Survey to ask the Cardano community about future direction on minimum fees for SPOs.
A reading of the counted responses, not an official result. How this is counted and what it leaves out
Would you support a follow-up parameter change to set minPoolCost to 0 BEFORE minPoolMargin (CIP-23) is implemented?
Single choice
14 counted responses answered this question, none left it out.
When minPoolMargin (CIP-23) is implemented, what percent should the initial value be set to?
Number between 0 and 50
Weighted mean 1.13, weighted median 0.00.
Bars are sized against the leading value. They compare how much weight each answered value carries, they are not shares of anything.
2 counted responses of 14 left this question unanswered.
The published tally artifact committed a weight for 14 responders that were still DRep members at close, weighted at epoch 660. Only the weighted figures come from that artifact. The head counts, the exclusions and the counted figure of 14 DRep responses are this site's own current audit, which counts a response whether or not its DRep was still a member at close, so that figure and the artifact's responder count rest on different bases and need not agree.
Turnout 0.3%: 41.4M ₳ of 15.9B ₳. The numerator is the summed voting power the tally artifact committed for its 14 counted responders. The denominator is the DRep electorate total the tally artifact committed at the survey's end epoch, epoch 660.
Other roles answered this survey too: stakeholders (1). Those responses are outside every figure above, which counts DRep responses only.
Reading computed 15d ago.
On-chain CIP-179 survey.
Survey to ask the Cardano community about future direction on minimum fees for SPOs.
minPoolCostminPoolMargin at 2% to establish the primary economic floorminPoolCost to 10 ADA for anti-spam/eclipse/sybil protectionImportantly, we shouldn't go to zero without getting the new floor in place. Race to the bottom could undo all the work in one fell swoop.