Stake Wars III - Results FULL LIST

Dear Stake Wars participants,

Congratulations on your victory! Below you will find a full list of all participants, the delegation they are eligible for and the organising partner they have been assigned to.

NEAR Foundation has transferred the NEAR to the three organising partners - Meta Pool, Linear and Everstake.

All participants have been assigned to ONE of the three organising partners randomly. Each partner will be delegating to these participants directly.

What happens next?

1. If you haven’t already, setup your node on Mainnet.
2. Once your Mainnet node is setup, full out this form.
3. Keep your validator online.

From here is up to each organising partner to do the delegations to their assigned validator. Times may vary.If you have any questions or issues, contact the organising partner in charge of your delegation directly.

Results - FULL LIST

Link to - [Spreadsheet] (Stake Wars Results - PUBLIC - Google Sheets).

Validators that have not been assigned to any organising partner means that they did not pass KYC.

Congratulations to all participants! Looking forward to have 100+ nodes online SOON.

Need help setting up your validator? Join the community of validators on NEAR:

Open Shards Alliance

Nice to see more validators coming on board to help decentralize the NEAR Network!

Hi! Lots of thanks to the Stake Wars organizers & @satojandro for the event, and for this announcement

I scored some UNP and DNP, but looks like I was not shortlisted for the delegation table above, unfortunately. I noticed the last participant who got delegated did score 50 DNP, and then those scoring 40 (myself included) and below did not get shortlisted (sparring a few participants scoring more than 50 DNP, but also wasn’t shortlisted, probably for some valid reasons).

Just a quick question for now: is there any plan to give more chances (in the future) to those of us who did score some DNP (and also did demonstrate skills & experience in maintaining NEAR validator nodes) during this Stake Wars event?

Lastly, congrats to all the winners And again, appreciations going out to the organizers for having handled such a large-scale event.

Cheers

Congrats to all the winners and participants !

image1280×1089 77.1 KB

Delegation was by meta-pool-dao.near wallet

Thanks for consolidating the information. These are super helpful for validators.

We, as LiNEAR Protocol, are happy to support the validators during the whole process.

For the validators who are assigned to receive your delegation from LiNEAR, we’d like to share some update here. We are now waiting for NEAR Foundation to send us the fund for delegation, which might be done in the coming 5~15 days due to the holiday. Once the fund is ready, we will delegate to your validators in the next 1~2 days.

While waiting for the fund, we’re working with OSA to verify your nodes and staking pools, and may reach out if any issues are found.

For any questions you have or any support that you may need, please feel free to reach out in #validators channel in our Discord server (Click to join).

Thanks for pointing this out Garik, I’ll flag it with the team.

The criteria for delegation from Meta Pool is uptime performance, concentration of NEAR, and fees - max. fee being 10%.

The delegation from SW falls in a special bucket as we’ve entered into an agreement to delegate a specific amount to specific validators for a specific amount of time.

We have discussed internally questions around what to do with the NF delegation For Validators that fail to join mainnet, their validator is not performing, or their fees are out of line.

Organisers and Pagoda have agreed to set the fee limit at 10%.

I’ll reach out to the validator and ask them to adjust their fees.

I understand that current market conditions make it hard for some validators to meet costs, etc. That issue is being addressed in a separate post.

Quick update - within a couple of hours of us contacting three validators that had originally se their fees above 10%, including the reported on this thread, they’ve all updated their fees to be within the 10% maximum.

Once again that’s for bringing this to our attention and thanks to validators for their understanding and quick response! @garikbesson

LFG

Don’t want to sound rude, but I think this is a special case here where neither Pagoda or the Organizers, or any staking Pool have the right to set a max fee for the Stake Wars winners and new chunk validators.

As quoted:

satojandro:

The delegation from SW falls in a special bucket as we’ve entered into an agreement to delegate a specific amount to specific validators for a specific amount of time.

Please correct me where I am wrong, as I may not know all the facts:

1. The tokens are coming from the NEAR Foundation (NF), not from Metapool or any other pool. The mentioned pools (Metapool, LINEAR,etc) just are assigning tokens belonging to the NF.

2. The winner participants earned those delegated tokens as the result of a large, difficult and higly demanding process. So, in my view, those tokens are a well earned prize, and must be delegated directly from the NF to the validator, who may run his node using them during the given time.

3. I think a new validator should have the right to decide if he wants to join any of the current pools. Or if he/she wants to run with just the NF earned tokens. I think that must be a totally valid situation that does not violate any of the Stake Wars rules, as long as it meets all validator requirements.

