Feedback for small providers that getting wallet drained #180
Assignees
Labels
Comments
AramCoin
changed the title
|
Hi @AramCoin 👋 I apologize for the delayed response.
tl;drYour provider spent in total only Make sure to close the open bid for dseq Your provider wallet is also delegating Please let me know if you need any assistance. More detailsWallet operationsYour provider address received 11 AKT in the total:
You have then delegated 6.5 AKT in block 14707681 to the Praetor App validator. So in the total you have sent to your account: 11 AKT Akash Provider operationsTotal spent on fees: Total earned: Still locked in provider bid deposit escrow address: 5 AKT Chain analysisTotal earned by the provider - https://akash.network/docs/providers/provider-faq-and-guide/#provider-earnings-history
Total TXs: 73 Total sepnt on the fees: |
|
Dear Andy, Thank you for the details, but your "Total spent fees" are incorrect as you did not consider the "create lease" and "close deployment" fees that occur with higher transaction fees. Exactly as you wrote, I had funded the wallet of 10 AKT, and put 5 AKT in escrow to be a provider. So, the remaining 5 AKTs in the wallet were drained due to the fees. I then contacted Praetor on 24th January and received 1 AKT from their support team (as my wallet was drained) to be able to close the lease manually and get back my ESCROW of 5 AKT and some of the earnings. that is why I do not understand your comments" Your provider didn't close the bid for dseq 14049715 and thus you still seeing 5 AKT missing in your provider wallet." as I got the 5 AKT of ESCROW back. Is it a different spend than the escrow? This is how I delegated 6.5 AKT on 25th January. ( 5 AKT from escrow +1 AKT received and a little from the earnings) To resume: 11 AKT(received) +1.27 AKT(earned) - 6.5 AKT(delegated) -0.46AKT(wallet remaining) = 5.31 AKT drained on fees only. My understanding is that the balance was reduced due to the transaction fees... as I got back my escrow when I closed the lease. Please advise if this is incorrect. Thanks. |
|
Hi @AramCoin Those 5 AKT aren't the AKT drained nor the fees, but rather the AKT temporarily put by the provider into the escrow account for the bid. Also, since governance proposal 248 the bid deposit has been lowered from 5 to 0.5 AKT. Right now the bid for dseq 14049715 is still open. Providers normally have 5 minutes bid timeout by default and yours didn't timeout for one of the reasons:
You can read more on the bid deposits and escrow account here https://akash.network/docs/getting-started/intro-to-akash/payments/ Hope that helps. |
@AramCoin these ones aren't broadcasted by the provider address, and cannot. You can double check this by checking who is the tx owner - is not your provider address, hence isn't your provider who paid the fees associated with these txs, but the deployment/lease owner: |
|
@AramCoin I'll close this issue for now. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I was trying to support the project and was providing resources at a low cost to help the project via the Preactor app.
Unfortunately, the system in place with create bid/ close bid / create lease (happening several times per day) / withdraw lease (everyday) & close deployment is generating too many transaction fees for no reason and drained my wallet of 5 AKT in 2 months.
So without GPU lease it does not make really sense to provide resources as small provider. (8CPU / 20GB RAM / 500GB storage)
I got 1 deployment of 2 CPU, 4.29GB RAM and 1GB storage only.
The drainage is clearly visible on my wallet : https://www.mintscan.io/akash/address/akash1p6gzadp4dn5rxd7f32rkwvtr9gxjzmzal65e5r
Describe the solution you'd like
One solution would be to have a minimum usage from the provider that at least covers the cost of these transactions. (somedays they are multiple) Or even better these transactions should not be in place at each request as the information of the providers specifications with cost is already available when registered.
The deployer could select the provider and then only the deployer would incur the cost of creating lease.
Closing deployment fees should be on the deployer cost and not the provider as it is deployer choice.
Describe alternatives you've considered
The alternative today is to shut down the provider unfortunately as the earnings were like 1 AKT but the transactions fees incurred were 5 AKT. so a negative ROI (-4 AKT) + the electricity bill not counted. If the team thinks about real decentralization, this is by letting small providers to be able to generate revenues. If not it will be large data centers that will only provide the necessary resources to the network at low cost. ( whish already seems to be over-concentrated to only few providers) If small providers have to increase their price to cover these fees then we are not competitive anymore.
Search
Code of Conduct
Additional context
When people will realise that their wallet got drained because of the mechanism in place of the bids, they will complain and reject Akash network, even scream it as a scam... So maybe thinking about this could be a priority as it can blow up and provide wrong reputation for the long term. Especially since providers like me really want to help the project, I don't mind about the electricity fees, but losing tokens by providing resources does not make sense.the
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: