Should K increased?
134 DReps voted · 17 with a rationale · 4 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
Positive:
Delegators to many currently saturated pools may be awakened when they hear they are earning fewer rewards than they otherwise would. As they come on-chain to re-stake, it provides a window of opportunity to also encourage them to delegate to a DRep, which strengthens Cardano's governance resilienceNegative:
The main negative is that some single SPOs (who are committed to only operating 1 pool) may no longer be able to run their pools profitably.I see the benefit as more impactful
- No2.6M ₳No rationale
- No2.4M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.8M ₳No rationale
- No1.8M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged1.8M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain1y agoSuperseded
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
K represents the ideal number of stake pools and over 1000 stake pools have minted at least one block in their lifetime: K should be increased to 1000.
Increasing K would encourage delegators of saturated pools to redelegate to smaller pools, increasing decentralisation.
More info:
https://iohk.io/en/blog/posts/2020/11/13/the-general-perspective-on-staking-in-cardano/
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes798.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes794.5K ₳No rationale
- No776.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes747.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain731.5K ₳No rationale
- No717.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain652.3K ₳No rationale
- No625.9K ₳Rationale
I'm voting no on this info action, because I don't believe K should be adjusted in isolation. This has been done before and did not achieve the desired results, futhermore without also addressing a0 and minPoolFee at the same time would not provide an efficient solution. K, a0, and minPoolCost work dynamically together to regulate nOpt (desired number of pools) and thus all prams effecting nOpt should be taken into account in the adjustment on one.
- Yes616.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes605.7K ₳Rationale
Краткосрочно: Увеличение
𝐾
K до 1000 может немного снизить доход от стейкинга, так как доходы распределятся на большее количество пулов. Инвесторам придется искать менее насыщенные пулы, чтобы получить максимум вознаграждений.Долгосрочно: Более высокая децентрализация может положительно повлиять на цену ADA. Большое количество пулов улучшает безопасность и устойчивость сети, что делает её более привлекательной для инвесторов и может способствовать росту цены монеты в будущем.
- Yes545.4K ₳No rationale
- No533.9K ₳No rationale
- No478.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes450.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes387.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain385.2K ₳Rationale
Info action regarding the K parameter is noted.
There is more to be considered regarding changing this.
Ref: Pledge, MinFees just to mention some.
Looking forward to the debate regarding changing K parameter - Yes383K ₳No rationale
- No381.1K ₳Rationale
The action is poorly written and supporting links leave impression of pure promotion stunt without profound rationale.
I don't believe that changing stakePoolTargetNum ("k") would help small stake pools much. The stake that will have to move due to this is limited and often managed by entities that can just open additional pools.
Moreover, I am not sure if Cardano can even sustain 500 pools, let alone 1000.
Finally, I believe we need a totally different, better reward sharing scheme.
- Yes378.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes341.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes323.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes314.4K ₳No rationale
- No313.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain298.9K ₳Rationale
While I do think it is wise to increase K, this action provides no details about how much to increase K by. This leaves me, as a DRep, in a precarious situation; if I vote YES, it may indicate to delegates that I am in favor of moving K to 1000 immediately after change 2, which I am not. However, if I vote NO, it may indicate that I do not approve of any increase in K, which is also false. My current thinking is that we should adjust K slowly, increasing it by no more than 100 each quarter.
- Yes285.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes278.1K ₳No rationale