As the largest tokeholder on Secret Network, SLABs has an outsized impact on the sustainability & distribution of network stake, deeply impacting multiple stakerholders/builders who are the lifeblood of the network. As such, visibility around the how much / why / who receives is absolutely critical to ensure resources are efficiently allocated.
This is a similar situation to many other layer-1 ecosystems where the largest entities disclose who is being staked to & how much. Because SCRT staking is transparent, the secret community could attempt to hunt this information down on their own.
However, in the interest of building community trust via more transparency, I am posting this RFT with the hopes of the community receiving public information from SLABs on the delegations amounts & to which validators. If this information is not to be disclosed, I will be following up with a signaling proposal on-chain to come to a collective consensus on whether the secret community cares about basic transparency surrounding delegations.
Would love to get SLABs, other community members, & validators thoughts on this request.
Just some background without taking a side on whether SCRTLabs should show all their delegations or not:
All delegations from whatever wallet are visible to the public.
Based on my experience and others in the community, we already found all of SCRTLabs delegations anyways on chain, which of course takes a bit longer to find, but still it’s all visible.
I find this request to be out line for a number of reasons which all go back to Secret Labs being a private entity. The community of $SCRT holders does not govern a private entity which should be understood at this point in time. They appoint the Secret Network Foundation board which would be the organization that is more accountable to the community. SNF does not allocate $SCRT to validators. The request seems reasonable on the surface but fails to hold water since it is not directed at the proper entity. $SCRT being a public asset, a simple analysis would show which validators were impacted and by how much. The networks security is not impacted by these shifts. The only impact is revenue for operating a computer.
Proper course of action: Validators should publicly announce how much self stake they have and slabs delegations to their validator. Failure to grow trust at the lowest levels does nothing for the network.
We value transparency and going a long way to improve from the past.
We made this delegation round trying to work with limited resources. We don’t yet have clear-cut criteria, so some of the delegation decisions are subjective.
Therefore, at this time we won’t be making the list officially public to avoid discussion like “why they got and we didn’t” - such discussions will not be productive. The information is on-chain so if people want to research they can do so.
In this delegation round, I personally talked to all validators (barring very few who were not responsive), communicating our decisions and getting feedback. This is very different from previous delegation rounds
I know that this delegation round was not perfect. I would like the community to consider that redistributing limited resources between over 80 validators is a daunting task, and there is no way everyone can be happy about the results.
We will work to develop a clearer delegation policy and implement it in the next rounds.
We will favorably consider making the list public in the next delegation “adjustment round” that is tentatively scheduled for July-August
(1) That’s great to hear, looking forward to seeing continued tangible steps surrounding this (roadmap + engagement on things like twitter space + community calls are great steps thus far)
(2) Criteria will always be subjective, and I think the community could be a valuable resource for helping to work alongside SLABs to improve the criteria. Wisdom of the village is powerful.
(3) I disagree with this take, conversations around which teams are being supported or are not is absolutely mission critical to the network, especially where we are at right now. Additionally, transparency surrounding where the SCRT has been placed shows the community (a) SLABs cares about being transparent upfront (b) You believe in the delegation decisions that have been made
(4) That is a wonderful step forward
(5) Indeed it is, unfortunately the community is unaware what the “results” are. This is opaque without help from SLABs.
(6) Hard to know what a clearer delegation policy looks like if we don’t know who is delegated what
(7) That would be wonderful
I plan to put up an on-chain prop to prove that the community cares about delegation transparency. Looking forward to further discussion & progress