Are bakers not paying promised rewards?Only 60% of the rewards made by a baker are distributed to its delegators?Why did the network ignore my baked block?What are the chances of my baker getting selected to bake?Why my endorser did not endorse the block 316956?When are Tezos Rewards Unfrozen?How to manage rewards for small delegators?My private node is not connecting to the peer mentioned in the start commandHow to set up auto transfer of baking and endorsement rewards to respective delegation accounts?How to become a baker - what are all the technical/financial requirements?Only 60% of the rewards made by a baker are distributed to its delegators?

How long to clear the 'suck zone' of a turbofan after start is initiated?

How can I get through very long and very dry, but also very useful technical documents when learning a new tool?

System.debug(JSON.Serialize(o)) Not longer shows full string

How do I find the solutions of the following equation?

Different result between scanning in Epson's "color negative film" mode and scanning in positive -> invert curve in post?

What is the difference between "behavior" and "behaviour"?

Sequence of Tenses: Translating the subjunctive

India just shot down a satellite from the ground. At what altitude range is the resulting debris field?

Why are there no referendums in the US?

Method to test if a number is a perfect power?

Short story about space worker geeks who zone out by 'listening' to radiation from stars

when is out of tune ok?

How to check is there any negative term in a large list?

How to safely derail a train during transit?

Is there a problem with hiding "forgot password" until it's needed?

Would this custom Sorcerer variant that can only learn any verbal-component-only spell be unbalanced?

Is expanding the research of a group into machine learning as a PhD student risky?

Is HostGator storing my password in plaintext?

Two monoidal structures and copowering

Customer Requests (Sometimes) Drive Me Bonkers!

What happens if you roll doubles 3 times then land on "Go to jail?"

How to write papers efficiently when English isn't my first language?

Anatomically Correct Strange Women In Ponds Distributing Swords

Do the temporary hit points from the Battlerager barbarian's Reckless Abandon stack if I make multiple attacks on my turn?



Are bakers not paying promised rewards?


Only 60% of the rewards made by a baker are distributed to its delegators?Why did the network ignore my baked block?What are the chances of my baker getting selected to bake?Why my endorser did not endorse the block 316956?When are Tezos Rewards Unfrozen?How to manage rewards for small delegators?My private node is not connecting to the peer mentioned in the start commandHow to set up auto transfer of baking and endorsement rewards to respective delegation accounts?How to become a baker - what are all the technical/financial requirements?Only 60% of the rewards made by a baker are distributed to its delegators?













2















There is an interesting new service that compares ROI among bakers, called Bakers Performance Index. It differs from other ways to check this (e.g. see this post), in that they delegate 10 XTZ to a list of bakers for evaluation, and report actual rewards received. Since there is no reason why bakers should pay some tezos owners more than others, this seems to be a very accurate test for effective ROI.



What struck me though is the low ROI. For some, it's actually zero. Consider for instance the first set of columns, which seem to show an average of payment for cycles 34 to 88 (site has no documentation, so I'm just guessing).



The highest ROI is just under 3%, and that baker has an expected ROI of 7.10%. That seems like a massive difference. Same applies to the rest of bakers. What's going on? Why such difference? I am missing something? Or is this just lack of accountability, enabling bakers to underpay?










share|improve this question

















  • 1





    This question would seem more interesting as "how to calculate expected ROI". Doing some rough calculations, 7% seems about right for annual. 3% seems about right for cycles 33-84. I think they just consider different time periods.

    – Tom
    17 hours ago















2















There is an interesting new service that compares ROI among bakers, called Bakers Performance Index. It differs from other ways to check this (e.g. see this post), in that they delegate 10 XTZ to a list of bakers for evaluation, and report actual rewards received. Since there is no reason why bakers should pay some tezos owners more than others, this seems to be a very accurate test for effective ROI.



What struck me though is the low ROI. For some, it's actually zero. Consider for instance the first set of columns, which seem to show an average of payment for cycles 34 to 88 (site has no documentation, so I'm just guessing).



