Leave something good behind - High availability, fair costs, renewable energy.
|ID:||e1ca526fe5d2d2ac26a2b3ab52bf73ba4f1506da4e533eff8c5faa7f , |
|Fixed fee:||340 ADA/epoch (the minimum possible)|
|Variable fee:||0-2 % (Discount is based on total pool stake)
|Locations:||Nuremberg and Frankfurt a. M. (both Germany)|
|Hardware:||2 AMD Epic 7702 Cores, 8 GB DDR4 ECC RAM, 160 GB SSD|
|SLA:||≥99.9 % availability|
Absolutely. The whole point of offering as much independently run stake pools as possible is decentralization of power and resiliance. If you value this: Delegate to comparatively small pools and evaluate their performance over a longer time.
Yes, of course. They are less likely to generate blocks each epoch. On the other hand, when a slot is assigned the block reward is split between less addresses. In turn the rewards per delegator will - statistically - even out over time.
Stop! Please consider the fact, that the delegation cycle takes at least three whole epochs to take effect: You're delegating your ADA at some arbitrary point in time. At the turn of the epoch this delegation becomes effective (+1 epoch). It is considered a part of pool's 'active stake' within the following epoch (+2 epochs), which increases the pool's probability to produce blocks (relative to your delegation amount vs. total ADA supply). The rewards for these produced blocks are calculated at the turn of the next epoch (+3 epochs) and delivered after that.
Switching stake pools very frequently does not make sense. As one epoch (currently) lasts five days, you should stick to a pool for at least five to six weeks to allow for consistend block production (due to higher delegated stake). Also see the delegation cycle.
Independently of delegating your stake to any pool or not, your ADA never leave your wallet. They are as safe as you keep your private keys and recovery phase. No pool operator can steal your funds.
Counter question: How sustainable, how 'in it for the long run' can an operation be if it's being powered differently?
Servers are operated in two independent local datacenters - real decentralization and centralized hosting (AWS, Azure, Google, etc.) are mutually exclusive. All over the world, there are smaller, but highly performant profesionally run data centers offering great network connectivity and customer service.
This is a no frills stake pool. And in order to operate it as safe as possible, complexity must be reduced to an absolute minimum. Opening firewall ports and operating webservers is the opposite of this.
You may consider delegating to a larger pool as this will increase regularity in staking rewards in the short term. In the long term, this concentration of stake increases the risk of smaller, indepenent stake pools ceasing operation due to constant financial losses. In case larger stake pools behave maliciously, a disruption of cloud services, networks or political influences, you are left without alternatives to choose from. This scenario actually is the only way to endanger your funds.
There is no limit to the amount of stake being delegated to a stake pool. However, a pool's staking rewards are capped if the active stake surpasses 207 million ADA (= total ADA supply of 31 billion ADA divided by 150 (k), 2020-09-15). This 'saturation point' is supposed to incentivize delegators to spread out their delegations, as the rewards per delegator diminish.
Multiple factors play their part. Taking into account that only a relatively small portion of the total ADA supply is being staked the effective value of k could be estimated as about 80 (2020-09-15). This, in turn, sets the saturation point to an amount of ADA with extremely limited effect. Delegation strongly correlates to the amount of advertisement performed by the pool operators and their activity on social networks. Often to help out others and participate in discussions about the project's future, sometimes only to drop their ticker symbol.
Yes. There currently is no effective protection against this behaviour, as it would prevent being a non-discriminating network protocol. The 'pool pledge' is supposed to limit the easy replication of stake pool setups. However, the influence of the pool pledge for the selection of slot leaders is extremely low at this point (2020-08-25). There are, of course, disadvantages when increasing the pool pledge influence, too. It could deter new non-institutional pool operators from entering the ecosystem in the first place, defeating its purpose.
The current reality is that some operators are already running stake pools in the double digits...