Some thoughts on Stake Pools and Decentralisation, a possible solution?
There is a situation where 830 pools have yet to make a single block. This means all the remaining blocks were spread amongst the other 325 Pools. I think many of us think this is a sub-optimal situation, both from the point of view of decentralisation and also for the viability of a lot of pool operations. I think the number of 340ADA was arrived at with a figure of around $200 a month being the minimum operating expenses that were viable.
When d=0 this is going to mean around a 2M ADA delegation of stake to get the average 2-3 blocks an EPOCH and hence the 340 ADA per EPOCH operating costs.
Just over 900 pools currently running have under 2M stake so they will in effect not be viable when d=0
I am sure that many many simulations were done to arrive at the current parameters and there are quite a number of things that could change to spread the delegated ADA across a greater number of the smaller pools.
Change to k increasing "dramatically", Charles Hoskinson has himself suggested that this would happen in the future. (Another throw away line was that IOHK would prefer not to be running their own pools and could distribute their stake to other pools, I can't find the video right now but it was that or some paraphrasing of it. - We'll come back to this).
Change to a0 to encourage larger pledges and hence not so many multiple pools?
Change to the min. fee per EPOCH of 340ADA?
I can support k increasing, I think it would have to increase quite a lot and quite suddenly to spread the ADA down to a significant number of smaller pools though , so I think its a pretty crude tool.
Changing a0 would probably not spread delegation much at all, in fact it would possibly have a tendency to concentrate stake in larger pools , who already have the funds to increase delegated stake if it were required.
Changing the minimum operation fee of 340 per ADA is more tricky. The fee of $200 equivalnt (roughly) per month to operate a pool is not unre...