It’s a good idea, but what about geographic ang hosters decentralization?
Good
I think it’s a great solution!
The current cap of bots assigned to a node is 25 bots.
Will Node Owners be able to Provide their Identity Details? Also I think the Node & Owner Joining the Network Date should be shown to the Delegators.
Here I want to highlight that certain Bots consumes too much rpc resources and Bot Rewards & Staking amount should take that also in consideration.
What about the arbitrum network.
The question is, now when the update will happen, the maximum number of bots 25, respectively, requests to alchemy will run out even faster, and the node will just shut down. Are there already working free rpc arbitrum or just hope that bots will make fewer requests? last month I fell out of the asset for almost a week…
Does this mean that those who do not have tokens for sufficient staking will be forced to leave the project?
Not really. This simply means that unfortunately they will have to find ways to raise their stake by at least 2k tokens. But I think it’s doable.
This proposal gives undue advantage to already established Validators in other chains to come to Forta network and earn while the smaller players who helped the network reach to this level will slowly leave network as operations will become unsustainable. FORTA had unique model of decentralization in comparison to all other chains, they are dominated by few large players as Validators which essentially makes them centralized. But in FORTA network, as node owners don’t earn much per node so its not that attractive for WHALES to run nodes and put in that much work but with this proposal, if node has higher stake then with same cost, owners earn much more. This Proposal needs Protection for Small Players who has supported network till date.
1 Like
Thanks community for rejecting the proposal. Feels so happy for all of us… Lets make FORTA win…
2 Likes
Thank you everyone for the active participation!
After an intense round of community discussions, the Snapshot vote which featured 444 voters, resulted in 2.1 million FORT no votes narrowly beating out the 2 million FORT pledged to approve the proposal.
It would be great to learn more about your concerns, suggestions and overall feedback to work on a new proposal.
2 Likes
2 and 3 doesnt look fair , bit assignments should be proportional to stake , same with reward
1 Like
I believe that one Person one node will be better. Especially people who KYCed should run nodes. This will be encourage more people to join set. Otherwise every person will run 100 nodes and people who run 1 node will stop to run and quit project. We want more people join the ecosystem not centralized system.
2 Likes
In my opinion, voting rights should be in proportion to the square root of the token amount. For example, 100 tokens should represent 10 votes, and 10000 tokens should represent 100 votes. because those who set up 100-200 nodes in the network and hold most of the tokens prevent the voting against them. Additional adjustments are required so that the network is resistant to sybill attacks and not controlled by a small minority of nodes.
1 Like
1.The number of bots depends on the sla and Delegated Stakeing. Is there a specific calculation method?we need more details
2,The limits of the maximum stake should be a slow growth process rather than an increase to 25k. It is unfair for those who have a high SLA but do not get many Delegated Stakeing. Therefore, It should be a slow growth curve of the maximum Delegated Stakeing
2. I think the highest weight should be allocated to the SLA rather than Delegated Stakeing. Delegated Stakeing is only to prevent the node from doing evil, not the more the better. If so, Who has more money should be rewarded more. This is very unfair,SLA weight should be 0.7
3.Bots do more evil than nodes, so the Staking of bot should be increased more
4.The memory limit should be increased to 16G
5.For example, now I have 20 robots, but I always keep a high score. But if the Staking amount of others that has the same score as me is more than my staking amount , Does it mean that my bots will leave? I am very sad about this
1 Like
1 person 1 node would make the system very hard to escale, and it would break the current state of the system. There are already a bunch of nodes with the same owner.
KYC was a requisite of Fortification phase, Forta right now is a permisionless network, and I think it should stay that way.
It is recommended to use 16g to increase the pledge amount to 5000
Regarding the proposal, the main reason why we say No is that there are too many entries that are not clear, and we can’t say yes without understanding each one very clearly
-
the relationship between stakes volume and reward:
Suppose there are 2 nodes with the same SLA=1.0, one stakes 2.5K, the other stakes 25K. Is the reward of the node that stakes 2.5K 1/10 of the node that stakes 25K? or the one stakes 2.5K will get nothing? -
About bot assignment:
“The Forta bot assignment algorithm will be modified so that scan nodes with higher stakes (more security) will receive new bot assignments before other scan nodes with equal or lower SLAs”, how to define the same SLA? 0.901 = 0.902? Suppose there are 2 nodes, one stakes 25K and SLA=0.901, the other stakes 2.5K and SLA=0.902, which node will the bot assign to? Then, if the node with SLA=0.902 drops to 0.90, will the bot immediately move to the 0.901 node, whatever how much it has stakes?
Therefore, before these questions are clarified, how can we be expected to choose yes directly?
I would like to see suggestions from those who voted “no”. If they don’t, it will undermine the entire system. A project that cares about safety cannot itself be endangered. The token should not be cheap and its price should not constantly fall.
Maybe it was not completely clear how to get bots. I propose to leave the rewards for the node, taking into account the SLA and an additional percentage of the delegation of tokens, if the node is working. Distribute bots between nodes with good SLA and make additional delegations from the team for these nodes. Also pick up this delegation if the node starts to work poorly and bots are added to another node
The maximum delegation should not be small. If I don’t run a node, I don’t have technical knowledge, then why do I need tokens? How to use them?