recommended leverage-based pool ranking system #10
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Pool ranking scores in wallet browsers have a significant impact on delegator choices. When pledge becomes the most important factor for total pool size lower leverage factors are more desirable. Lists should be sorted by leverage and presented in an ascending order with the lowest leverage pools first. | ||
| Pool ranking scores in wallet browsers have a significant and powerful game theory impact on delegator pool choices, yet it is often overlooked and not transparent in wallets. | ||
|
|
||
| When pledge becomes the most important factor for total pool size, lower leverage factors are more desirable. Lists should be sorted by leverage and presented in an ascending order with the lowest leverage pools first. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ascending order likely needs to be changed to descending order.
Comment on lines
281
to
282
| - A is 2, has range (0,10), can be tweaked | ||
| - B is 2, has range (0,10), can be tweaked |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A and B likely will be floats. Anytime a float is desired use 2.0 instead of 2. Range should be ( 0.0, 10.0 ) otherwise the assumption is integers.
|
Incorporated prior round 1 comments, cleaned up some grammar, and simplified some wording. |
ccgarant
commented
Aug 3, 2022
| @@ -262,13 +262,11 @@ The winners of block forks and slot battles are determined by which pool has a l | |||
|
|
|||
| Pool ranking scores in wallet browsers have a significant and powerful game theory impact on delegator pool choices, yet it is often overlooked and not transparent in wallets. | |||
|
|
|||
| When pledge becomes the most important factor for total pool size, lower leverage factors are more desirable. Lists should be sorted by leverage and presented in an ascending order with the lowest leverage pools first. | |||
|
|
|||
| The following is guidance for what a pool ranking system should be prioritizing pledge and low leverage. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
deleted sentence, seemed redundant.
ccgarant
commented
Aug 3, 2022
|
|
||
| ### Ranking Equation | ||
|
|
||
| The recommended ranking equation starts with a highest score of 10. The pools are down-ranked solely based on leverage and fees factors. | ||
| The recommended ranking equation starts with the highest score of 10. The pools are down-ranked solely based on leverage and fee factors. |
ccgarant
commented
Aug 3, 2022
| @@ -278,11 +276,11 @@ The recommended ranking equation starts with a highest score of 10. The pools ar | |||
| fee_factor_term = C * pool_fee_margin | |||
|
|
|||
| //parameters | |||
| - A is 2, has range (0,10), can be tweaked | |||
| - B is 2, has range (0,10), can be tweaked | |||
| - A is 2.0, has range (0,10.0), can be tweaked | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
added grammar to denote "float" type.
ccgarant
commented
Aug 3, 2022
| When pledge becomes the most important factor for total pool size, lower leverage factors are more desirable. Lists should be sorted by leverage and presented in an ascending order with the lowest leverage pools first. | ||
|
|
||
| The following is guidance for what a pool ranking system should be prioritizing pledge and low leverage. | ||
| When pledge becomes the most important factor for total pool size, lower leverage factors are more desirable. Lists should be sorted by leverage and presented in an descending order with the lowest leverage pools first. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
was "ascending" is now "descending"
ccgarant
commented
Aug 3, 2022
| - pool_leverage = delegation / pledge | ||
| - pool_stake = pledge + delegation | ||
| - saturation_stake = pool_size soft-cap (e.g., 68M Ada based on k-parameter) | ||
| - saturation_stake = pool_size soft-cap (e.g., 68M₳ based on k-parameter) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
was "68M Ada" is now "68MA" for consistency in document.
ccgarant
commented
Aug 3, 2022
| @@ -319,25 +317,25 @@ The ranking score is intentionally simple and familiar. Pools will be ranked out | |||
|
|
|||
| ### A Pool's Life-Cycle | |||
|
|
|||
| A leverage based ranking system will create interesting pool free market business dynamics. It's envisioned a pool will undergo business life-cycles based on price supply and demand (fees) and leverage (pledge raising to grow the business) as described below. Currently, the yield-based pool ranking creates a market based on fees (driving yield), but not leverage. | |||
| A leverage based ranking system will create interesting pool free market business dynamics. It's envisioned a pool will undergo "business life-cycles" based on price supply and demand (fees) and leverage (pledge raising to grow the business) as described below. Currently, the yield-based pool ranking creates a market based on fees (driving yield), but not leverage. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
put business life-cycle in quotes
ccgarant
commented
Aug 3, 2022
|
|
||
| **Grade A Territory- Growth** | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Start-up: Start with a pledge "down-payment", very low leverage, very low fees, become highly ranked. (Grade A Zone) | ||
| 1. Start-up: Start with a pledge "down-payment", very low leverage, very low fees, become highly ranked. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
general bloat and simplification cleanup throughout this section here.
ccgarant
commented
Aug 10, 2022
|
|
||
| //variables | ||
| leverage_factor = 10 * (pool_leverage/L)^A | ||
| saturation_factor = 2 * (pool_stake/(saturation_stake * C))^B |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
added saturation_factor that basically kicks in at 90% saturated with the C term.
ccgarant
commented
Aug 16, 2022
| //parameters | ||
| - E is 100, has range (0,100_000), can be tweaked | ||
| - fee cannot be less than minFee | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removed grading system that was here. Also simplified a pool's business life-cycle below.
michael-liesenfelt
merged commit a4570f3
into
michael-liesenfelt:CIP-Liesenfelt-Shelleys_Voltaire_decentralization_update
KtorZ
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 1, 2023
* recommended pool ordering system added * comments round 1 incorporated * added saturation_factor and some cleanup * added pool-ranking-analysis spreadsheet * removed grading to be objective, and simplified.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Recommended Leverage-Based Pool Ranking System for CIP-50
A recommended leverage-based pool ranking system is proposed to be added to the CIP as guidance. Further ranking system testing and analysis will be done to test validity and tweaking, however initial analysis yields positive and favorable results on low leverage and fee pools. This section was added to address a great comment to include the pool ranking system as it has a significant and powerful impact on the total game theory of pool selection, and thus decentralization: Comment by @SebastianForte
The recommendation herein contains:
All comments definitely welcomed :)