Are validators in the same cluster (eg same exchange, same user) more likely than unrelated validators to miss attestations at the same time? If so, can we tweak rewards to favor decentralized staking?
Possibly yes.
ethresear.ch/t/supporting-decentralized-staking-through-more-anti-correlation-incentives/19116
All for exploring how we can tweak rewards in favo4 of decentralisation but we also need to make sure to not punish bigger clusters too much as they make up most of the actual validators no?
1Loving all of these! Mister Vitalik🌊🧜♀️ nice to meet you 🧜♀️ I am your favorite crypto mermaid 💕💕
1@watchereth @carlosbeltran figured you'd have some good perspectives here
1This looks pretty solid! I like it.
Although I didn't get why there's such a huge difference between Expected algo 1 & 2 (up to one order of mag!), but that doesn't really affect the conclusion I guess.1welcome back @vitalik / if you see this, know that we value your presence and appreciate your time. GG
1I have always been in favour of having more decentralisation in every aspect of the validators hence completely in agreement glad to see this being discussed in
1My short answer is that every single
point of failure or decrease in network availability/performance should have some type of consequences. Validators should operate as if they would be businesses.Another option that could be more favorable for decentralization and low effort validation would be just to have smaller staking rewards on failures/degradation for those validators that are not expected to perform at best form.
I am more questioning whether the one fits all solutions is needed or there could be a more progressive approach.
20
