00:00:07.159,00:00:10.159
Brandon Tucker: ok great we can be sure relevant ppl from Marinade are there thanks!
00:00:28.727,00:00:31.727
Mike: The marinade proposal for delegating is interesting and worthy of a discussion.
00:03:31.167,00:03:34.167
Kirill Ch: Is it safe to install a TPU traffic classifier on the mainnet validator server?
00:03:38.226,00:03:41.226
Blake Bartenbach: Yes
00:04:06.103,00:04:09.103
Brian Long: Michael Laine-Hubbard is also a Block Zero organizer
00:04:22.071,00:04:25.071
Tim Garcia: Sorry! I forgot Michael
00:04:40.451,00:04:43.451
Austin Redacted: Is there any informal information for the event details?
00:05:02.908,00:05:05.908
Austin Redacted: Great, thanks!
00:05:12.192,00:05:15.192
Brian Smith: <https://lu.ma/block0>
00:05:27.288,00:05:30.288
Austin Redacted: Exactly what I was looking for^
00:06:54.734,00:06:57.734
Tim Garcia: StakePoint event: <https://lu.ma/durn97l8>
00:07:36.363,00:07:39.363
Austin Redacted: It looks like dates overlap.
00:07:41.828,00:07:44.828
Brandon Tucker: its a time zone thing in luma
00:07:49.367,00:07:52.367
Austin Redacted: Got it. Thanks.
00:09:42.502,00:09:45.502
Max Sherwood: maybe some background on why the 50% number was implemented / designed originally? why not more, why not less?
00:09:48.849,00:09:51.849
Brian Long: Beyond greed, what is the motivation for SIMD 96?
00:09:51.631,00:09:54.631
Tim Garcia: <https://forum.solana.com/t/proposal-for-enabling-the-reward-full-priority-fee-to-validator-on-solana-mainnet-beta/1456>
00:10:30.738,00:10:33.738
Zantetsu: I can answer that
00:10:32.840,00:10:35.840
Zantetsu: I have the numbers
00:11:27.902,00:11:30.902
Tim Garcia: SIMD 96: <https://github.com/solana-foundation/solana-improvement-documents/blob/main/proposals/0096-reward-collected-priority-fee-in-entirety.md>
00:11:57.009,00:12:00.009
Tim Garcia: Discussion happening in discord in #vote-full-prio-fee-to-validators
00:13:57.091,00:14:00.091
Zantetsu: First priority fees were in epoch 306 but they were very small at first
00:14:09.072,00:14:12.072
Zantetsu: 306 is first epoch with prio fees
00:14:16.972,00:14:19.972
Max Sherwood: anyone have the numbers around current burn and effect on SOL supply growth?
00:14:42.074,00:14:45.074
Andrei Montchik: <https://solana.com/docs/core/fees#why-burn-some-fees>
00:16:23.467,00:16:26.467
Matthew Cammell: what percentage of validators are abusing side deals?
00:16:44.600,00:16:47.600
Tim Garcia: I do not know ^
00:17:08.917,00:17:11.917
Zantetsu: Max priority fees are roughly 6% as large as staking rewards right now; staking rewards are 100% inflation, so right now priority fees represent about 3% deflation
00:18:09.076,00:18:12.076
Max Sherwood: ok so as a SOL holder I dont really care then
00:18:24.478,00:18:27.478
Max Sherwood: i.e am not strongly against this proposal as a SOL holder
00:19:00.491,00:19:03.491
Sammy Harris: 3% doesn't exactly sound insignificant
00:19:25.098,00:19:28.098
Max Sherwood: yes but if the effect is to strongly bolster validator profitability I think it's net positive for the network and SOL as an asset
00:19:27.051,00:19:30.051
Ionut Scirlet: It’s 3 % now but it can be much more in the future.
00:19:40.673,00:19:43.673
Max Sherwood: true
00:20:01.564,00:20:04.564
Brian Long: Overclock, that's an excellent point.
00:20:03.629,00:20:06.629
Michael Hubbard: could be much less too, historically its been less if we look at the past 4 years
00:20:08.755,00:20:11.755
Brian Long: Legal advice required!