The highest ROI is just under 3%, and that baker has an expected ROI of 7.10%. That seems like a massive difference. Same applies to the rest of bakers. What's going on? Why such difference? I am missing something? Or is this just lack of accountability, enabling bakers to underpay?










share|improve this question

















  • 1





    This question would seem more interesting as "how to calculate expected ROI". Doing some rough calculations, 7% seems about right for annual. 3% seems about right for cycles 33-84. I think they just consider different time periods.

    – Tom
    17 hours ago













2












2








2








There is an interesting new service that compares ROI among bakers, called Bakers Performance Index. It differs from other ways to check this (e.g. see this post), in that they delegate 10 XTZ to a list of bakers for evaluation, and report actual rewards received. Since there is no reason why bakers should pay some tezos owners more than others, this seems to be a very accurate test for effective ROI.



What struck me though is the low ROI. For some, it's actually zero. Consider for instance the first set of columns, which seem to show an average of payment for cycles 34 to 88 (site has no documentation, so I'm just guessing).



The highest ROI is just under 3%, and that baker has an expected ROI of 7.10%. That seems like a massive difference. Same applies to the rest of bakers. What's going on? Why such difference? I am missing something? Or is this just lack of accountability, enabling bakers to underpay?










share|improve this question














There is an interesting new service that compares ROI among bakers, called Bakers Performance Index. It differs from other ways to check this (e.g. see this post), in that they delegate 10 XTZ to a list of bakers for evaluation, and report actual rewards received. Since there is no reason why bakers should pay some tezos owners more than others, this seems to be a very accurate test for effective ROI.



What struck me though is the low ROI. For some, it's actually zero. Consider for instance the first set of columns, which seem to show an average of payment for cycles 34 to 88 (site has no documentation, so I'm just guessing).



The highest ROI is just under 3%, and that baker has an expected ROI of 7.10%. That seems like a massive difference. Same applies to the rest of bakers. What's going on? Why such difference? I am missing something? Or is this just lack of accountability, enabling bakers to underpay?







baker rewards






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 19 hours ago









luchonacholuchonacho

483215




483215







  • 1





    This question would seem more interesting as "how to calculate expected ROI". Doing some rough calculations, 7% seems about right for annual. 3% seems about right for cycles 33-84. I think they just consider different time periods.

    – Tom
    17 hours ago












  • 1





    This question would seem more interesting as "how to calculate expected ROI". Doing some rough calculations, 7% seems about right for annual. 3% seems about right for cycles 33-84. I think they just consider different time periods.

    – Tom
    17 hours ago







1




1





This question would seem more interesting as "how to calculate expected ROI". Doing some rough calculations, 7% seems about right for annual. 3% seems about right for cycles 33-84. I think they just consider different time periods.

– Tom
17 hours ago





This question would seem more interesting as "how to calculate expected ROI". Doing some rough calculations, 7% seems about right for annual. 3% seems about right for cycles 33-84. I think they just consider different time periods.

– Tom
17 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3














I am Axel, the developer behind bakersperformanceindex.com and I hope this tool can help you in reviewing the baking services you're using.



The basic idea behind it was:
1/ delegate the same amount of xtz to baking services, in our case 10xtz
2/ delegate at the very same cycle, in our case at cycle 34
3/ collect and display data in a simple and raw manner



So I delegated 10xtz at cycle 34 to 60 bakers.



There are basically:



3 columns: cycle 34-->n-2, cycle n-1, cycle n
3 sub-columns: Rewards/ROI/Balance
Rewards/ROI/Balance are headers for each column.



