Now we the investors are staking with most of the validators who are charging commissions or free commissions. The delegation is part of our ritual to be part of the ecosystem for balance. And Validators who had been running or who are serving recently are aware that how our ecosystem is trying to achieve survival.
Validators understand how they are powerful at serving the community. With their help of them, we are surviving. Since they are helping us, I am sure they would love to move on to building a strong ecosystem. That’s why I feel the strong force from them to achieve the goals of decentralized blockchain.
Validators must agree to support FREE till 2025, whatever commissions they charged must be burned to support of restoration of UST. That means whatever they received LUNC in the commission, they must use those assets to buy the market rate of UST and burn the UST at the end of the day. That’s the way we will find out which people are really trying to help in the long term. No matter what commission they set up, the outcome of the commission must be burned.
@AIRevolt you state I will run the validator “free” and burn the reward, you can only do one of the 2 things, or run it for free or burn the reward so must be for free.
This is a crazy proposal, last time I make a good one, but looks also not liked from people, burn 50% of stacked reward from validator and from delegator, this will be the most good idea I think, all the community need help validator and delegator, not only 1 part of them.
Do you want the validators to give up their delegators’ commission?
I am not that knowledgable, but as far as I know, the business model for a validator is:
maintain a system (= costs)
receive rewards from own delegation (= revenue)
receive a percentage of rewards from delegators (= another source of revenue)
Since they are giving up their commission (3), their revenue comes from their own delegation (2) and they incur costs from maintaining a system (1), which means they are essentially earning the same as they would if they just delegated their own money to a 0% commission validator (2), but incurring costs (1).
This doesn’t sound like a good business proposition for the majority of validators. And that’s why the majority charge a commission (the ones that do not charge, validate on other blockchains, and have other sources of revenue from their brand recognition)
This situation would be a major barrier to entry for new validators, which would, in turn, centralize the voting power to a handful of validators. And we clearly need more decentralization.
Meaning whatever my validators made the commission, I would love to burn whatever validators received the rewards from it. Whoever stake with community burning for ustc, they just give same average commissions we have on various validators…
When it comes to supporting, some will offer for free of course, it may be 3 yrs of free services, but they will gain trust and respect from the community to serve. If community wanna donate the services, they could do so.
This situation will give some greedy validators to give up when they are not profiting, so that is where we place with community community which serve the purposes… some of us will cover the cost of running if they do so… we will still run validators for free.
Basically, you are asking the validators to change their business model: their profit will be smaller than if they simply stake to a 0% validator because they are giving up their commission, and have business expenses to run a node. In return, they will gain “trust and respect from the community”. And the community can help with donations. This sounds like a non-profit business model…
My guess is that most validators are for-profit companies, and most of them need the commission to financially justify the trouble to run a node. They are not greedy and really want to support the community, but can’t simply give up their commission revenue.
@AIRevolt , if you are able to run a 0% validator node until 2025, more power to you, but please don’t assume that ALL other validators can do the same. In my opinion, what your proposal will achieve is a reduction in the number of active validators, which will further centralize the voting power and raise security concerns.
Yeah is squarely one eyed blanket view of of Validators and their size of operations.
He has serious misconceptions that all Validators are large organisations with plenty of financial resources and in fact placing undue strain on validators may jeopardise the chain with Validators falling away.
THREAD SHOULD BE CLOSED IMO and perhaps a new alternate title.
What ideally needs to occur is a min and max commission so that an attempt to have a level playing field is achieved.
What I would like to see is the costs to run a validator node, what the breakdown of these costs looks like, what does the reward structure look like, what other revenues could be obtained for validators.
What are the breakdowns and percentages of staking rewards for a node to at least break even, let alone even be profitable ?
At the moment like most people I am also ignorant of what running a node entails or what skill sets are required.
If anyone has any data, I would like to be educated so may consider the opportunity setting up or supporting a node with others who have technical skills that I do not have.