4. If a validator decides not to join a pool, that validator should have the right to set up its fee as he/she sees adequate, and in relation to his/her own economic balance or situation. We see many mainnet validators with much higher commisions, and I assume (but don’t really know) some of them are using NF delegated tokens.

5. I understand that tokens delegated to a Pool and then redelegated to a validator are quite a different case, and the Pool can decide whatever conditions it thinks correct, and the validator can then decide if he abides to that conditions and if he wants to join the pool or not.

6. The Stake Wars rules never mentioned setting a max fee to winners. It just mentioned the ammount the NF will delegate (as DNP) according the completed challenges. So this may be seen as violating the Stake Wars rules.

7. This points are really critical for a really decentralized network, otherwise it may appear that there are the Pools, or Pagoda or the NF, who are running the network and have decision power on the free validator’s economics (by forcing it’s fees), and not the validators whoever they are.

Hope this helps to clarify what I think are the views of many new onboarding validators.
Best regards

Hi @satojandro.
I am one of those mentioned.
But that does not mean that I agree.
Please see my other post
Best regards

Thanks for bringing up these points Mario.

There are many variables and considerations and open dialogue like this is what ultimately helps us reach the best decisions.

We can probably separate the decision making for setting a maximum fee we support into two different buckets: the Liquid Staking provider and Stake Wars participants.

Liquid Staking providers: the APY that a liquid staking provider such as Meta Pool offers to our stakers (who do not get to choose who we stake with) is the aggregate of the APYs of the nodes we choose to delegate to - their performance and fees really matter.

To put it bluntly, in the same way less individuals (if any) would delegate to a validator with more than 10%, this would also bring down significantly the APY liquid staking provider offers to its users thus attracting less delegation to be distributed.

Stake Wars Competition: the objective of the competition was to recruit, train and remove the financial barrier of entry for the next batch of validators.

We expect these validators to remain active well past the duration of the competition and their initial delegation, which will require validators to procure extra delegation (including but not limited to additional delegation from Liquid Staking).

If a validator were to set their fee too high in such a way that neither attracts additional delegation from individuals nor liquid staking providers, that means that the day that NF recalls the original delegation, that validator would likely cease to exist.

This would be a fundamental misalignment between extracting maximum value while jeopardising the stability of the network long term. Another assumption is that if validators were allowed to set any fee, a high enough number of them may opt for this. If a significant number of validators go offline when NF recalls the initial delegation then Stake Wars would be deemed a failure.

Holding Stake Wars validators to the same standards as any regular validator is the only fair and practical solution going forward. This point is particularly important around performance.

Thank you for agreeing to lower the fee to the current range. Looking forward to collaborating with you and other validators in ways to ensure that the network is secure and validators can operate in a sustainable way (separate conversation).

satojandro:

Holding Stake Wars validators to the same standards as any regular validator is the only fair and practical solution going forward.

But you are not – you’re being hypocritical as Block Producers can set their fee to anything they want, including 100% to avoid further stake concentration. No where was it stated that Star Wars winners will be forced to opt-in to liquid staking delegations as the implied basis for allowing the fee to be 10% max.

Chunk Producers have a certain period of time to maximize their buffer income given the buckwheat delegation size handed out compared to the previous poorly-picked Stake Wars (Block Producers) winners. A 100% fee would maximize long-term sustainability probability and no one should be restricted from doing so unless NF itself declares such as a condition.

Its also silly to think that a >10% fee would not be reduced to competitive levels shortly before the delegation is withdrawn by NF (which is another problem right there vs other networks such as Solana for which ongoing delegation is dependent on performance, not a fixed time period). A more convincing argument would be that you want Chunk Producers to collect as much stake as they can in the limited time period so they’re hopefully fiscally-sustainable by the end. That’s more also far more speculative than a 100% fee.

And finally, none of this has anything at all to do with performance. In fact, the odds are on a 10% fee, the Chunk Producers are likely to be unstable except those willing to pay out of pocket to maintain the network.

JoeSixpack:

And finally, none of this has anything at all to do with performance. In fact, the odds are on a 10% fee, the Chunk Producers are likely to be unstable except those willing to pay out of pocket to maintain the network.

I higly agree with @JoeSixpack. This 10 % commision does not allow to invest in better servers, or even trying to start a second node (which would improve the decentralization), or highly dedicated and commmited human resources.

There are also other points in your response that are not clear:

1. Do we have the right to set up a higher fee (which can be higher than 10% and lower than 60% for example for the first year, so we can have a balance between short term needs and long term benefits for all the network, for example) because these are earned NF tokens and not any Pool tokens ? Yes or no ? That is the real question.