Let's take an example: Hayek Lab for the column cycle 34 --> cycle 88 (at this time 27th march 2019, cycle 90 in Tezos Time)
Rewards: 0.268
ROI: 2.681%
Balance 10.268
So between cycle 34 & 88, Hayek Lab had distributed 0.268 xtz of rewards for 10 xtz delegated, which makes a ROI of 2.68% for this period, so a period of 54 cycles. If we annualize with the following figures:
Number of cycles in a year: 365/3 = 121,66
121,66/54 = 2,25 (we've baked for 54 cycles in a 121,66 cycles)
Annualized return for Hayek Lab: 2,25*2,68=6,03%
I think numbers are consistent
If we take the figures for cycle 89, we have:
Rewards 0.0058
ROI: 0.056% (we have a ROI of 0,056% for one cycle)
Balance:10.274 so this is the balance we have after baking during 55 cycles.
Annualized ROI with the ROI at cycle 89: 0,0058*121,66= 6,77%



Figures are once again consistent.



If I do not annualize ROI is because, imagine the baker you choose, for one reason or another, does not distribute the rewards, your annualized ROI is not the same.



I just want to rely on proven figures, all the data displayed is the data we have right now and not plans on the future.



After one year or 121 cycles or at cycle 155, we will have one year data so the ROI will be quite exact.



2/If some bakers display 0, is just we did not get any reward from them for various reasons:
a/ 10xtz < Minimun Delegated Amount accepted
b/ Anonymous delegation not authorized by baker
c/ baker is a scam, node not working...



3/ I wish I could delegate 1000 xtz to all baking services at cycle 100. I am trying to convince bakers to get on board.



4/ Many new features to come, but development takes time & ressources.



5/ You can get in touch with me at bakersperformanceindex@protonmail.com for sharing ideas.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Axel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 1





    Thanks! Two suggestions. Why not add effective ROI, estimated annual ROI, and some simple FAQ/documentation? :)

    – luchonacho
    14 hours ago











  • You should certainly display annualized figures, call them what you want but otherwise the data cannot be use to compare between baker A and baker B. Also you need to provide gross and net figures because at 10 xtz of delegation the rewards are significantly impacted by transaction fees.

    – Ezy
    2 hours ago


















1














I believe the period for which the data was collected and presented on this page is not sufficiently long to be representative.



The page states that data on returns was measured between cycle 34 and 88, which is 54 cycles, roughly 160 days or 5.25 months.



In your example, the ROI of 7.1% as estimated by the baker is stated as annual returns, i.e. 12 months, and the ROI on the page thus represents only 44% of this timeframe. Therefore, it seems that after 12 months, the baker will likely reach the estimated ROI. Nothing suspicious here.



As for those bakers with a 0% ROI, I assume that they have not yet been included in this project and data is just missing, though I have not checked that.






share|improve this answer























  • Oh! I thought they were annualised! Interesting. Yes, that then explains the issue. The documentation is non-existent and that should be made clear.

    – luchonacho
    17 hours ago












  • If they dont annualize thats bad

    – Ezy
    16 hours ago










Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "698"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftezos.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f932%2fare-bakers-not-paying-promised-rewards%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3














I am Axel, the developer behind bakersperformanceindex.com and I hope this tool can help you in reviewing the baking services you're using.



The basic idea behind it was:
1/ delegate the same amount of xtz to baking services, in our case 10xtz
2/ delegate at the very same cycle, in our case at cycle 34
3/ collect and display data in a simple and raw manner



So I delegated 10xtz at cycle 34 to 60 bakers.



There are basically:



3 columns: cycle 34-->n-2, cycle n-1, cycle n
3 sub-columns: Rewards/ROI/Balance
Rewards/ROI/Balance are headers for each column.



Let's take an example: Hayek Lab for the column cycle 34 --> cycle 88 (at this time 27th march 2019, cycle 90 in Tezos Time)
Rewards: 0.268
ROI: 2.681%
Balance 10.268
So between cycle 34 & 88, Hayek Lab had distributed 0.268 xtz of rewards for 10 xtz delegated, which makes a ROI of 2.68% for this period, so a period of 54 cycles. If we annualize with the following figures:
Number of cycles in a year: 365/3 = 121,66
121,66/54 = 2,25 (we've baked for 54 cycles in a 121,66 cycles)
Annualized return for Hayek Lab: 2,25*2,68=6,03%
I think numbers are consistent
If we take the figures for cycle 89, we have:
Rewards 0.0058
ROI: 0.056% (we have a ROI of 0,056% for one cycle)
Balance:10.274 so this is the balance we have after baking during 55 cycles.
Annualized ROI with the ROI at cycle 89: 0,0058*121,66= 6,77%



Figures are once again consistent.