00:20:35.857,00:20:38.857
Tim Garcia: <https://github.com/solana-foundation/solana-improvement-documents/pull/123>
00:22:05.224,00:22:08.224
Matthew Cammell: 3% less deflation is a lot imo, everyone's sol looses value and is essentially transferred to the validators unless they share their rewards, do I have this correct?
00:22:43.568,00:22:46.568
Sammy Harris: If base fees were dynamic, that could still be half burned right? not exactly sure how something like that would work though
00:22:47.435,00:22:50.435
Zantetsu: Yes Matthew. Presumably if these fees are distributed to stakers, then the 3% burn that is distributed to "everyone", is instead distributed just to stakers.
00:23:28.015,00:23:31.015
Zantetsu: e.g. deflation benefits everyone, block reward redistribution to stakers benefits stakers
00:23:50.858,00:23:53.858
A X: 50% to validator and 50% to staker or something like that
00:24:09.347,00:24:12.347
Max Sherwood: let's remember that the majority of validators were not profitable a year ago (my analysis), generally I am in favor of boosting validator profitability
00:24:33.084,00:24:36.084
Ryan Rzepecki: 100
00:24:42.601,00:24:45.601
Michael Hubbard: it's the entity jurisdicion not the physical server location
00:24:47.380,00:24:50.380
Ryan Rzepecki: if you have US stakers, you may still have the issue
00:24:48.861,00:24:51.861
Michael Hubbard: (not a lawyer)
00:24:54.523,00:24:57.523
Matthew Cammell: yeah, im not sure if this makes sense but my knowledge is limited as it is a standard for validators to share the least amount of black rewards as they can. Validators usually market with 0% commission
00:25:14.976,00:25:17.976
Matthew Cammell: block *
00:25:19.884,00:25:22.884
Ionut Scirlet: Plus you can be seen as money transmitter if you send funds directly to delegators, nok
00:27:56.160,00:27:59.160
Sammy Harris: From my understanding: base fees are paid regardless, so you cant game that to determine what txns are in a block. Priority fees determine which txns are included, and its better for validators to accept fees on the side to include txns where they dont have to burn half.
00:28:12.525,00:28:15.525
Michael Hubbard: the feedback to increase prio fees might take too long to hit within your slot group.
Base fees are still burned so there's still a cost to doing that
00:29:38.258,00:29:41.258
Matthew Cammell: how will this affect Jito tips?
00:29:50.370,00:29:53.370
Michael Hubbard: it may reduce the demand for jito tips
00:30:26.066,00:30:29.066
Michael Hubbard: SIMD 96 is loosely coupled in relevant to SIMD 109 and 123
109: Native tip program
123: block reward sharing mechanism
00:31:13.183,00:31:16.183
Matthew Cammell: Thanks Michael
00:32:00.592,00:32:03.592
Tim Garcia: Reminder of the forum link: <https://forum.solana.com/t/proposal-for-enabling-the-reward-full-priority-fee-to-validator-on-solana-mainnet-beta/1456>
00:32:05.251,00:32:08.251
Brian Smith: Lots of moving pieces but think scheduler is bigger moving piece for jito tips. I don't think priority fee distribution will have an impact
00:32:17.116,00:32:20.116
Tim Garcia: Please make your thoughts known there ^
00:32:19.575,00:32:22.575
Zantetsu: I don't see how any of this would change JITO tips or priority fee levels.
00:32:31.679,00:32:34.679
Zantetsu: The people who are paying those things don't care where the fees go, they just care what they accomplish.
00:32:48.727,00:32:51.727
Zantetsu: So changing where the fees go shouldn't have any effect on the decisions they are making on what kind of tips and levels of fees to be paying
00:33:54.541,00:33:57.541
Michael Hubbard: jito tip of 0.05 SOL to get included vs priority fee of 0.1 right now (same net output to validator after burn) vs in future prio fee of just 0.05 in theory it puts priorirty fees in better competition with jito and other channels
00:34:11.583,00:34:14.583
John Hawkins: Discord discussion on SIMD96: <https://discord.com/channels/428295358100013066/1237886089755234414>
00:35:10.784,00:35:13.784
Zantetsu: But the priority of JITO bundles relative to regular tx has nothing to do with fees; every JITO bundle has higher priority than every non-JITO bundled tx regardless of fees isn't that true?
