Governance ReviewNo. 2Epochs 514 to 5166 Oct 2024 to 21 Oct 2024

Atrium Lab's pool target question draws 59 yes and 41 no votes

Atrium Lab asked whether Cardano should raise its target number of stake pools above 500, without proposing a specific new value. The question divided voters: supporters wanted more room for smaller pools, while critics argued that the parameter could not be assessed in isolation.

yes votes on Atrium Lab's pool target question in epochs 514 to 516, against 41 no and 8 abstain, superseded votes included

1.9%

of DRep power behind the HOSKY naming proposal when it closed at the start of epoch 514, on 11 yes votes to 93 no

139

DReps with a vote in the previous twelve epochs at epoch 516, up from 122 at epoch 514 and the most up to then

₳561.1M

delegated to DReps at epoch 516, ₳73.6M more than at epoch 514 and the highest reading up to then

Atrium Lab asks whether to raise the pool target above 500

Should K increased? was put forward by Atrium Lab in epoch 514 and asked whether Cardano should raise its target number of stake pools. The parameter sets the saturation point of a pool: a pool can take more stake, but its rewards stop increasing beyond that point. The document puts that point at about ₳74.6M per pool, with the parameter at 500 when it was written, and adds that a higher value gives smaller pledges more effect on rewards. The document also says the action is by no means a suggestion of what the parameters should be or whether they should change now, and gives its goal as more participation in governance before the next hard fork. It lists no authors, referring readers instead to “our proposal thread” on Atrium Lab’s X account.

In epochs 514 to 516 it drew 59 yes votes, 41 no and 8 abstain across the roles, superseded votes included, and its vote ran until the start of epoch 521. RABIT voted yes in epoch 514, writing that over 1,000 pools have minted at least one block, so the parameter should be raised to 1,000 to encourage delegators of saturated pools to move to smaller ones. jonahkoch voted no in epoch 515, writing that the parameter should not be “adjusted in isolation”, since it works together with the pledge influence factor and the minimum pool cost to set the desired number of pools.

YUTA abstained in epoch 515, writing that the question could not be answered either way: a yes is dangerous because a raise to 100,000 would be plainly unreasonable, and a no is dangerous because there are cases where a raise is right, which need analysis together with the other parameters. SIPO voted no in epoch 515, writing that the market, the regulatory outlook and energy costs already made running a pool hard. hix_coffeepool☕️ also voted no, writing that a parameter question should not be answered “without objective indicators”. Cerkoryn voted yes in epoch 516, writing that the parameter sits at 500 while over 3,000 pools exist.

The HOSKY naming proposal closes at 1.9%

Name the next hard fork HOSKY Hard Fork, the joke proposal the review of epochs 508 to 513 describes, closed at the start of epoch 514 with 1.9% of DRep power behind it. Its stored DRep counts were 11 yes, 93 no and 21 abstain, ₳8.8M of power for it and ₳202.6M against. Pools recorded 6 yes votes to 64 no. On the committee the Cardano Atlantic Council found it constitutional in epoch 510 and the Intersect Constitutional Council in epoch 512, while the Eastern Cardano Council abstained in epoch 513.

Ikigai stands at 41.4% at the close

Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai -, the note of thanks to Input Output under Charles Hoskinson, EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation that seeks no change on chain or off it, stood at 41.4% of DRep power as of the close of epoch 516, the last epoch of its vote, on 104 yes votes, 3 no and 16 abstain. HeptaSean voted no in epoch 516, writing that it thanks the founding entities and Hoskinson personally without condition. On the committee the Cardano Japan Council found it constitutional in epoch 514, and the Cardano Foundation and the Intersect Constitutional Council in epoch 515. The Cardano Atlantic Council had abstained in epoch 513 and the Eastern Cardano Council abstained in epoch 515. Input Output abstained in epoch 516, writing that “expressions of feeling are not a matter for constitutional adjudication”.

Delegation to DReps rises to ₳561.1M

At epoch 516, 441 DReps held ₳561.1M of delegated power, ₳73.6M more than the ₳487.5M of epoch 514 and the highest reading since epoch 508. Over the same two readings the count of DReps with a vote in the previous twelve epochs rose from 122 to 139, also the most up to then. The ten largest DReps held 48.4% of the delegated power at epoch 514, their smallest share up to then, and 50.6% at epoch 516. The window recorded 156 votes with superseded votes included, 92 from DReps, 59 from pools and 5 from committee members, and final votes from 78 distinct DReps and 47 pools.

Decided in this window

Action	Outcome	DRep yes
Name the next hard fork HOSKY Hard Fork	Closed 514	1.9%

Open at the close of the window

Action	Status	DRep yes
Should K increased?	Voting ends at the start of epoch 521	n/a
Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai -	Undecided at the close of epoch 516	41.4%

n/a: the record holds no DRep share from inside this window for this action, only a tally read after it closed.