If I do not annualize ROI is because, imagine the baker you choose, for one reason or another, does not distribute the rewards, your annualized ROI is not the same.



I just want to rely on proven figures, all the data displayed is the data we have right now and not plans on the future.



After one year or 121 cycles or at cycle 155, we will have one year data so the ROI will be quite exact.



2/If some bakers display 0, is just we did not get any reward from them for various reasons:
a/ 10xtz < Minimun Delegated Amount accepted
b/ Anonymous delegation not authorized by baker
c/ baker is a scam, node not working...



3/ I wish I could delegate 1000 xtz to all baking services at cycle 100. I am trying to convince bakers to get on board.



4/ Many new features to come, but development takes time & ressources.



5/ You can get in touch with me at bakersperformanceindex@protonmail.com for sharing ideas.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Axel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 1





    Thanks! Two suggestions. Why not add effective ROI, estimated annual ROI, and some simple FAQ/documentation? :)

    – luchonacho
    14 hours ago











  • You should certainly display annualized figures, call them what you want but otherwise the data cannot be use to compare between baker A and baker B. Also you need to provide gross and net figures because at 10 xtz of delegation the rewards are significantly impacted by transaction fees.

    – Ezy
    2 hours ago















3














I am Axel, the developer behind bakersperformanceindex.com and I hope this tool can help you in reviewing the baking services you're using.



The basic idea behind it was:
1/ delegate the same amount of xtz to baking services, in our case 10xtz
2/ delegate at the very same cycle, in our case at cycle 34
3/ collect and display data in a simple and raw manner



So I delegated 10xtz at cycle 34 to 60 bakers.



There are basically:



3 columns: cycle 34-->n-2, cycle n-1, cycle n
3 sub-columns: Rewards/ROI/Balance
Rewards/ROI/Balance are headers for each column.



Let's take an example: Hayek Lab for the column cycle 34 --> cycle 88 (at this time 27th march 2019, cycle 90 in Tezos Time)
Rewards: 0.268
ROI: 2.681%
Balance 10.268
So between cycle 34 & 88, Hayek Lab had distributed 0.268 xtz of rewards for 10 xtz delegated, which makes a ROI of 2.68% for this period, so a period of 54 cycles. If we annualize with the following figures:
Number of cycles in a year: 365/3 = 121,66
121,66/54 = 2,25 (we've baked for 54 cycles in a 121,66 cycles)
Annualized return for Hayek Lab: 2,25*2,68=6,03%
I think numbers are consistent
If we take the figures for cycle 89, we have:
Rewards 0.0058
ROI: 0.056% (we have a ROI of 0,056% for one cycle)
Balance:10.274 so this is the balance we have after baking during 55 cycles.
Annualized ROI with the ROI at cycle 89: 0,0058*121,66= 6,77%



Figures are once again consistent.



If I do not annualize ROI is because, imagine the baker you choose, for one reason or another, does not distribute the rewards, your annualized ROI is not the same.



I just want to rely on proven figures, all the data displayed is the data we have right now and not plans on the future.



After one year or 121 cycles or at cycle 155, we will have one year data so the ROI will be quite exact.



2/If some bakers display 0, is just we did not get any reward from them for various reasons:
a/ 10xtz < Minimun Delegated Amount accepted
b/ Anonymous delegation not authorized by baker
c/ baker is a scam, node not working...



3/ I wish I could delegate 1000 xtz to all baking services at cycle 100. I am trying to convince bakers to get on board.



4/ Many new features to come, but development takes time & ressources.



