Discussion to Increase the active collator set of Moonbeam by <x> nodes

,
6

I agree with your opinion, there is no competition in moonriver to justify an increase. An alternative could be an increase in moonriver only for orbiter seats and on moonbeam an increase of 5 + 1 orbiters

7

I prefer to stay with number 72
All collator out of activeset should be out of activeset otherwise they should fighting for that, that simple strategy will help secure this network and also make the collator community have enough benefit from running collator to support back to the project

8

I would like to express my support for this proposal on Moonbeam. my reasoning is straightforward, with the recent addition of five new collators to the active set, several delegators have reached out to me expressing concerns about what steps they should take next and how to proceed in the best possible way. many of them are genuinely worried. It’s always frustrating to experience a loss in rewards for almost 8 days, and that’s why I believe an expansion of the set could potentially improve the situation. however, it’s important for us to acknowledge that there are drawbacks as well. when the active set expands, the rewards for both delegators and collators will naturally decrease

3 Likes
9

The last increase was a while ago, given the situation we agree with this proposal with 3 things in kind

1 though the collator reward will decrease its an agreeable trade off when compared with the constant discomfort for delegators and collators

2 increase in the count is good for decentralisation

3 We need the community collators with the experience of being there when needed.

So increasing by 4 seems like the logical next step to do.

2 Likes
10

Thanks Jim for bringing this topic.

As it mentioned above with the majority - I also agree with the set expansion on Moonbeam. The current situation is already unstable, and is expected to be even more fluctuating since there are many potential collators on the waiting list who can try to become active as well. Hence, adding few more slots should reduce this pressure.

11

I also support a set expansion in moonbeam. I feel we should prioritize the delegator experience when we can do so without negatively impacting performance or participation. Adding 4 more slots plus 1 orbiter slot seems appropriate to me.

12

Same with me. 4 extra slots + 1 orbiter looks good.

1 Like
13

Seems very positive feedback thus far – when can this happen?

1 Like
14

hey @Jim_CertHum, are you planning to initiate an on-chain proposal, or could you provide an update on the current status of this proposal

15

@turrizt I’m just soliciting some additional technical feedback on the discussion. Previously, @artkaseman mentioned a technical soft limit around increasing the set in this post. It’s not clear if this limit still exists.

In addition, any increase in active set size required an equal increase on Moonriver, and so if this requirement exists it may influence the discussion on a proposed size of increase to Moonbeam.

1 Like
16

Technically, there is room to increase, but there is an upper limit. We can upgrade by about 8 until we need to start discussing lowering the delegations per collator. We need to keep the total delegations = (number of collators) * (delegations per collator) from getting too high, but the absolute limit is not yet known.

2 Likes
17

Thanks, @artkaseman . Do you know if we can increase Moonbeam independently of Moonriver (e.g., Moonriver stays at 72, Moonbeam goes up to 76 total collators), or should a Moonbeam increase to the number of collators only follow an equivalent increase to Moonriver?

18

Thank @Jim_CertHum Jim, for this discussion. I am also in favor of increasing the set from 72 to 76. Expanding by 4 slots +1 orbiter will relieve the pressure on the collators, and at the same time, we will attract more delegations, as we will have 4 slots +1 orbiter more collators where new delegates with smaller delegations can participate.

2 Likes
19

They can be independent, but we don’t want Moonbeam to get too far ahead, as we would much rather find any problems in Moonbase-Alpha or Moonriver before they get to Moonbeam. Up to a +8 difference between Moonbeam and Moonriver is OK however.

2 Likes
20

The next step would be to create a new proposal in Governance at the Idea stage, which would stay in Idea stage for at least 7 days.

However, we’ve had a few different options expressed in this discussion, and for the proposal it will be helpful if there was one choice, and so I will use the option with the most votes in this poll (based on the different suggests above), to select what to include in the Proposal.

Should the Moonbeam network active set be increased from 72 collators, and if so, how should be increase be configured?
  • 4 Additional slots, no Oribtors
  • 4 Additional slots, of which 1 will be an Orbitor
  • 5 Additional slots, of which 1 will be an Orbitor
  • The active set on Moonbeam network should remain at 72
  • Some other option (and I’ll comment below)
0 voters
21

Bit late to the party on this but I am in favor as well for the Moonbeam active set expansion. As Ioannis stated, I dont see a need for the Moonriver expansion for now. Understood we should try to keep both network active sets the same as much as possible.

1 Like
22

For the sake of decentralization and stabilization of the set I’m fully supporting to prepare an expansion and poll it out now so it can be quickly realized when necessary.

Thanks for leading the initiative @Jim_CertHum :pray:

4 Likes
23

4 + 2 is what we are thinking. Just realised there are 28 orbitors and there are only 4 slots.

1 Like
24

Thanks for having brought this up Jim. Aye’d it

25

I agree with this proposal. Thanks Jim!