Current Ethereum/Arbitrum Migration Plan

32 ETH equal to 111,568 USD which is definitely something most of the world can’t afford on a single household.
32 META (where 1 STAKE = 1 META) is 327 USD which should cover expenses to run a node on a cloud hosting like DO and should attract small people’s validators.
META is required to swap STAKE to another token in the future or allow other tokens to be staked in the beacon chain.

But it isn’t clear to me how you plan on preventing a similar problem from happening on xdai.

Social signaling via delegation is a common way in delegated proof of stake consensuses like POSDAO. In a pure POS the best way will be enabling withdrawals via “the merge” as soon as possible to minimize impact of staking pools. Discouraging listings on centralized exchanges is another way of making “staking as a service” less attractive to exchanges.

While it’s unlikely that large staking pools will choose to run SBC validators, what’s stopping a handful of individuals (or DAOs) from controlling a significant % of the keys?

Based on the information from https://www.xdaichain.com/for-validators/consensus/stake-beacon-chain-r-and-d

Security Goal Prior to Merge
20K+ validators
640K+ STAKE

let’s see how distributed withdrawals keys will be

Have you considered using something like BrightID to try to limit the amount of validators any one individual or entity can run?

xDai partnered with Dappnode to make staking on physical nodes more attractive to individual hardware owners thus to make staking more decentralized.

Btw the SBC contracts are audited and we can expect launching of the network quite soon POA Network – “Stake Beacon Chain (SBC) deposit” – Chainsecurity

2 Likes

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

let’s see how distributed withdrawals keys will be

Are you open to using BrightID to try to limit the amount of keys per individual?

1 Like

I like the idea to encourage using Proof of KYC to get subsidy/ extra reward but not for limiting access for non-KYCed validators

It’s not KYC. Just proof of uniqueness. You can still be pseudonymous

2 Likes

@igorbarinov I think with such an approach you could make a credible argument as to why you might end up being more decentralised than mainnet (without it, I don’t believe there will be much difference).

2 Likes