Secretnodes has been working on a new rank system based on contributions and collaboration instead of wealth concentration. Today I’m sharing a draft of the scoring system.
How does it work?
Node runners collect points for contributing to network initiatives. This can be done by participating in a committee, building products, and voting on network proposals.
Why is this better than wealth based ranking?
Wealth based ranking patterns users to think the “top nodes” are the ones that store the most wealth. It doesn’t account for actual contributions to the network, collaborating with network participants, or anything other than wealth. This is bad for decentralization and actually leads to more centralization, because in a lot of cases (like with the secret network), smaller nodes actually contribute more to the network than their wealth concentration based rank would lead users to believe.
Delegators will be shown a breakdown of how a node has contributed to the network, what products they’ve made, and details about how collaborative they are compared to other nodes. This will allow new users to make informed decisions when staking.
We can’t really think of many potential drawbacks. Ranking based on wealth is like saying “Hey we hold the most money so we are the best”. So any system that measures contributions instead of wealth for ranking seems like a significant improvement over the current system.
How will this change over time?
We’d like to find other balanced ways to give points for contributions and we’d like to empower committee leads the ability to give points out (with a cap on points they can give per node). Over time the system will be tweaked and improved based on feedback.
- Users will still be able to sort based on wealth ranking, but will be presented with a warning box informing them that this is not sorted based on contributions to the network and instead is sorted based purely on wealth concentration.
- Score will be the default sorting method, and score will be shown next to any instances of voting power.
- All pages for nodes will transparently explain the contributions that make up their score.
- Non voting nodes will be labeled as non voting validators.
- Uptime of a validator will have a high impact on score. (Only going back xyz time, probably around 2-4 weeks)
- Participation in governance will only impact score up to the last 5 or so proposals. This is meant to prevent the genesis nodes from remaining top ranked in this system.
- Negative points to non voting validators.
What do the new ranks look like?
Here is a rough overview of what this will look like.
- Non voting nodes with bad uptime will be the lowest ranked validators. (Assuming they don’t make other contributions)
- Non voting nodes with good uptime will be the second lowest rank. (Assuming they don’t make other contributions)
- Voting validators who make no products or other contributions will rank in the middle. (Assuming good uptime)
- Voting validators who make a product but no other contributions will be above middle rank.
- Voting validators who contribute and collaborate with other network participants (via committee contributions) will second to top in ranks.
- Voting validators who contribute and collaborate with other network participants and make a product will be top rank.
You can check out a draft of the ranking system that is being built out here. This is using legitimate data, but more tweaks will be made as we progress.
If we make any other changes to the scoring system they will be transparently explained in this thread as we progress.
Please leave any feedback and thoughts you have. We will be incorporating what we can into our plans over the next several weeks.