5/ You can get in touch with me at bakersperformanceindex@protonmail.com for sharing ideas.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Axel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 1





    Thanks! Two suggestions. Why not add effective ROI, estimated annual ROI, and some simple FAQ/documentation? :)

    – luchonacho
    14 hours ago











  • You should certainly display annualized figures, call them what you want but otherwise the data cannot be use to compare between baker A and baker B. Also you need to provide gross and net figures because at 10 xtz of delegation the rewards are significantly impacted by transaction fees.

    – Ezy
    2 hours ago













3












3








3







I am Axel, the developer behind bakersperformanceindex.com and I hope this tool can help you in reviewing the baking services you're using.



The basic idea behind it was:
1/ delegate the same amount of xtz to baking services, in our case 10xtz
2/ delegate at the very same cycle, in our case at cycle 34
3/ collect and display data in a simple and raw manner



So I delegated 10xtz at cycle 34 to 60 bakers.



There are basically:



3 columns: cycle 34-->n-2, cycle n-1, cycle n
3 sub-columns: Rewards/ROI/Balance
Rewards/ROI/Balance are headers for each column.



Let's take an example: Hayek Lab for the column cycle 34 --> cycle 88 (at this time 27th march 2019, cycle 90 in Tezos Time)
Rewards: 0.268
ROI: 2.681%
Balance 10.268
So between cycle 34 & 88, Hayek Lab had distributed 0.268 xtz of rewards for 10 xtz delegated, which makes a ROI of 2.68% for this period, so a period of 54 cycles. If we annualize with the following figures:
Number of cycles in a year: 365/3 = 121,66
121,66/54 = 2,25 (we've baked for 54 cycles in a 121,66 cycles)
Annualized return for Hayek Lab: 2,25*2,68=6,03%
I think numbers are consistent
If we take the figures for cycle 89, we have:
Rewards 0.0058
ROI: 0.056% (we have a ROI of 0,056% for one cycle)
Balance:10.274 so this is the balance we have after baking during 55 cycles.
Annualized ROI with the ROI at cycle 89: 0,0058*121,66= 6,77%



Figures are once again consistent.



If I do not annualize ROI is because, imagine the baker you choose, for one reason or another, does not distribute the rewards, your annualized ROI is not the same.



I just want to rely on proven figures, all the data displayed is the data we have right now and not plans on the future.



After one year or 121 cycles or at cycle 155, we will have one year data so the ROI will be quite exact.



2/If some bakers display 0, is just we did not get any reward from them for various reasons:
a/ 10xtz < Minimun Delegated Amount accepted
b/ Anonymous delegation not authorized by baker
c/ baker is a scam, node not working...



3/ I wish I could delegate 1000 xtz to all baking services at cycle 100. I am trying to convince bakers to get on board.



4/ Many new features to come, but development takes time & ressources.



5/ You can get in touch with me at bakersperformanceindex@protonmail.com for sharing ideas.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Axel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










I am Axel, the developer behind bakersperformanceindex.com and I hope this tool can help you in reviewing the baking services you're using.



The basic idea behind it was:
1/ delegate the same amount of xtz to baking services, in our case 10xtz
2/ delegate at the very same cycle, in our case at cycle 34
3/ collect and display data in a simple and raw manner



So I delegated 10xtz at cycle 34 to 60 bakers.



There are basically:



3 columns: cycle 34-->n-2, cycle n-1, cycle n
3 sub-columns: Rewards/ROI/Balance
Rewards/ROI/Balance are headers for each column.