00:35:38.673,00:35:41.673
Brian Smith: To zan's point, tx submitters care about cost to them, not the destination. If this changes the equilibrium priority fee then that could change the calculus but main issue is jitter in priority fees vs. jito tips
00:36:25.059,00:36:28.059
Brian Smith: Currently jito fees are mulitples of priority fees per block despite only using a fraction of the blockspace
00:36:28.412,00:36:31.412
Max Sherwood: solana is one of the only networks with this many validators, which is great
00:36:44.842,00:36:47.842
Max Sherwood: ideally it doesnt rise and fall based on bull vs bear market
00:37:07.956,00:37:10.956
Ryan Rzepecki: I seems to be getting worse not better, if there is an expectation to rebate priority fees and block rewards
00:37:18.413,00:37:21.413
Ryan Rzepecki: *it
00:37:40.802,00:37:43.802
Bryan Cole: helius+jupiter
00:38:12.228,00:38:15.228
Matthew Cammell: Wouldn't a forced lets say 1% commission be a better solution for smaller validators, rather than increasing block rewards, as these big guys charge commission anyway
00:38:38.291,00:38:41.291
Tim Garcia: I think that would increase the race to rebate
00:39:34.457,00:39:37.457
Matthew Cammell: wont that race then just be block rewards now
00:39:45.078,00:39:48.078
Blake Bartenbach: Yes, keep in mind that the larger validators will get this revenue stream as well and likely pay it out to stakers (which is already happening). This makes it even harder to compete and attract stake unless the smaller validators are also refunding block rewards to stakers.
00:39:54.445,00:39:57.445
Kirill Ch: Given the strict enforcement action outlined by the Solana Foundation Delegation Program, what best practices and proactive measures should validators follow to avoid losing their delegation stake and ensure secure and reliable RPC services without inadvertently compromising network integrity?
00:40:22.994,00:40:25.994
Matthew Cammell: but I guess the public doesn't understand block rewards as much as commission yet
00:40:37.419,00:40:40.419
Brian Long: Michael, I like that idea
00:41:13.557,00:41:16.557
Tim Garcia: @Kirill, if you are running a validator based on the setup described by agave or jito you will not be affected.
00:41:29.461,00:41:32.461
Zantetsu: Unless you buy the stake with directed stake of course
00:41:37.417,00:41:40.417
Chainflow: Michael, so the distribution mechanism is changing, however the voting process is the same, w/the addition of the claim requirement?
00:41:41.516,00:41:44.516
Michael Hubbard: here's the distributor tool fyi: <https://github.com/jito-foundation/distributor>
00:42:00.772,00:42:03.772
Max Sherwood: most validators have <100k stake btw
<https://solanacompass.com/statistics/decentralization>
00:42:17.051,00:42:20.051
Michael Hubbard: @Chainflow yes it's just that validators need to first claim their vote tokens rather than being airdropped to them. the airdrop mechanism has float conversion concerns and the transactions were struggling to go through last time requiring some messy manual reconciliation
00:43:28.353,00:43:31.353
Non-Fungible Programmer: As somebody who has deployed a testnet validator but hasn't taken the plunge to mainnet yet, this is extremely interesting to me and I appreciate everyone's feedback 🙏
00:43:52.769,00:43:55.769
Max Sherwood: Lido onboarded us to their set before we were even on mainnet, they took a chance on us and we got 200k SOL staked. But now they shut down sadly
00:44:15.332,00:44:18.332
Max Sherwood: thankfully SFDP pays votes if you can get onboarded
00:44:21.977,00:44:24.977
Bryan Cole: This is a problem that people have been trying to solve for 3+ years.
00:44:28.315,00:44:31.315
Kirill Ch: @Tim, glad to hear that! I'm using Jito, so all good!
00:44:32.258,00:44:35.258
Ryan Rzepecki: the vote fees is another lever to pull
00:44:40.050,00:44:43.050
Ryan Rzepecki: lower the operating cost
00:45:09.681,00:45:12.681
Chainflow: Yes, Brian C, and I think it's still unsolved. It's hopeful that we can at least have the conversations, as a precursor to action.
