Should K increased?
134 DReps voted · 17 with a rationale · 4 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain435.8M ₳Rationale
Cardanoが数十億人の経済アイデンティティを支えるプラットフォームへ成長するために、このGAはYES・NOを回答できる状態ではないと考えます。よって棄権を投じます。
この問いにYESと答えるのは危険です。例えば、Kを10万に増加させるのは明らかに不合理です。
この問いにNOと答えるのは危険です。Kをあらゆるケースにおいても増加すべきではないというわけではないからです。増加させることが適切なケースは確かに存在します。しかしこれは他のパラメータとの分析が必須です。
For Cardano to grow into a platform that supports the economic identities of billions of people, I believe that this GA is not in a position to answer YES or NO. Therefore, I will abstain.
It is dangerous to answer YES to this question. For example, increasing K to - No222.9M ₳No rationale
- No92.2M ₳No rationale
- No91.5M ₳No rationale
- No86M ₳Rationale
SIPOは現時点でのKパラメータの変更は不要と考えています。その理由として、カルダノの時価総額や価格の現状、エコシステムの成長段階、2024年の米国大統領選挙を控えた環境変化の可能性を挙げます。
世界情勢と暗号資産市場の現状分析では、規制環境の不確実性、世界経済の不安定性、地政学的リスク、エネルギー問題、市場の変動性を考慮しています。これらの要因がステークプール運営環境を厳しくしていると考えます。
将来的な変更については、ADAの価格上昇、カルダノエコシステムの成熟、市場の安定化、規制環境の明確化、世界経済の回復、エネルギー問題の改善、コミュニティの合意形成といった条件が整った段階で再検討すべきだとしています。
SIPOは、2025年のCardano 1.0完成後、エコシステムの成長やレイヤー2ソリューションの導入後に、Kパラメータ変更を慎重に検討することを提案しています。継続的な議論と分析を通じて、カルダノの分散化と効率性のバランスを最適化する方法を模索し続けるべきだと主張します。
- No74.5M ₳No rationale
- No69.4M ₳No rationale
- No50.4M ₳Rationale
For parameter changes, we must not make Yes/No decisions without objective indicators. This GA disregards the requirements of the research process and attempts to engage in a discussion about Yes/No without that foundation. If the question were “Should we discuss parameter changes?”, I might consider saying Yes.
- Abstain49.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes47.6M ₳No rationale
- No34.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes33.5M ₳No rationale
- No31.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes27.9M ₳Rationale
In the short term, I believe raising k will shake up stake and hopefully increase decentralization, so will vote yes. However, I also think that k is currently ineffective. K represents the target number of stake pools and is set to 500, but there are over 3k stake pools. Additionally, it measures POOLS, not OPERATORS. The latter is more important for decentralization. Raising it will punish saturated single SPOs, but will hopefully add more new SPOs. Long term I think a new RSS is needed.
- Yes27.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes26.1M ₳No rationale
- No25.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes23.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.5M ₳Rationale
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.
- Abstain21.1M ₳No rationale
- No19.9M ₳Rationale
We should discuss and address the reward sharing scheme as a whole, e.g. add a minVarFee parameter (see CIP-23) which would in my opinion be many-fold more productive than manipulating k in isolation. For additional context see https://t.ly/8DT9- and https://t.ly/JwV0a .
- Yes17.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain17.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes16.4M ₳No rationale
- No14.2M ₳No rationale
- No12.1M ₳Rationale
It was a nice experience casting a vote on this governance proposal. I stressed less to provide any meaningful rationale for this vote, as I know very well that the outcome would not affect any parameters. However, the proposal is technically interesting and provides a clear foresight into what to expect post chang 2 and very much interested in prepping myself as a DRep for the activities ahead as an organisation with a common will to ensure inclusivity from the community that delegates to me.
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- No9.6M ₳No rationale
- No8.8M ₳No rationale
- No8.1M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged7.6M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation as a CC member says the vote is unconstitutional. They are not judging the K parameter issue. I agree with the CF there is a lack of RELEVANT supporting materials. Governance actions should respect the required form & minimum requirements. Article III, Section 6 requires them to be included. I agree that "consistent standards across all types of governance actions is crucial to preserve the effectiveness and credibility of the governance system. Vote changed to NO.
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
I voted for the governance action as an aspirational step to boost participation. It doesn't propose specific parameter changes or an immediate increase of the K parameter. Instead, it's a general check on whether K should be increased in the future when conditions allow without risking the network. I support decentralization when it makes sense for network stability, economic viability and for SPOs. If this were just an immediate increase without any supporting research, I would have voted NO.
- Yes7.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- No5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged5.3M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain1y agoSuperseded
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.7M ₳No rationale
- No3.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale