In this post, @dob suggested a community goal centered around activating the top 66 performing nodes by the end of September so that they can profitably call reward and grow their equity in the network.
What do we think about introducing design changes to the Livepeer Explorer centered around this goal? One idea that might be worth exploring is introducing a bias towards performance over security. Right now the Explorer orders orchestrators by total delegated stake (security). What if instead we ordered orchestrators by average score (performance)? While this may not directly incentivize tokenholders to delegate towards top performers, it does reward those that are investing more time and hardware with prime real estate which might make more tokenholders more inclined to consider them for delegation.
I’d love to hear other’s thoughts on this, including any other product ideas that might help achieve this goal.
That is a really great idea, and if we needed to make space I would remove the Price/Pixel column and replace it with Total Transcoding Score or Performance Score.
Or keep both, just want to keep things clean since Price/Pixel really has no effect on who delegators choose and most delegators don’t know what it means or how to quantify it.
Edit: Also to reduce the emphasis on stake size, place the Performance Score column in the left spot where stake currently is.
Another option for getting stake in the hands of performing Os is providing a trailing 30 day ROI metric. If two Os have the same reward cut, say 5% and one is earning transcoding fees, then the performing O would technically have a higher ROI (if paid out in the last 30 days) and more people would delegate to them. Not sure if this can be rigged though, sending yourself work?
For reference, there is also some interesting discussion going on in TheGraph ecosystem about UI changes and staking behavior that can be found in this forum post.
Another idea below:
Indicators For Low or Zero Scores
A leaderboard score of 0 indicates that an orchestrator cannot transcode test streams within the node defined timeout and likely means that the orchestrator is offline.
A low leaderboard score based on some pre-determined threshold (for example, the threshold could be set to a score that roughly corresponds to 2x or 3x slower than real-time) indicates than an orchestrator will have a difficult time being selected for jobs since the default broadcaster selection strategy tend will prefer to stick with orchestrators that can consistently return results in real-time.
A low or zero score can be a useful signal to delegators that an orchestrator is currently unlikely to earn fees. The explorer could add indicators to orchestrator cells in the orchestrator table with low or zero scores that convey this information to delegators.
What about rotating the top performing nodes that meet a minimum set of benchmarks that show up at or near the top of the default view to attempt to get a more even distribution of stake across the top performers? I also think there should be a cutoff that excludes high performing nodes that have a stake over a certain threshold, again with the goal to spread stake across more nodes.
I like the example they use from the Solana interface where large Indexers above a threshold would be grouped in a collapsed view followed by a decentralization message below to encourage Delegators to choose an Indexer below the threshold.
I think it would be worth exploring the idea of grouping Orchestrators with more than x% TBD of the total network stake into the above mentioned collapsed view
photo for reference
I’d also like to propose the idea of having a “Featured set of Orchestrators” that appears prominently on the first page of the Livepeer Explorer.
Some ideas of metrics that can be used to determine what qualifies an Orchestrator to appear in this section could be but not limited to:
Performance Score
Reward Cut
Fee Cut
% of Rewards Called
An ROI metric as suggested by Titan-Node
Length of time participating in Livepeer