00:45:44.335,00:45:47.335
Max Sherwood: my point was just that if/when SOL goes back to $30 and on-chain activity falls (no more meme trading) we dont want 75% of the validator set to be unprofitable again
00:45:50.396,00:45:53.396
Blake Bartenbach: I still think more revenue paid out will help larger validators more than small validators.
00:46:03.443,00:46:06.443
Bryan Cole: Definitely, and its going to get worse as native teams come in, e.g Helius and Juptier because they are pulling stake from smaller validators and not from Coinbases, etc.
00:46:39.412,00:46:42.412
Bryan Cole: Agree Max 1000%, my comment was to Austin that people have been trying to solve this problem.
00:46:40.877,00:46:43.877
Blake Bartenbach: Large validators don't need the extra income, so they'll just advertise extra APY that small guys can't compete with.
00:46:41.744,00:46:44.744
Michael Hubbard: it's a shame thoes ecosystem team aren't on this call now that they run substantial validators
00:46:42.634,00:46:45.634
Ryan Rzepecki: definitely bryan -
00:46:53.651,00:46:56.651
Blake Bartenbach: Right, Michael.
00:47:11.793,00:47:14.793
Max Sherwood: the perfect scenerio is just that Marinade and Jito grow 10x, really
00:47:12.013,00:47:15.013
Blake Bartenbach: I raised that point before. They tend to be less involved in the community.
00:47:54.023,00:47:57.023
Michael Hubbard: Max, not necessarily, that's a form of stake concentration
00:47:59.543,00:48:02.543
Blake Bartenbach: Not to paint them all with the same brush - but we've seen the lack of responsiveness before with teams that aren't mainly focused on running a validator.
00:48:13.991,00:48:16.991
Ryan Rzepecki: I think thats the way it is going for sure
00:48:19.088,00:48:22.088
Max Sherwood: @michael yeah fair, but I mean liquid staking as a whole needs to grow on solana still
00:48:21.870,00:48:24.870
Tim Garcia: Priority queue: <https://solana.org/faq#ecosystem_contributor_priority_queue_experimental>
00:49:53.484,00:49:56.484
Max Sherwood: my very bearish analysis from a year ago:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDGKjMxDgsM>
00:51:37.741,00:51:40.741
Matthew Cammell: But setting commission reduces the chances you get stake from stake pools, if not making the chance close to 0
00:51:48.872,00:51:51.872
Michael Hubbard: 4% seems relatively competitive to me
00:51:57.002,00:52:00.002
Michael Hubbard: stake pool race to zero is a conversation that should be had with them
00:52:09.835,00:52:12.835
Matthew Cammell: I agree
00:52:13.047,00:52:16.047
Michael Hubbard: in a way it sometimes feels like stake pools are more sensitive to APY than the average staker
00:52:22.475,00:52:25.475
Michael Hubbard: or at least more sensitive than the average staker of their size
00:52:27.689,00:52:30.689
Matthew Cammell: yes agreed
00:52:28.319,00:52:31.319
Zantetsu: @Max I don't agree at all! The perfect scenario is that individuals make direct staking choices, not that it all gets concentrated into staking choices made by a few participants.
00:52:56.551,00:52:59.551
Overclock Validator: Memecoins are the greatest support of the validator ecosystem, how can we further support these efforts
00:53:25.990,00:53:28.990
Ryan Rzepecki: Helius should just market buy pumpfun with their block reward rebate :-)
00:53:27.709,00:53:30.709
Matthew Cammell: making it harder for us smaller guys, that being said we don't have a mainnet-beta val yet
00:53:28.085,00:53:31.085
Ben Hawkins: <https://solana.org/faq#ecosystem_contributor_priority_queue_experimental>
00:53:50.501,00:53:53.501
Max Sherwood: @zan fair enough but as a staker, why stake with 1 validator when you could stake with Marinade? (and diversify across 100 validators)
00:54:23.007,00:54:26.007
Zantetsu: @Max it's trivial to spread stake manually. Someone just has to bother building good UI for it.
00:54:23.841,00:54:26.841
Overman MV: smartcontract risk
00:55:11.697,00:55:14.697
Chainflow: One point on that is that if you look at the Nakamoto Coefficients on Cosmos-based network, most are < 10.