2. Do we have the right for running outside any Pool for some time (let’s say the first year) so we can have some financial incentives to invest in better hardware and manpower from the start (that is what supporting for new validators as you mentioned really means !) ? Yes or no ?

I think that the seeked long term benefits for all (both the NF, NEAR and validators) and the short terms needs of newly onboarding validators MUST be balanced.

That is fair and benefitial for all, both in the short and long term.

But extracting all value from new validators just from the start does not seem good for anyone, or fair, because most of them will leave quite early or won’t be able to sustain performance for lack of investment in better resources.

Hope this is taken into account and we can find a better balance which really benefits us all.
Best regards
Mario

We are actually working to update the reward of fees, but I’m agree with @mariozito and @JoeSixpack, I think maybe a better talk in NF, Metapool, LiNEAR and Pagoda could propose a better solution to make sustainable the onboarding of the new validators, thanks for reading, hope we can make this more balanced @satojandro

Hello people, I agree with @mariozito 's comments:

mariozito:

I think that the seeked long term benefits for all (both the NF, NEAR and validators) and the short terms needs of newly onboarding validators MUST be balanced.

We must find a balanced solution for this, we take a long road to be a Stake Wars winners, we spend more money than the UNP received and to be a mainnet chunk only producer at least in my case I don’t want to lose money every month keeping my node online. Also if we want to attract more stakers to our nodes we need to spend in social networks, google ads, webpage, backup node, etc…

JoeSixpack:

But you are not – you’re being hypocritical as Block Producers can set their fee to anything they want, including 100% to avoid further stake concentration. No where was it stated that Star Wars winners will be forced to opt-in to liquid staking delegations as the implied basis for allowing the fee to be 10% max.

1. NEAR is a decentralised and open protocol. Anyone can set up a node.
2. If you set up your node with private capital, you are free to determine the fee (and choose whether to be eligible for extra delegation from Liquid Staking providers).
3. I am against NF grants to validators that have 100% fee. This has been explored in a separate conversation by another community member. Any grievances on this issue need to be taken up to NF as they are outside of our control. (SW is organised by Pagoda and three Liquid Staking Providers).
4. SW III has terms and conditions that do not apply regular validators - such as passing KYC and maximum fees. If you scroll down the list of validators, those who have not been allocated to an organising partner either refused to do KYC or were unable to pass it. These restrictions apply only IF a participant wants to receive delegation from NF (via liquid staking).
5. Prior to SW III, Liquid Staking providers were critical in enabling the bottom 40 validators to keep their seat. Many SW II participants lost their seat even after initial delegation. This has greatly informed the reasoning for SW III - new validators need to be both proactive in securing more delegation AND be supported by Liquid Staking providers.
6. I’ll restate the former point just to be clear - a 100% validator with only 50,000 NEAR or less delegated to it is unlikely to keep its seat for long. Anyone joining with only 20,500 NEAR and fee under 10% is likely to receive delegation from liquid staking and push them out.

Hi everyone,

This is George, from Pagoda.

The economy of running a validator on mainnet is a large topic. The current bare market clearly has a impact on it, I totally understand the concerns.

However, we have to look at that topic separately from Stake Wars. The goal of the program was to help those interested in joining the validator community. Stake Wars is not a gateway to profit, but more of a getting started resource.

As @satojandro said, for Stake Wars participants the received delegation requires them to cap the fee at 10% max. This rule is aligned with the NF expectations. Outside of the Stake Wars program, anyone can join mainnet and can set any fees without restrictions.

Cheers,
George

satojandro:

…wants to receive delegation from NF (via liquid staking).

What does this mean? What is the effective difference between NF delegating tokens directly to a chunk-only producer, the three pools distributing the tokens received from NF by delegating to a chunk-only producer and a liquid staking pool delegating to a chunk-only producer using its Treasury that got topped up by tokens received from NF?

satojandro:

Prior to SW III, Liquid Staking providers were critical in enabling the bottom 40 validators to keep their seat. Many SW II participants lost their seat even after initial delegation. This has greatly informed the reasoning for SW III…

That makes more sense.

Hello.
my shardnet pool: samid.factory.shardnet.near
my mainnet pool: samid1.poolv1.near

i was in stakewars list with 40dnp and 125unp
my mainnet node is running for 3 weeks, i filled form, i passed kyc
why i have 0 delegation in this new table?

40 DNP was not enough to receive delegation on this round by Stake Wars III. Delegation started at 50 DNP.

Hello,

For these who have got Everstake as delegat tion partner, did you get any delegation?

And how to contact them if we have questions?