Let's take an example: Hayek Lab for the column cycle 34 --> cycle 88 (at this time 27th march 2019, cycle 90 in Tezos Time)
Rewards: 0.268
ROI: 2.681%
Balance 10.268
So between cycle 34 & 88, Hayek Lab had distributed 0.268 xtz of rewards for 10 xtz delegated, which makes a ROI of 2.68% for this period, so a period of 54 cycles. If we annualize with the following figures:
Number of cycles in a year: 365/3 = 121,66
121,66/54 = 2,25 (we've baked for 54 cycles in a 121,66 cycles)
Annualized return for Hayek Lab: 2,25*2,68=6,03%
I think numbers are consistent
If we take the figures for cycle 89, we have:
Rewards 0.0058
ROI: 0.056% (we have a ROI of 0,056% for one cycle)
Balance:10.274 so this is the balance we have after baking during 55 cycles.
Annualized ROI with the ROI at cycle 89: 0,0058*121,66= 6,77%



Figures are once again consistent.



If I do not annualize ROI is because, imagine the baker you choose, for one reason or another, does not distribute the rewards, your annualized ROI is not the same.



I just want to rely on proven figures, all the data displayed is the data we have right now and not plans on the future.



After one year or 121 cycles or at cycle 155, we will have one year data so the ROI will be quite exact.



2/If some bakers display 0, is just we did not get any reward from them for various reasons:
a/ 10xtz < Minimun Delegated Amount accepted
b/ Anonymous delegation not authorized by baker
c/ baker is a scam, node not working...



3/ I wish I could delegate 1000 xtz to all baking services at cycle 100. I am trying to convince bakers to get on board.



4/ Many new features to come, but development takes time & ressources.



5/ You can get in touch with me at bakersperformanceindex@protonmail.com for sharing ideas.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




Axel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




Axel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 14 hours ago









AxelAxel

311




311




New contributor




Axel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Axel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Axel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 1





    Thanks! Two suggestions. Why not add effective ROI, estimated annual ROI, and some simple FAQ/documentation? :)

    – luchonacho
    14 hours ago











  • You should certainly display annualized figures, call them what you want but otherwise the data cannot be use to compare between baker A and baker B. Also you need to provide gross and net figures because at 10 xtz of delegation the rewards are significantly impacted by transaction fees.

    – Ezy
    2 hours ago












  • 1





    Thanks! Two suggestions. Why not add effective ROI, estimated annual ROI, and some simple FAQ/documentation? :)

    – luchonacho
    14 hours ago











  • You should certainly display annualized figures, call them what you want but otherwise the data cannot be use to compare between baker A and baker B. Also you need to provide gross and net figures because at 10 xtz of delegation the rewards are significantly impacted by transaction fees.

    – Ezy
    2 hours ago







1




1





Thanks! Two suggestions. Why not add effective ROI, estimated annual ROI, and some simple FAQ/documentation? :)

– luchonacho
14 hours ago





Thanks! Two suggestions. Why not add effective ROI, estimated annual ROI, and some simple FAQ/documentation? :)

– luchonacho
14 hours ago













You should certainly display annualized figures, call them what you want but otherwise the data cannot be use to compare between baker A and baker B. Also you need to provide gross and net figures because at 10 xtz of delegation the rewards are significantly impacted by transaction fees.

– Ezy
2 hours ago





You should certainly display annualized figures, call them what you want but otherwise the data cannot be use to compare between baker A and baker B. Also you need to provide gross and net figures because at 10 xtz of delegation the rewards are significantly impacted by transaction fees.

– Ezy
2 hours ago











1














I believe the period for which the data was collected and presented on this page is not sufficiently long to be representative.



The page states that data on returns was measured between cycle 34 and 88, which is 54 cycles, roughly 160 days or 5.25 months.



In your example, the ROI of 7.1% as estimated by the baker is stated as annual returns, i.e. 12 months, and the ROI on the page thus represents only 44% of this timeframe. Therefore, it seems that after 12 months, the baker will likely reach the estimated ROI. Nothing suspicious here.



As for those bakers with a 0% ROI, I assume that they have not yet been included in this project and data is just missing, though I have not checked that.






share|improve this answer























  • Oh! I thought they were annualised! Interesting. Yes, that then explains the issue. The documentation is non-existent and that should be made clear.

