Hello everyone,
I usually propose a referendum without following the procedures. This time I would like to make suggestions by following the procedures. For this, first of all, I need to start a discussion in the forum and open a poll.
I made about 5 suggestions for validator increase but were rejected. I defended the increase in the number of validators in the proposals I made. Currently, there are 55 validators and 22 validator candidates. 53 of the current validators are oversubscribed. That’s why I think there is a need for more validator. I think that increasing the amount of validators that will not endanger community security will benefit the ecosystem. I propose to be the validator of the 6 most suitable candidates who have defined their identity on the chain.
note: I am not a validator candidate.
You can share your thoughts on the poll and as a comment.
As always you firstly start from the last step (open a referendum without discussion) and avoided any discussion before starting the referendum. This is bad.
So we have now 55 of validators and only 53 of them are oversubscribed…this is mean that 55 of them actually more than enough to permit all customers to stake their CFG tokens… I found some validator with staked 3-10 CFG…
So why we need more validators if 55 of the validators are not oversubscribed? Any reason?
A big part of them doesn’t have any identity on-chain. So these validators missed the official procedure.
How you can trust them without verification?
In case you missed in last my 6 reminders the procedure:
First step - 1: - Start a discussion in the forum.
Second step - 2: Comment on any proposal on the Centrifuge governance forum.
I have already written that I do not follow the procedures in previous referendums.
The current referendum has nothing to do with this poll. This survey proposes an increase of 6 validators. I will propose the outcome of this discussion as a referendum in the coming weeks. I have now started a discussion by following the procedures. I did NOT OFFER on-chain for 6 validator increments. I started this discussion regardless of my suggestion on the chain. I want to stick to the procedures completely but you’re being malicious about it
Good that you finally start following the procedure after so many failed referendums opened by you without following the simple procedure.
I’m glad that you changed your mind after your several statements on the forum and in the telegram:
I would like to ask you some questions about your proposal!
So we have now 55 validators and only 53 of them are oversubscribed…this is mean that 55 of them actually more than enough to permit all customers to stake their CFG tokens…
So why do we need more validators if 55 of the validators are not oversubscribed? Any reason?
A big part of them doesn’t have any identity on-chain. So these validators missed the official procedure.
How you can trust them without verification?
Maybe you don’t know how to count. Of the 22 candidates, 11 have an on-chain ID. I see the reason for advocating the increase in validators as a tool for increasing the belonging to the project and for the community to be more active. There are very willing candidates in this regard. It will also be possible to earn more stake rewards as the arrival of new validators will eliminate oversub.
Correct and discussion mean discussion…
Feel free to reply:
You said that we have 2 validators not oversubscribed.
So this is mean that actually active set of validators covers all demand and all CFG holders could stake their CFG successfully just now.
So we have not oversubscribed validators and this is mean that the demand of staking is completely covered by 55 validators, but at the same time, you ask to increase the number of validators…This is a contradiction.
A proposal can also be submitted proposing to increase the amount of min bond.
it means that cfg owners think that their cfg will be bitcoin in the future, even if the amount of cfg they have is small. I don’t think this is a bad thing. After all, people believe in the project that they stake a small amount. It is not right for us to interfere with how CFG holders can stake.
Do you know that 9 out of 55 validators currently do not have on-chain credentials? How could they become validators according to procedures without identity confirmation? If it is possible to become a validator like this, identity information on the chain should not be asked from the candidate validators
Analyzing this information and looking very huge amount of validators (not oversubscribed) + validators who have a very small staked amount personally I found your proposal to increase the number of validators +6 useless.
Additional increases of the set of validators will not only decrease the average staked amount but will also decrease the rewards of validators.
We also should not forget about the transition from Validators to Collators in the next couple of months, so this is an additional reason why your proposal is not only useless but will also damage validators earnings.
Summary: I will vote NAY on the basis of the information writing in above.
But please note that with the actual situation we have a lot of validators not oversubscribed and around 20+ validators with minimal staked amount ~ 0.4-5 CFG.
So increasing of min. amount of stake will give you the opposite effect. A lot of nominators (0.4-30CFG) will not be able to stake and this is mean that we will get much more NOT OVERSUCBRIBED validators.
I tried to follow the procedures as much as possible. Yes, if you call it a contradiction: contradiction. Honestly, I don’t need to ask you about our own decisions. Because there is only team in the forum :)) This causes centralization.
Until now you never followed the procedure yet and always started from the last steps. And your prev. messages just confirm your prev statements.
You also avoided any healthy discussion about your proposal.
Maybe you missed again some point, but point 1 and point 2 talking clearly:
First step - 1: - Start a discussion in the forum.
Second step - 2: Comment on any proposal on the Centrifuge governance forum.
Step 1 - Discussion ( NOT ONLY CREATING TOPIC )
Step 2 - COMMENT on (not avoiding discussion)
I will tell you more. Two team members give you suggestions
that you successfully avoided and ignored… And one Team member despite all your violations and ignoring voted for your proposal…
Indeed you should not ask me. This is an open forum where all users could freely express their opinion in POLITE and RESPECTFUL way. This is how forum work
As a result of avoiding rules and contradiction of your proposal every your new proposal and referendum gain less and less vote.
Now we hit just 1 AYE for your proposal… Even your community and friends would like to support you.
This is just a result of all that was written above.
Everyone who has an account can and should post in the forum to participate in governance, the community FAQs and other topics. As far as I know you are no team member and you post in the forum as well.
The main reason, to follow the governance process and to post a request for comments as well a poll in the forum first, is to get an idea if the proposal has a chance to attract enough CFG-holders to vote in favor of it.
The responses to your proposals in the forum should give you an indication how likely a positive outcome of a public referendum will be