Thnx

it’s a Scam Wars lll =(

JoeSixpack:

What does this mean? What is the effective difference between NF delegating tokens directly to a chunk-only producer, the three pools distributing the tokens received from NF by delegating to a chunk-only producer and a liquid staking pool delegating to a chunk-only producer using its Treasury that got topped up by tokens received from NF?

• The NF is providing the funds (NEAR) but were not actively involved in the organising of Stake Wars or in the allocation and distribution of the funds. The organising of Stake Wars was a community effort from Pagoda, Meta Pool, Linear, Evestake and Open Shards Alliance. The final distribution of the NEAR to each eligible participant will also be handled by LS providers. (NF is not going to be delegating directly to 150+ participants).
• The three LS providers have received the exact amount of NEAR tokens to delegate to the eligible SW winners in the amounts listed above. We are just an admin body passing on the SW delegation to winners as determine by competition.
• As every NEAR received by LS providers has already been allocated to winners, overall LS ‘treasuries’ (we are non-custodial) but I understand what you mean in regards to total amount of TVL available to be distributed does not increase. In this sense, there is an effective segregation between the ‘regular’ NEAR deposited into LS providers by everyday users, which gets distributed to validators based on performance, fees, and concentration, and the NEAR allocated by SW for the specific purpose of granting the list of validators above the specific amount they’ve earned.

Hope this clears things up.

The question which would remain is - what happens to validators who are entitled to received delegation from NF but never join Mainnet? We are working to establish a time period after which that delegation can be redistributed to other SW winners (TBC)

I’m out of space. 750GB+ for mainnet is not going to work for “lowly” Chunk Producers. Please make offering pruning a top priority as many other blockchains already offer it.

Hey, do you have an update on the Linear delegations?

Metapool already delegated weeks ago, we others are still waiting, has NF still not sent the funds?

Thanks for asking. We also want to complete the delegation to validators ASAP.

But we’re still waiting for fund from NF, and have been pushing NF to move forward with the process sooner. The process takes more time than expected due to the holiday. Will let you know for any update.

As an update to this, I postulated there may have been overlapping snapshots downloaded. There seems to be some kind of pseudo-pruning going on when making snapshots, so I wiped data and redownloded just one latest snapshot and the total size decreased to 415GB synced. My criticism still stands about the lack of configurable options for a node’s chain size though. It does not need to go past 500GB except on archive nodes.

My guess is you have non standard config settings that result in this increased disk space over time. My disk space on mainnet currently is 421 GB and the node has already been running (idle) for three months, increase of only couple GB in this time, very manageable.

I’d recommend to monitor the disk space usage of your node in the next days and If you are running out of disk space fast again, check your config.

Hello all,

I just found this and registered, I can see my “zilinear2.shardnet” has 0 delegated tokens and it’s OK, but in previously released sheet I had 110 UNP and 40 DNP and I hoped I will receive UNP on the mainnet even though I don’t run anything anymore? I passed KYC right when I received it on October 20th. Don’t know where else to ask, I deleted Discord account long time ago because it was too much traffic for me, never used Telegram. (mainnet: stiavnik.near, or you can check my stakewars manual on medium - took me whole weekend back then, link in profile, I was taking this seriously)

Sorry for interruption and good luck, it seems things are getting better at the moment. Thank you.

Hi @satojandro, the question is: some nodes want to unite, could we delegate some winner’s fund to one pull? With their approval, of course, thanks.

Hey everyone, LiNEAR has finished delegation to all the validators that have submitted the form and assigned to LiNEAR.

If your validator is also assigned to LiNEAR and you’d like to receive your delegation, please fill in the form, DM me your mainnet staking pool ID on Discord (churn#2908) and keep your validator online.

For any questions, please feel free to reach out in #validators channel in LiNEAR Discord server.

Dear community,

Due to Everstake not being able to handle delegation, it was reassigned to be delegated from Meta Pool and LiNEAR.

Here the list of reassigned delegation.

For those receiving delegation from Meta Pool YOU HAVE 1 WEEK to setup your node and fill the required form. Feel free to ask any question in Discord or in our Telegram Group for validators: Telegram: Join Group Chat

Good effort to promote decentralization

Hi, do we need to refill the form? Because I’ve already submitted it a month ago

Hi, i don’t think but wait @cloudmex-alan answer

Is not required if you already did.

Sorry for my mistake, the form was closed, it is now reopened: https://forms.gle/g4FB2TGnyYAMVUwB6

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY OF DELEGATION MADE BY META POOL

Hi, in order to honor transparency, and considering that registers of validators from stake wars III is now closed, this is the final list of pools delegated by Meta Pool.

If you are part of this set, feel free to join our validator group to receive news about how Meta Pool is changing the validators ecosystem: Telegram: Join Group Chat