Rise in the staking treshold?

Hey Polkadot community.
I’ve just discovered that my nomination isn’t applied anymore although validators aren’t oversubscribed.

As you can see it’s probably due to the fact, that I’ve got the lowest balance.

Everything went fine after this explanation.

But now it seems that the level of 200 DOT isn’t sufficient anymore.
What did I miss? Did you insert a new mechanism so that the one with the lowest level gets thrown out? :thinking:

1 Like

Hey @Feynman! Sorry you’re having troubles. The minimum rewarded stake has increased recently. Please refer to this thread for more information.

Ty. It’s a helpful tool.

I’ll just share my thoughts here, so you can see how this problem could affect the Polkadot Network. :wink:

As I started staking the minium treshold was around the 200 Dot. By that time it was ok, refering to the price. Feeling more confident with the mechanism I also explained it to a friend who had deeper pockets and is far away of the treshold.

So now the treshold moves upwards and prevents me from staking unless I buy in more on a higher price. And that happens while my friend is far away of the threshold earning nice on his stake.
Or put it in another way (only thought experiment): I’d have to pay 31$/Dot to my friend, who earns it without doing much and only because I helped him.

Scaling exactly that problem up to the whole Polkadot Network could embrace oligarchic structures.
Since deep pockets also mean higher voting rights, the problem might get squared.

It becomes more and more unaffordable for ordinary people to get into staking, while the amount staked by the bigger fish rises every day. Of course there are services from exchanges, but I feel good doing it by myself. That’s the sense of it all. (Exchanges also take their profit).

I hope you’ll fix that soon. By the way, that’s only a impression from my side. I don’t really know how devs or others see it. That’s why I’d love to read more reports on how you handle it. :wink:

1 Like

I totally hear you on this. It’s like, the “rich get richer” sort of thing, while the smart early adopters get shafted despite genuinely trying to help the network as a whole.

Stake-weighted voting could risk increasing centralization, as you point out.

I’m actually not a dev, and I’m not affiliated with Web3 or Parity. I’m just a community member and enthusiast. :slight_smile:

That said, the parity and open source dev community is working on a fix for the minimum stake issue, and there are some really creative and interesting ideas in the works for making voting more equitable.

If you check out the github page from the thread I linked to you, they talk about the possibility of off-loading all computation from the relay chain onto parachains, except parachain consensus itself. This would alleviate the computational bottle-neck that causes the minimum stake issue.

One project that has a fascinating (imo) approach to equitable voting is Encointer. They’re intending to solicit crowd funding in order to become a “common good” parachain that can offer this unique service to any program in the ecosystem.

If you’re interested in helping either of these projects I’m sure the dev teams would be happy to have your help!


Ty for your reply and your additional sources. :+1:

1 Like