Should K increased?
84 SPOs voted · 3 with a rationale · 1 changed their vote · 1 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
- NoNo rationale
- NoNo rationale
- NoNo rationale
- NoNo rationale
- YesRationale
While this vote is in support of the question raised in the Info Action it is important to provide further context and education on the subject. The Info Action refers to the K-parameter and while this has been a long-disputed topic amongst the Cardano community, namely SPOs and similarly technically minded individuals, it has also been something of a relative mystery to the everyday ADA holder. Secondly, this parameter is now known as stakePoolTargetNum, as found in Appendix I: Section 2.4 of the Interim Constitution which pertains to Technical/Security Parameters. Arguably, this is a much more accessible and identifiable name for the everyday user to understand also.
The parameter in question determines the ideal number of stake pools when the system is in equilibrium. As a result, it also determines the saturation point (or size) of a stake pool. This is calculated by dividing the current circulating supply of ADA by the stakePoolTargetNum (formerly K) value.
When the parameter was increased to 500 on 6 December 2020, the pool size limit was c.64M ADA. Following the increase in the circulating supply in the years since then, the pool size limit today is c.74M ADA. This has meant that a multi-pool operator of 5 or more pools has, in effect, almost gained the potential to amass the delegation of a whole extra pool at December 2020 levels without having to deploy any extra infrastructure.
While this vote supports another look into increasing the parameter value, I do not think that that it should be as drastic as the 1000 often put forward by many.
Example stakePoolTargetNum values and their corresponding pool size limits:
500 = 74,708,463 (current)
588 = 63,538,362
750 = 49,805,642
1000 = 37,354,231A subtle stakePoolTargetNum (formerly K) increase to 588 would reset pool size limits to December 2020 levels and would be a more sustainable change so as to minimize the impact on the slow to move stake delegation that has become apparent in the years since Proof-of-Stake went live on the Cardano mainnet. Higher values could lead to problems like pool splitting which could increase infrastructure costs, over-saturation of single pools due to slow redelegation of stake and a reduction in rewards across the board.
- YesNo rationale
- NoNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- NoRevotedHistory
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- NoChangedHistory
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesRationale
Our vote towards adjusting the k parameter is yes. This has been a topic of some discussion and magnitude for a long time in the community. In the last (pre-Chang #1) poll HAZEL voted no on changing k to 1000, and yes on decreasing the min fee to 170 ADA. Our reasoning back then was clear, and has not changed since then. We do not believe k should immediately be raised to 1000, but instead to an intermediate 750.
We believe that recent events around large retiring stakepools and the slow flow of delegation to dReps clearly show that a large portion of held ADA is unused and must be considered sticky. With doubling k, this would mean a large number of ADA holders would lose their rewards, often over extended periods of time, potentially reducing their trust in Cardano.
While we cannot hold off these changes forever just because holders are complacent or inactive, we can reduce its impact by increasing k in smaller steps.Generally, we support raising k, but urge everyone to understand that we need to track the outcome of such a parameter change in detail to evaluate its success (or lack thereof) with regards to improving the ecosystem.
- NoNo rationale
- NoNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- NoNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- NoNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- AbstainRationale
I will vote to abstain with the stake pool and passively delegate my personal and pool wallets to the 'auto-abstain' voting option for as long as I am a member of the ICC. This decision reflects my commitment to focusing on my responsibilities within the ICC and preserving my integrity and belief in the governance system. I plan to engage with the stake pool and DRep once my term as a Constitutional Committee member is complete.
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- NoNo rationale