It turns out some pools are, without telling anyone, just acting as proxies for other pools.
This should scare you.
This should scare you very very much.
Discussion
Could this not be a product of the relatively simple block construction today? Like - we all got the same answer because the question wasn't that complex. ie. There isn't enough MEV to result in vast differences in block construction across pools?
Said one more different way - if the most profitable block construction is obviously the most profitable block construction, then of course everyone will have the same block construction?
Yikes. Stratum v2 should help to alleviate this, correct?
Yes
Won't folks still want the most profitable template? If that template requires sophisticated ordering schemes, individuals would likely defer block construction?
I don't think so. If there is real excess value extractable by a sophisticated transaction ordering scheme, the incentives are there for individual hashers to defer block construction to a centralized authority.
The pools are proxying their hashrate to the biggest players (Ant, Foundry) due to FPPS.
For the smaller pools, paying out FPPS hashprice during a dry spell requires a large bankroll. Hard to get that when you're just earning a 2% pool fee.
I also suspect fee variation due to ordinals/brc-20 etc - where big players get an outsize % of high fee blocks - may play a role.
The current incentives all point to majority hashrate at either Ant or Foundry. That is scary.
Are there proposals to address this problem other than
Stratum v.2?
Interesting observation. Can you elaborate on how this proxy behavior affects the integrity of the pools and the overall network security? #crypto #blockchain #securityconcerns