00:55:16.178,00:55:19.178
Zantetsu: Marinade has Marinade Native but they hold stake authority so it's kind of in-between
00:55:37.572,00:55:40.572
Max Sherwood: I'm a liquid staking maximalist haha
(H2O Nodes is named that for a reason)
(instant liquidity instead of waiting 1 epoch to unstake)
00:55:37.958,00:55:40.958
Chainflow: <https://nakaflow.io/>
00:55:40.092,00:55:43.092
Matthew Cammell: hey Michael, we are from SA too :) would you be open to us buying you a coffee and asking some questions some time?
00:56:46.119,00:56:49.119
Ben Hawkins: 6%
00:57:08.134,00:57:11.134
Non-Fungible Programmer: @Zan I've added you on Discord; I'd be interested in brainstorming with you about that interface for distributing stake; I may be in a position to help bring this to fruition
00:57:11.156,00:57:14.156
Michael Hubbard: Hey Matthew, send me a dm :)
00:57:24.108,00:57:27.108
Matthew Cammell: Will do :)
00:57:37.120,00:57:40.120
Brandon Tucker: forum post for Marinade discusses some commission ideas too so please check it out and comment <https://forum.marinade.finance/t/proposal-new-delegation-strategy/1315>
00:57:40.335,00:57:43.335
Kirill Ch: thx bye
This editable transcript was computer generated and might contain errors. People can also change the text after it was created.
Tim Garcia: Alright, welcome everyone to the sauna Foundation validator. Discussion, May 9th 2024. Today we're gonna do the normal updates talk about an educational Workshop. So reminders from upcoming events around breakpoint block zero and the stakepoint event presented by marinade. And then we'll have some time to talk about simd96 changing from 50% burn of priority fees to 100% of priority fees going to validators. And then any other topics people want to bring up?
Tim Garcia: We go. So first and foremost 11733 is currently recommended for mainnet beta this includes some congestion fixes or I should say improvements to congestion. So If you have not yet recommend doing so. The details of the chains are in the release notes, but they shall be congestion focused. If you are participating SP, please upgrade by Epoch 615. It's a minimum required version now in SFTP
Tim Garcia: for testnet 11812 is currently still recommended. There should be a release of 11813 relatively soon. I don't know exactly when that's coming out, but I would expect it within a week once that's out and it's looking good on testnet but perhaps on Main net if some small percentage of stake tries it we'll begin to upgrade and downgrade cycle on testnet. So look out for that 1.18. New release and potentially doing a normal upgrade and downgrade cycle intestine or to bring 1.18 to main net.
Tim Garcia: Any question about either those?
Blake Bartenbach: Yeah, I have just a quick question that link shows the Agave repo.
Tim Garcia: Yep.
Blake Bartenbach: I'm still cloning. The Solano Labs repo. Is there any reason we should be using that mirror or should we all be switching over to agave?
Tim Garcia: It's probably a good idea to switch over to Agave whenever it's convenient for you. I believe in the 2.0 release the slana install will not work anymore. So the sooner the better.
Tim Garcia: Yep.
Tim Garcia: All right any other thoughts questions?
Tim Garcia: No. Alright next educational Workshop. The original plan was to do a workshop on firewalling. I didn't feel like I was the best resource for that. We might still do that topic in the future, but haven't found yet the right person to run it. I got a suggestion from Chris from Shane flow to do the life cycle of a transaction, which I thought would be pretty useful. So I'm gonna do that one on Monday, May 13th 1700 UTC. If you have suggestions for future workshops, let me know I think. the more ideas from the community the better.
Tim Garcia: And the other thoughts on that it was a move on.
Tim Garcia: So upcoming events breakpoint is happening in September this time instead of So September 20th is breakpoint around breakpoint. There will be two validator related events. The first one is Block zero happened for the first time last year at breakpoint and they are running block zero again. Thank you very much to the organizers. Brian Chris The marinade team others, I'm probably forgetting but really awesome event last year and I'm expecting an awesome event this year as So breakpoint or sorry block zero happening before breakpoint September 18th in Singapore save the date and I think Chris is on the call if you want to add anything to that.
Tim Garcia: There's a question about information on event details. I don't know if you want to add anything there, but it sounds like you kind of covered it.
00:05:00