After receiving feedback from various folks, we would propose the following change to stkd-SCT validator set. We believe that network sustainability can take many forms. In the past, we focused on quantitative measures to predict success of Secret Network with a focus entirely on validators. As SCRT enters new lows, we see network sustainability as supporting validators who can qualitatively prove to be growth engines to the network.
(1) Secure Secrets (40%) - Shade
(2) Lavendar5 (15%) - IBC
(3) CryptoCrew (10%) - IBC
(4) Secret Saturn (5%) - Secret Dashboard + support
(5) Xavier Capital (5%) - CryptoClerk + support
(6) Stake or Die (5%) - stkd-SCRT + dSHD
(7) Starshell (4%) - Wallet
(8) Keplr (4%) - Wallet
(9) Fina (4%) - Major Dapp / Wallet
(10) Alter (4%) - Major Dapp
(11) Stashh (4%) - Major Dapp
In this evolution of stkd-SCRT, delegations are focused on driving growth of usage on Secret Network as opposed to a focus purely on validator performance. Secure Secrets (core team building Shade Protocol) also received feedback that 85% was too high which would put some of the key qualities of stkd-SCRT in jeopardy. We care about the customers & users of stkd-SCRT so this feedback was fully taken into consideration.
Under this new proposed method, the validator set shrinks from 23 to 11 while still maintaining decentralization & promotion of key growth engines on Secret Network.
Seems like a good overall list to me, 40% is of course much better than 85% but still too centralized for my personal liking. It’d be better to pull up the nodes with a 4% allocation to 5% and add two or three more 5% nodes. That way only 20 to 25% of the allocation is to secure secrets, a level much more comfortable from a decentralization as well as risk point of view. Even the best node runners make mistakes, as we’ve seen in the past.
Regarding the nodes those additional slots should go to, Secret University could be considered since they aim to increase the amount of developers on the network as well as supporting the first steps into the ecosystem for devs. Since you mention analytics in the proposal it could also make sense to add cowlevel who is working on a complete rework of Secret analytics. It may also make sense to add an additional IBC slot, if you ask I’m sure one of the relayers would be open to strenghten the connections you are interested in.
Lastly, in the past there was a hard cap at 5% for validator commissions in the allocation set, with this proposal that limit is removed. What is the expected effect on apr compared to the current model?
i can see why the team would want to direct stkd-scrt to their own validator and although i appreciate the generous amount stated for the organization i work for i must say that i liked the old distribution much better.
Changing the set might cause unbondings and lack of overall stkd-scrt support in light of potential competitors in st-SCRT and b/seSCRT.
We don’t usually chime up in the forums but I keep a tab on the conversations.
I’d love to have V-IRL included in the redelegations but we don’t have a V-IRL specific val up. I currently receive delegations under the Jamama Moniker due to meeting the requirements.
V-IRL is still alive and kicking. We’re working on add tap to claim functionalities for our V-ID tech and are looking to collab on an IRL event in the next 3-6 months demoing our ticketing use-case. We’d love to sync up with Shade on that, or any other SN DAPP.
We are also currently revamping our IBC setup and with that we will start relaying for between every single chain (all of them minus cosmoshub(for now)) we validate where there is an open used channel
as pmuecke said, bump 4%ers to 5%, especially since some of those teams contribute more than just what they are known for. for ex, i understand starshell team contributes to snips, core network code, ledger, etc.
Must disagree here Jiri, that’s taking away 2% from core contributors to Shade and giving it to a group that has so far only drained money from Secret treasury.
I like the list and support Secure Secrets having, who are core contributors of Shade, a large %.
This list has sustainability in mind and as you say, “qualitatively prove to be growth engines to the network”, could not agree more about that!
I think it would be nice to maybe highlight validator partners/supporters/contributors that support and do contribute to Shade and its growth but didn’t necessarily make the cut for stkSCRT delegations (at least this time around) but that do validate on other chains that community members could stake their ATOM, STARS, OSMO, etc with to recognize and provide some indirect support and keep validators that have been cut or those looking to become more active, in the fold so to speak.
In theory I agree. But this has been discussed before, and there are many arenas to focus on for adoption. And I take the side that this is the wrong starting-point and the wrong use of money at this point. I would much rather give more to Fina for the important Silk-Fina partnership and for their excellent work.
CrosNest recently joined upon recommendation to improve the relayer redundancy. Them together with Cryptocrew are by far the most reliant/responsive. CryptoCrew and L5 both run archive to also enable flushing packets.
Whispernode also recently joined the relayer set leveraging the IBC ansible from L5, they support less networks but is very helpful to have this redundancy.
L5 does most IBC coordination for Secret - as it has always done since supernova.
