Chainflow's Answers to the Staking Rewards Survey
Staking Rewards published their comprehensive Staking Ecosystem Case Study earlier this month. 16 validator's interviews contributed to the initial study. Most of them were larger validator operations.
This is a trend I see a lot. Larger validator operations have more resources available to market themselves. Smaller validators many times don't.
In response and to help counter this trend, I asked Staking Rewards to consider interviewing smaller validators too. They agreed and posted the interview questions to the Decentralized Staking Defenders forum.
Here are my answers to the questions. If my answers connect with your values, please consider delegating to the Chainflow validators. You can learn more about and how to delegate to them here.
1. How do we ensure and incentivize further decentralization within the staking ecosystem? This is a tough question. It starts with defining decentralization, as there are many definitions. I'll assume we're talking about decentralizing stake, meaning preventing a small number of validators from controlling a network.
There's no easy answer. From talking to many staking networks, both live and in development, I've noticed that simply being conscious of the rich get richer problem is a beneficial starting point.
Then, making sure to dedicate resources to token and staking economic development is important. Many of the networks I've spoken to made certain token economic design choices by default. They haven't taken the time or dedicated the attention to completely think them through.
This often happens unintentionally, as protocol and the accompanying software development work takes precedent over the economic development. The intention is to go back and fix things after the fact.
Or the networks rely on human nature doing the right thing. This often takes the form of "Well this could happen, yet it probably won't." Experience with early staking networks illustrates that once real money starts flowing, human nature tends to revert back to putting the self first and everything else after that. This means the thing we hoped wouldn't happen, does happen.
This happened with Cosmos. Before launch, nobody wanted to believe a controlling stake would get controlled by a small number of validators. Then it happened almost immediately after launch.
More specifically, designing a reward system that rewards performance, not only total stake, is one way to level the playing field. For example, give equal opportunity to all validators who run at 95% uptime or better the same probability of proposing a block. This helps smaller validators who run validators well compete with the larger ones. By smaller here I'm referring to the size of the validator operation, not total delegated stake
Other ideas include truly incentivizing delegators to spread their stake among multiple validators and possibly incentivizing validators to delegate to at least a small number of validators they don't operate.
2. What are the biggest challenges for Proof of Stake and Staking, that we still have to overcome or may still face?
I feel the single biggest challenge is the "rich-get-richer" one. How can we design staking networks to prevent heavily capitalized validators from dominating a network starting at launch, then extending their dominance due to a reward system that rewards validators based solely on their total stake.
3. What do you consider to be the most important aspects to attract delegators to your staking service?
- Running a reliable, available and secure validator.
- Clear, consistent and transparent communication with delegators.
- Community contributions.
- The validator's motivations and values, i.e. Why are they in this in the first place?
- A fair and transparent fee structure, i.e. Why do validators charge the fee they charge?
4. Which upcoming protocol projects are you most excited about and why? Is there a protocol no-one is paying attention to but should?
This is a tough question since so many networks are launching. Here's a short list off the top of my head:
Cosmos - Because of the number of projects building on the Cosmos-SDK, which took me by surprise.
Althea - Because they're working to break the stranglehold on Internet connectivity large Telcos have, while also making the Internet accessible to those who don't yet have connectivity. Althea's building on the Cosmos-SDK.
Livepeer - Because the Streamflow release should increase adoption of Livepeer's decentralized, uncensorable streaming platform.
Harmony - Because their mission to bring Harmony to 10 billion people resonates with me and my bodhisattva aspiration.
5. How can smaller Staking-as-a-Service companies differentiate themselves from large players like exchanges providing staking services (e.g. Coinbase)? Is there a danger of centralization? Binance Staking in 2019, yes or no?
This is a topic I think about a lot. There is a significant danger of centralization. In fact, it's already happened. Without conscious action to undo it, before it becomes inextricably embedded in networks we care about, we'll simply recreate a financial system controlled by small number of very wealthy entities.
To me there are a few tiers to consider. The first is the big exchanges. They have the advantage of size and an embedded delegator base. They're followed by big well-capitalized staking companies, e.g. who have raised millions of