
1% Max Fee (he has max at 1% so is an actual code issue) 1.44% VP
Autism Staking 0.97% VP
LunaClassic.com 0.90% VP
All validators should be moving to 5% commission without delay, except for those who have their maximum under 5% which need to wait for a coding solution (1% Max Fee is the only one I am aware of).
There should be some pressure on validators for not adjusting their commission in accordance with #11322, especially those who voted YES and have not changed.
They voted to have a level playing field at 5% but now enjoy competitive advantage over other validators like myself who obeyed #11322, while sitting at 0%? Isn’t that hypocrisy?
Why do some validators obey governance and others not, and have to be forced?
We don’t need code for all these validators (except 1), to change their commission to 5% as the community voted for. This is wasting the L1 team’s time as they have other important work to do.
We as a community should request these validators comply with vote #11322.
While I was not personally supportive of this proposal for the reasons listed here, here is the status of it’s implementation now that the 5% minimum commission portion has passed:
@ek826 has mentioned that the L1JTF does intend to code it at the L1 level, and that the “the 5% would be in the following release [after the next release]”. He also stated earlier that they would explore the minimum commission and maximum commission rate conflict that some validators fall into (max commission being lower than the minimum commission of 5%, and max commission only able to be set at validator creation).
So, the hope is that the solution will be able to meet the concerns of all sides.
I hope that helps out, and that you have an awesome day today 
1 Like
Thank you @aeuser999 for that update on the coding situation, I appreciate it.
I feel my point remains that if only 3 validators require code to adjust their commission to 5%, this means the rest have no reason why they can’t adjust their rate to 5% now, especially since the code is not coming in the next release.
I think it’s a fair point to ask why they have not adjusted since they are free to comply with #11322 at any time.
Every validator I listed except for 1% Max Fee are capable of adjusting their commissions now to 5%, without waiting for code.
It seems like this time is used as a competitive advantage by some validators (even those who voted YES), before the hard code is put in.
In any case I have shared my view, that those who refuse to adjust now, even though they could, are not acting in the spirit of community governance to fulfill the passed prop #11322. Delegators themselves can decide their own views about that.
Thanks again.
You bring up some good food for thought. Here are a few points for consideration:
To be fair, there are three validators that are caught in the minimum vs maximum rate conflict (where the minimum rate of 5% would be above the maximum commission rate they set for their validator - and they are not able to set their max commission rate higher since it can only be set at validator creation):
Normally manual proposals are implemented by, or in coordination, with their proposal authors (with the guidance of L1 protocol developers if it affects the protocol, and/or governance in general). The proposal authors did mention that they had asked ek826 if the L1JTF would implement it at the L1 layer if it should pass, which according to them he said the L1JTF would (so they indicated their desire for that to be the implementation method so that it would enforce it among the whole active set)(although the question asked in a Discord server rather than in the classic-agora discussion). The proposal itself did mention the following language “…by forcing the entire active set up to a 5% minimum fee…” (that language also indicates the manual method may not work for this situation, at least as a complete solution).
However, you could press the case with what you have mentioned (since validator manual settings are one way to mostly implement it, and the proposal has passed). But, my guess is that the other validators will cry foul until the above 3 are able to raise their commissions (since delegators may move to them as a result of a low commission rate that is lower than the now minimum per the proposal the others would manually set [if that method was taken]), and the 3 validators caught in the rate conflict (and I would stand by them) would point out that if the L1 implementation that is developed effectively takes them offline (as opposed to meets the concerns of all sides) that the solution would then be inappropriate (ie. against the documentation since they met all the documented conditions in order to be a validator, and meet the documented conditions to be in the active validator set).
So, that is where we find ourselves now (and I do not think the max vs. min conflict portion was thought out very well before this proposal went up in terms of implementation).
From what ek826 has mentioned, it does sound like the L1JTF will include a solution for the 5% minimum commission for governance to consider in a future release. Hopefully it will be one that meets the concerns of all sides.
That does not mean though that others are not free to press the point (either socially with the current proposal authors, with validators to self comply, or for governance guidance via proposal), just was pointing the above out for what it is worth.
I hope you are having a great day today
1 Like
Yes these 3 require a code change. The rest do not require any code and their max commission is 5% or greater.
I think there is community expectation important issues are discussed publicly or at least the community is updated about major developments in a public forum such as agora or Twitter. After 8 days there was no update here.
I think that’s a weak excuse in my opinion. Only those 3 are code bound from raising their commission.
I believe it’s better to have all but 3 comply and fulfill #11322. Rather than having many refuse to comply based on code only needed for 3. Code that is still being sorted out and will take time to bring forth.
Only one of the 3 validators has a commission higher than 1% being 1.45%, and the other two are very low. As they set their max in advance of these changes there is no problem if they benefit more for a short time, so we can achieve governance compliance.
We need to wait until the next major update after Feb 28, that’s a long way off when the vast majority can simply comply now.
That’s my view and I encourage validators to comply now with #11322 rather than wait for code as their reason.
We have no way of getting them to comply, and most are content to ignore the change until a code update forces it on them. Regardless, I commend you @JESUSisLORD for raising your validator’s fee to 5% despite not agreeing with the proposal. It shows you respect the spirit of governance, and I wish more validators would do the same.
Shalom!
2 Likes
No further discussions needed, the propsoal #11322 passed and the community agreed.
The next step is the softwade update.
Panvasi | Apeiron Nodes DAO🔗
1 Like
Hi according to Zaradar from the L1 team as posted by DJ Trev, and also in the recent L1 AMA, he said basically that validators cannot be forced to change their commission. The code can make it so if they change their commission it can only be 5% or higher.
This means the validators who have not complied with #11322 can continue to sit at 0% or under 5% and cannot be forced to change.
What is the approach now with this proposal? Are you going to hold out for more coding options if at all they come up? Is there anything else that can be done to force compliance?
If this proposal is unenforceable should it be repealed?
If 1/3 of the set are happy to sit at 0% or under 5% and not comply, then the level playing field that was sought with this proposal is not happening. Many adjusted to 5%, but those holdouts frustrate the proposal and governance.
I would appreciate an update from the authors of this proposal when available. Thank you.
1 Like
Interesting. I wonder what happened to this.
@arunadaybasu according to Ed a code to force compliance with 5% minimum commission is in the works. That said, all these validators who could but refused to voluntarily change to 5% should be remembered.
2 Likes