Idea about redistributing the rewards

In accordance with the HIP (Hypercore Improvement Proposal) process, I would like to present an idea to the community.

The imminent halving event is scheduled to occur around the 5th of June 2023. However, there is concern regarding the sustainability of the network due to the relatively small percentage allocated to nodes on both the mainnet and testnet. This reduction in rewards brings a risk, as running a node may no longer be economically viable due to the rising costs and decreasing income.

The proposed solution entails redistributing the percentage of rewards currently allocated to different pools, with a focus on benefiting the validator and testnet nodes. The objective is to mitigate the risk of insufficient nodes available for maintaining the network’s functionality, performance, and stability.

Please let me know what do you think, if I get your support I will propose a formal HIP with all the required details.


I agree with you. The scheduled halving event negatively affects validator and testnet node operators. At the very least they need to break even on their investment.

Asking people to shell out money to support the network, without the rewards being able to cover their bills is unsustainable and alarming.

Without them there is no network.

Please create a formal HIP with all required details and let’s all move together quickly and efficiently to remedy this.


Agreed… I am 100% confident this is being discussed by the team and hold the same confidence a positive resolution will be implemented.


I agree with this proposal. The scheduled halving event coming in early June will potentially place validator and testnet node operators in negative profit for conducting their services. This can significantly impact the health of the network.


A huge thank you to @Serg for taking the time to put together this proposal! Not only is this a very important task to address… This is a good example use case for a governance proposal. I am confident the team appreciates community members taking the initiative to help brainstorm things like this! :heart:


Agree with @Serg concerns regarding the halving event negatively affecting our node operators, possibly rendering their efforts unsustainable. It’s crucial we address this swiftly. I propose the creation of a HIP addressing this issue, ensuring operator sustainability and network growth. Confident in our team’s ability to provide a positive resolution.


Totally agree. It would be unsustainable to ask validators to support the entirely if the network with their efforts and then ask them to pay for the privilege to do so.


Agreed. Thanks @Serg for getting this started. We definitely need to look at rewards until the network is fully operational.


Agreed , nodes are the reason why are most of us here in the first place. Short term pain but good for long term success of the project.


I know my response will not be welcomed, but I never really got why DTM,s get more than true Nodes. But what we really need is a price increase and a substantial one at that. It would resolve all issues.


:100: agree. Hopefully this gets addressed well before the day


I endorse this idea. Thank you for raising this @Serg .I do have questions about the current pool allocations as they exist today (below graphic).

HIP Governance Oversight:
Does the HIP proposal process enable community governance over allocations of all the rewards pools?

The only thing outside of its purview would be Constellation Network’s Treasury wallets as I understand it. If any of these pools are outside the oversight of HIP process then, in effect, they would constitute as a new treasury wallet under the direct control of Constellation Network.

Additional considerations which may impact re-allocation of rewards in this proposed HIP:

Temporary vs Permanent Rewards Pools
Also, I understood the intention of creating new rewards pools such as the Soft Node program and the Data Pool as temporary measures to bootstrap the network in its early state before it is feature complete. The Soft Nodes rewards program is a mechanism to retain interest and engagement for those who plan to onboard onto the permission-less network as a real validator node, while the Data Pool is to help aspiring Metagraph businesses navigate the creation of sustainable/profitable business models and to technically onboard onto the permissioned, feature incomplete network, while they await for features such as ACI and PRO to be delivered.

Open / Permission-less Network
As I personally understand it, once the network is permission-less with the introduction of PRO consensus then the rewards will be autonomously managed by the consensus protocol and temporary rewards pools that do not relate to validator rewards will be abolished, leaving Stardust Tax, Validator, and Testnet rewards pools left to be adjusted via future HIP proposals. The Stardust Collective at that point could serve the same function as the Data Pool does today, in addition to granting funding for other efforts that will help the HGTP ecosystem grow and mature beyond bootstrapping of Metagraph businesses.


There concern about the Constellation Network’s veto power and involvement in Stardust, particularly given the lack of transparency from Stardust, and how does this affect the HIP proposal process for community governance over reward pool allocations?

1 Like

Thank you Serg for taking the lead on this proposal.


Thank you and agree Serg. There needs to be greater incentive and reward for node operators for the foreseeable future.


I agree with this initiative to rebalance some of the reward pools, to prevent node operators from running nodes at a loss after the halving has occurred. A rebalance should happen until other revenue streams become available for node operators (like running hybrid validator nodes which can earn them metagraph tokens). The DTM owners will soon start earning metagraph tokens as well, so the data pool allocation for DTM can be reduced IMO when the DOR metagraph launches.


Thank you Serge. I agree with your proposal. There should be a redistribution to give greater incentive to reward validator node holders instead of allocating the higher amount towards DTMs.


Validator node runners should definetly be taken care of, i will be running validator node too in the future and dont mind that the rest what is peft from soft node rewards are being taken away to keep the network alive till i can run my own node.


Again, thank you Serg for bringing this up.

I ofcourse do trust the team to make changes. However, I believe the reward distribution is skewed and favors the DTM holders/stakers.


Thank you Serg for putting this out there. I agree that some measure should be enacted to ensure retention of current network validator node operators. Please move forward with putting together a HIP that addresses the issue as you outlined in your post.