Notice: Polkadot has migrated to AssetHub. Balances, data, referenda, and other on-chain activity has moved to AssetHub.Learn more
The Free Validator Subsidy Program: A Schedule of Treasury Proposals.
Hello fellow Canaries!
One problem I have noticed is that there is a barrier to entry for individuals wanting to operate a Kusama
validator node. The Web3 foundation funds the Thousand Validator Programme to try to remedy this but it excludes people who cannot accumulate 50 KSM, more so with the recent price rally. As an independent validator, I found a competitive edge by charging 0% commission because nominators are attracted to higher returns. However, doing this has made me eat the costs for operating a server. The obvious trade-off for not earning commission is establishing a better reputation and gaining nominations, but what if the treasury helped out by subsidizing free validators? My proposal explores a program that does just that.
I have a background in economics and I have a firm understanding of game theory in the context of markets. Please examine my draft and point out any possible vulnerabilities. I have invested many hours in this so I hope that shows my dedication and good faith; I really want to offer my expertise to the community!
I know this isn't a conventional proposal related to tech development but I believe it would change Kusama for the better.
Here is my draft. Comments on the doc are more than welcome! Happy reading!
Comments (20)
Very interesting proposal that could really help new validators to get necessary nomination in a competitive environment. My concern would be to find a way to mitigate the "self validators" who actually charge 100% and nominate themselves: they could run the opposite by charging 0% and block new nominations since this is now allowed. This would at least require the validator to have more than 1 nominator.
Yes, I'm all for adding that criteria! Only free validators with more than 1 nomination would be eligible, or maybe only validators accepting nominations during the snapshot would be eligible. Great thinking! Edit: I have updated the draft to reflect this eligibility criteria.