@chrischang43 If we compare only Frankfurt and Amsterdam from Teraswitch DCs, Amsterdam has a 1.82ms lower global latency. However, when we examine other hosting providers, we discover that many of them offer better global RTT in Frankfurt. Amsterdam is not currently the best Solana location.
@italoacasas Regarding the concentration you mentioned. Your validator is on TSW. Jito, BAM, Harmonic are all TSW-only. Over 60% of stake (TPU/QUIC) is already on TSW and rising.
@trentdotsol @DavidRhodus Instead of communist stake limitation introduce dynamic commission like on Terra Classic. It works pretty well.
By the way being a top 1 validator by stake while keeping 0% commission is unethical as hell.
Celebrate #BlackFriday with us! ๐
Transfer any of your validators to #Allnodes and enjoy 6 months of FREE hosting. Donโt miss this limited-time offer ๐ฅ
๐๐ฝ https://t.co/lLY3zn8VQJ
@gadikian@EffortCapital@WaqarMMirza@notionaldao@zmanian@bittybitbit86 Let me shill the history of other halvings. Price impact since the halving event till the day when the โtemperatureโ check topic was created on cosmos forum.
1. Fantom (-19.28%)
2. Juno (-95%)
3. Osmosis (-55%)
4. Evmos (-61%)
Ask the author to show successful examples ๐
@EffortCapital@fekunze@zmanian@cosmos VP tax is a win for small validators and a lose for big validators. That is why it will not work. It will motivate validators to create additional copies to prevent this tax. Cosmos will become more centralized. Dynamic min commission like on Terra Classic is win win situation.
@HappyCatKripto@ColeStrathclyde@frag_dude Seems like you forgot to give credits to the person who initially proposed a dynamic commission idea 1 year and 3 months ago.
@LUNCDAO@VicVictoria007 Solution that can work:
Top 50% validators - 2.5% min commission
Top 20% - 5%
Top 10% - 10%
Top 5% - 20%
Only in such case small community validators will be able to compete. With your proposal nothing will change as everybody will have same commission.
@LUNCDAO@VicVictoria007 Last modification of the idea:
Min. Commission = (Voting Power %)/2
Applied only if VP is >=1%
In the future can be adjusted to [min. commission = VP%] if needed.
@LUNCDAO@VicVictoria007 Last modification of the idea:
Min. Commission = (Voting Power %)/2
Applied only if VP is >=1%
In the future can be adjusted to [min. commission = VP%] if needed.
@LUNCDAO@VicVictoria007 Last modification of the idea:
Min. Commission = (Voting Power %)/2
Applied only if VP is >=1%
In the future can be adjusted to [min. commission = VP%] if needed.
@LUNCDAO@VicVictoria007 Solution that can work:
Top 50% validators - 2.5% min commission
Top 20% - 5%
Top 10% - 10%
Top 5% - 20%
Only in such case small community validators will be able to compete. With your proposal nothing will change as everybody will have same commission.
@7LayerMagik@toly@TimGarcia0 It definitely not happens anywhere I know. And even if it happens nobody cares. People just pay fees without any issues even if fees are 25% (Check @NemSymbol).