Just curious -
As the price of PRV goes up, is it possible that at some point in the future the Node staking fee would reduce? It’s currently at 1750PRV, which would make it cost $1750 once PRV gets to $1, which could start to make it more challenging to get more and more people to get Nodes (which is one of our goals.)
At higher PRV prices, lowering the staking fee could invite more people to get Nodes.
In fact, the current situation is better for the team since they can sell pNodes easily.
Oh thats right, the pNode.
I wonder what the stats are in terms of whose buying a pNode vs a vNode. It seems to me that vNode growth is bigger but I could be wrong.
This and that may give us some insight into the numbers. So,
#vNode: ~1000
#pNode: ~360
#Nodes in Pool: ~160 (In fact, they are vNodes in terms of the revenue of the core team even if they are pNodes)
I understand where you’re coming from and why you’d want this done but we should look at all the other coins out there. If you want to participate in other coins that have been around for a while you have to have a lot of money. Keeping the node cost pegged at the initial 1750 means that node operators will continue operating steadily. If the price was lowered for entry you’d see lots of new node operators coming and going as they pleased, thus taking away from dedicated long term node operators profit margins.
That is true. But also, if PRV is up to $1 or more, lowering the staking fee makes the entry point in terms of $USD, the same, or similar. It would just balance things out.
One way or another, for the network’s sake, # of Nodes will need to continue to increase in volume. There will need to be a viable path for that to occur. An entry point of $1750+ may be too high to expect new validators to come into the network in volume.
As @abduraman said above, maybe the team’s solution for that is the physical Nodes and the Node Tree that is being released. If that’s the case, the shift of attention will be away from vNodes and all efforts towards pNodes.
But I’m curious to hear from the Dev Team about this.
If staking fee remains 1750PRV, how do we keep scaling new validators as price of PRV increases? @annie
Unless I am reading it wrong (which I could be!), I think they are actually going to the opposite direction with this:
If you read the last post in that Dynamic Committee Size post, once they implement Dynamic Committee Size, they intend to raise the staking fee as the number of validators goes up in down in relation to the available committee spots.
Personally, I think that works fine for me as an “early adopter” it keeps me well rewarded and makes it more expensive for new people to get in later and compete with my nodes for committee spots.
I am sure there are reasons other than that though for doing it!
I agree.
In addition, the early pioneers in PRV (or any other coin respectively) shouldn’t be penalized with lower rewards for having gotten in early than those who got in late.
This right here. Look at every other coin out there. For comparison, if you want to be a masternode on Dash it’ll cost you a whooping 80,000 USD! I understand that Incognito nodes are not masternodes but it’s a simple calculation of supply and demand. The more nodes we have the less we will make (unless demand for the network skyrockets). Lowering the bar for entry to be a node hurts early supporters of the project.
Well, what if the lowered fee applied to early adopters as well?
Here’s an exaggerated example: PRV hits $10 a token. So they lower the staking fee to 100 tokens. ($1000 to start). However all current nodes can take advantage. So my one node from the beginning can be unstaked and then turned into 17 nodes, sell the 50 tokens for profit and call it day?
I think this would be the equivalent of taking a pricey wine and pouring it into a bigger container and filling the now empty void with a cheaper wine. It doesn’t offer the same effect. The price barrier to entry ensures quality node operators and rewards early adopters. What’s the point of everyone currently running a node when we could wait 6, 12 or 24 months down the road when the project is more stable. Node operators are currently having to deal with a lot of risk that this network will be available later on.
Let’s examine your exaggerated example some more. Let’s say the price of 1 PRV does hit $10. At that time the Incognito team / community decides to dilute the cost to run a node. Now costing only $1,000 per node staked. Thus, you run into a ton of nodes jumping on the network dividing up the reward share even more. The cost to operate a node is only going to continue to become more and more costly as the network grows.
If we need more nodes maybe this is needed. I know right now there is a funded project to add something like 400 more nodes. I think that is going to be hit easily based on the rate they have been being added.
Right now, there is something like 1,400 nodes and only 10,000 wallet downloads, so it seems to be the main thing needed is more day to day people just using Incognito and PRV.
One thing I wonder is if something happened and Incognito caught fire with tens of thousands of more users is Incognito ready? I don’t know. Maybe more nodes are needed from that perspective?
If that happens and it seems like we have a shortage of nodes I would say whatever needs to be done to encourage more nodes needs to be done.
Does anyone know if 1,750 just a random number the team chose, or does it have some significance to the network? I ask because I thought it was interesting in the Dynamic Committee Size post the idea was always to increase in an increment of 1,750. Why not 500 after the 1,750 initial stake? I have no technical knowledge so maybe this is obvious…
All good points.
I’m still curious to hear from the Devs on a viable path for Nodes to continue to be increased on the network once the cost of staking one node starts to cost $1750+ and might then become inaccessible to your average crypto investor.
I had completely forgotten about pNodes. Therefore, I am even more firm on the idea that the cost to stake a node should not be lowered. If someone doesn’t have the funding to stake / operate a node should they really be operating a node?
The core team has already answered your question with how beautifully they have built the network. Let’s say PRV does make it to $10 or even $100 and someone wishes to operate a node but doesn’t have the funding to do so. They can simply purchase a node with a reward split until they can find the node themselves.
It wouldn’t matter. The amount of nodes operating on each epoch is set in stone and having 10,000 or 10 million nodes online would not effect how many nodes are available for every epoch.
Good point. It seems to be like the growth of network vs users would need to be balanced, to a degree.
It’s my understanding that in order for Incog to be considered to have legitimacy and adopted by larger crypto networks, the number of nodes (validators) in the network would need to be large. How large? I’m not sure.
But that’s part of why the team is currently pushing to grow the node/validator size right now. A low validator number would be a barrier to expansion.
1750 is just fine. With such high inflation right now tons of new coins will come into the network over the next year or two.
We probably will test the lows again. The main thing to focus on is just keeping up with inflation rate.