Latest Snapshot
751 nodes
11.5M POKT staked
1,000 members
108.09 average POKT rewards per day per node
257% APR (no compounding)
1,183% APY (compounding every 4 days)
24H relays: 301 million (-7.1%)
POKT Price
Huobi Current Price: $1.89
ThunderBot Current Price: $2.00
Economics
Cyclical relationship of nodes and relays:
jan 2nd we had 18k nodes 343m relays. today we have 22.5k nodes and 324m relays. it's because all you wonderful people have joined ... along with many thousands of our closest friends
it's natural part of the cycle. relays spike up, people see that, and they make nodes
more nodes = better network but also lower rewards. good news is better network attracts more dapps, more relays, etc
Recent rewards:
we are below the network average. Yes, we have more nodes in the pool but that means we also have a higher % of relays. You can see from my stats that we've until now always increased our rewards despite adding many hundreds of nodes in the last few tranches. We've outperformed the network average.
the network average in the last four days has been c.130, we're running at 111 for T11. but that's fine. You can't always outperform the average. That's the nature of averages. You're going to have tranches where you go below. The thing that would concern me is if it became a habit, then you'd want to look at whether you need to examine geo distribution, provider diversification, overall pool size, etc.
And also, for consistency, it's worth noting that the network average reported by the likes of c0d3r is also gross, it doesn't take into account at all that you then have to pay them $145, or $300 or 40% of your POKT rewards or whatever deal you get.
Clarification on number of days in esllou’s community spreadsheet:
the 'number of days' is obviously an important variable that leads to the overall per node average and it's always been a problem nailing it down to a precise figure. The snapshot presumes it to be 4.0 days. It's probably going to be a little less, which means the 111 average for this tranche will actually be a little higher. Tracie has stated several times before when talking about this question that each tranche can't have a precise start time due to having to spin up so many nodes. I used to hassle her for precise start times for each tranche and that was easy when we were adding 10, 20 nodes to the pool. Now it's impossible.
the longer a tranche goes, the less impact a slight error in the number of days will have (as a %). A tranche that's been running 1.8 days instead of the reported "2" will have a larger 'error' than one that's been running 5.8 days but reporting '6'. So the short nature of our tranches makes this uncertainty a larger factor. (This is also why I consider the 'running daily % rate' much much better an indicator as to how well the pool is doing because it's currently calculated over 56 days!)
the number of days has always been a bit of a bugbear for my reporting and means the per node average is at best a good estimate. It's possible that the 4 days reported for today's snapshot is indeed very accurate, in which case 111 node average is spot on. But bear this in mind, it might be 3.92, or 3.85 or 3.71 and that alters the node average by quite an amount.
Other Info
Adoption discussion:
Guys quick question I would value your opinion on. So a chunk of roc requests are coming from Harmony apps/dfk. I’ve heard ppl say they decided to transfer x% of requests to pokt and may do more later. My question is who does this decision lie with? Presumably those currently running full nodes for harmony using say Infura/some other rpc provider. They could I guess start to support both Infura and pokt or switch over entirely. The developers also have a say as they could just carry on using another provider if supported by node providers. We need both node providers to offer rpc access via pokt and also dapp developers to want to switch over from other providers. Is my thinking right? Thanks !
mostly the dapp providers need to switch (or new dapps coming on using pokt from the start)
Thanks. I guess if harmony node providers decided to only support RPC via pokt and not say infura (hypothetical) then dapp developers would have no real choice but to use them. I suppose what I am getting at is that it doesnt appear to be in the gift of say Harmony/the contralised part of it/investors in it to "switch" say 20% of its RPC calls from say infura to POKT in a wholesale fashion. They need to convince developers its in their interest to use POKT as opposed to alternative providers (node providers will do what their developers want you would think)
actually harmony does have a lot of relays they control, and they are working on sending more of them to pokt. before everything broke last week they were in the process of increasing from 2% to 5% of their relays going to pokt, and assuming it goes well further from there. I'm not 100% sure where that stands actually since they had the (unrelated) issues. but it is likely heading that direction. also, evmos and algo are building in pokt as a default / preferred option. i'm hoping/expecting that we see a lot of those in the next 6 months or so. (obviously need them to get traction themselves....)
Thanks. That is what I have heard. I guess my point is, even if harmony controls a bunch of full nodes themselves, they still need developers to use POKT to get that traffic over the POKT network. That means developers buying POKT, staking it and then updating their RPC endpoints in their applications and then redeploying them. Maybe I am missing something but it seems we need both dapp developers and harmony full node runners to be on board with that.
long term the major growth is going to come from develops of dapps, correct. short term, harmony has some number of relays they are sending everyday (iirc it's around 500m right now) that they are essentially the developers for, and have the ability to direct that traffic to pokt.
long term the growth will need to come from dapps choosing to use pokt instead of say infura, with the major benefits being decentralized and less likely to fail as well as cheaper
Why would people want to use pokt over infura lets say?
It may be cheaper in the long run for the developer and it is less centralised meaning less chance of going down like Infura has in the past.
poktpool vs. “traditional” investment instruments:
If what you are looking for is a traditional investment instrument with a predictable percentage of earnings, then you are in the wrong place I'm afraid. This is participating in a web 3 infrastructure staking environment.
The poktpool is not an investment fund. It's a way for people to pool their pocket together to stake against nodes on the network.
Community experience with Gate.io:
i've used gate and they've been fine (0.2% taker/maker fee for lowest tier) and 1 pokt to withdraw. No issues so far. Haven't used the others you mentioned so can't comment.
Potential for eventual staking on Binance or other exchanges:
binance have a lot of staking products, so yes it would be interesting if they go down that route and don't have a minimum of 15k. But binance always take their cut so you won't get the same per day rate that you get here and you won't get twice weekly compounding, but I'll be keen to see staking being offered on exchanges and what returns they offer
Pocket Network and indexing?
Reading the Decental Park Capitals review of their investment into Pokt (will post, very good dive IMO), they mention:
Lastly, by first focussing at the node (access) layer, it is possible that Pocket eventually adds an indexing layer that can sit on top of Pocket to eventually organize the data it serves to applications. Developing downstream within the tech stack into the indexing market marks just one potential natural evolution of the Pocket ecosystem longer-term.
Am I reading this right that they predict Pokt could be a Google of relay data? In effect create a product to challenge the Graph?
No timeline for multi-language support yet
poktpool DAO is an option for the future
Pocket Network and poktpool goes to Miami (note the Poktopus shirts :) ):