    – luchonacho
    17 hours ago












  • If they dont annualize thats bad

    – Ezy
    16 hours ago















1














I believe the period for which the data was collected and presented on this page is not sufficiently long to be representative.



The page states that data on returns was measured between cycle 34 and 88, which is 54 cycles, roughly 160 days or 5.25 months.



In your example, the ROI of 7.1% as estimated by the baker is stated as annual returns, i.e. 12 months, and the ROI on the page thus represents only 44% of this timeframe. Therefore, it seems that after 12 months, the baker will likely reach the estimated ROI. Nothing suspicious here.



As for those bakers with a 0% ROI, I assume that they have not yet been included in this project and data is just missing, though I have not checked that.






share|improve this answer























  • Oh! I thought they were annualised! Interesting. Yes, that then explains the issue. The documentation is non-existent and that should be made clear.

    – luchonacho
    17 hours ago












  • If they dont annualize thats bad

    – Ezy
    16 hours ago













1












1








1







I believe the period for which the data was collected and presented on this page is not sufficiently long to be representative.



The page states that data on returns was measured between cycle 34 and 88, which is 54 cycles, roughly 160 days or 5.25 months.



In your example, the ROI of 7.1% as estimated by the baker is stated as annual returns, i.e. 12 months, and the ROI on the page thus represents only 44% of this timeframe. Therefore, it seems that after 12 months, the baker will likely reach the estimated ROI. Nothing suspicious here.



As for those bakers with a 0% ROI, I assume that they have not yet been included in this project and data is just missing, though I have not checked that.






share|improve this answer













I believe the period for which the data was collected and presented on this page is not sufficiently long to be representative.



The page states that data on returns was measured between cycle 34 and 88, which is 54 cycles, roughly 160 days or 5.25 months.



In your example, the ROI of 7.1% as estimated by the baker is stated as annual returns, i.e. 12 months, and the ROI on the page thus represents only 44% of this timeframe. Therefore, it seems that after 12 months, the baker will likely reach the estimated ROI. Nothing suspicious here.



As for those bakers with a 0% ROI, I assume that they have not yet been included in this project and data is just missing, though I have not checked that.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 17 hours ago









MarcBMarcB

482113




482113












  • Oh! I thought they were annualised! Interesting. Yes, that then explains the issue. The documentation is non-existent and that should be made clear.

    – luchonacho
    17 hours ago












  • If they dont annualize thats bad

    – Ezy
    16 hours ago

















  • Oh! I thought they were annualised! Interesting. Yes, that then explains the issue. The documentation is non-existent and that should be made clear.

    – luchonacho
    17 hours ago












  • If they dont annualize thats bad

    – Ezy
    16 hours ago
















Oh! I thought they were annualised! Interesting. Yes, that then explains the issue. The documentation is non-existent and that should be made clear.

– luchonacho
17 hours ago






Oh! I thought they were annualised! Interesting. Yes, that then explains the issue. The documentation is non-existent and that should be made clear.

– luchonacho
17 hours ago














If they dont annualize thats bad

– Ezy
16 hours ago





If they dont annualize thats bad

– Ezy
16 hours ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Tezos Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftezos.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f932%2fare-bakers-not-paying-promised-rewards%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Log på Navigationsmenu

Wonderful Copenhagen (sang) Eksterne henvisninger | NavigationsmenurSide på frankloesser.comWonderful Copenhagen

Detroit Tigers Spis treści Historia | Skład zespołu | Sukcesy | Członkowie Baseball Hall of Fame | Zastrzeżone numery | Przypisy | Menu nawigacyjneEncyclopedia of Detroit - Detroit TigersTigers Stadium, Detroit, MITigers Timeline 1900sDetroit Tigers Team History & EncyclopediaTigers Timeline 1910s1935 World Series1945 World Series1945 World Series1984 World SeriesComerica Park, Detroit, MI2006 World Series2012 World SeriesDetroit Tigers 40-Man RosterDetroit Tigers Coaching StaffTigers Hall of FamersTigers Retired Numberse