The numbers behind the window

Delegated to DReps, at the start of epoch 514: ₳487.5M
Delegated to DReps, at the start of epoch 516: ₳561.1M
Votes cast in the window, superseded votes included: 156
DReps whose final vote fell in the window: 78
Treasury, at the start of epoch 514: ₳1,560.3M
Treasury, at the start of epoch 516: ₳1,569.5M

DRep shares are the share of counted power: abstaining power is left out, while power that did not vote and power delegated to the always no confidence option are folded into the no side. All three actions here are information actions, which have no threshold for any role, are never ratified and close when their vote ends.
What the pool target question, the naming proposal and the note of thanks asked for is read from their own documents, named under the sources below, not from the snapshot. The pool target question lists no authors. Atrium Lab is named as its filer because its document calls the X account atrium_lab its proposal thread, and the website of Atrium Lab links that account. The record stores no title for the naming proposal, because the document its anchor points at does not hash to the value the proposal registered on chain. The value of the pool parameter and the saturation figure are the ones the proposal itself quotes, for the time it was written.
The pool target question is submitted here and not decided here. Its vote ran until the start of epoch 521, so no share is given for it, only its vote counts of epochs 514 to 516 across the roles, superseded votes included, which do not reconcile with any final tally.
The note of thanks is quoted as of the close of epoch 516, the last epoch of its vote, which was scheduled to end at the start of epoch 517. Each committee vote is dated by the epoch it was cast in. The reasons quoted are the published rationales of the voters named, cited under the sources below, and say nothing about voters who published none.
Votes cast is every vote of epochs 514 to 516 across all three roles, superseded votes included. DRep vote counts per epoch and the count of recently voting DReps exclude votes without a block time. Delegated power and the concentration measures exclude the predefined delegation options.

Sources and further reading

15 sources, open the list

YUTA abstained on the pool target question in epoch 515, writing that it could not be answered yes or no: a yes is dangerous because raising the parameter to 100,000, for instance, would be plainly unreasonable, and a no is dangerous because there are cases where a raise is right, which need analysis together with the other parameters. the rationale of YUTA on the pool target question
SIPO voted no on the pool target question in epoch 515, writing that a change is not needed now given the market, the stage of the ecosystem and an uncertain regulatory and energy environment that already makes running a pool hard. the rationale of SIPO on the pool target question
hix_coffeepool☕️ voted no on the pool target question in epoch 515, writing that parameter changes must not be decided yes or no without objective indicators, and that it might have said yes to a question about discussing a change. the rationale of hix_coffeepool☕️ on the pool target question
Cerkoryn voted yes on the pool target question in epoch 516, writing that a raise would shake up stake and hopefully increase decentralisation, that the parameter is set to 500 while over 3,000 pools exist, and that it counts pools rather than operators. the rationale of Cerkoryn on the pool target question
The pool target question explains that the parameter it asks about sets the saturation point of a pool, that it stood at 500 when the proposal was written, for a saturation point of about ₳74.6M, and that with a higher value smaller pledges have a larger effect on staking rewards. The document lists no authors and refers readers to our proposal thread on the X account atrium_lab. the document behind the pool target question
The same document states that the proposal is by no means a suggestion of what the protocol parameters should be changed to or whether they should be changed at this time, that its goal is to increase participation in governance before the next hard fork, and it invites readers to register as a DRep with their own wallet or to delegate to one. the document behind the pool target question, on its purpose
The website of Atrium Lab at atriumlab.io links to the X account atrium_lab. the website of Atrium Lab
A pool can take stake beyond its saturation point, but its rewards stop increasing once it is saturated. the Cardano documentation on pledging and rewards
RABIT voted yes on the pool target question in epoch 514, writing that over 1,000 pools have minted at least one block, so the parameter should be raised to 1,000 to encourage delegators of saturated pools to move to smaller ones. the rationale of RABIT on the pool target question
jonahkoch voted no on the pool target question in epoch 515, writing that the parameter should not be adjusted in isolation, since it works together with the pledge influence factor and the minimum pool cost to regulate the desired number of pools. the rationale of jonahkoch on the pool target question
The document the naming proposal anchored points at is titled Name the next hard fork HOSKY Hard Fork and asks for the next hard fork to be named after the HOSKY token. the document behind the naming proposal
The note of thanks thanks Input Output under Charles Hoskinson, EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation for bringing Cardano into the world, and states that it seeks no change on chain or off it, directly or indirectly. the document behind the note of thanks
HeptaSean voted no on the note of thanks in epoch 516, writing that it unconditionally thanks the founding entities and Hoskinson personally, and that its vision of Cardano contributing to a greater good overpromises what a cryptocurrency can do. the rationale of HeptaSean on the note of thanks
Input Output abstained on the note of thanks as a committee member in epoch 516, writing that expressions of feeling are not a matter for constitutional adjudication and that the constitution places no guardrails on information actions. the rationale of Input Output on the note of thanks
The Cardano Japan Council voted yes on the note of thanks as a committee member in epoch 514, finding it constitutional because it violates no prohibition, while writing that actions which change nothing could hinder governance and waste voters' resources, and that the constitution should have a way to exclude them. the rationale of the Cardano Japan Council on the note of thanks