ATADA/ATAD2 is a Supporter-/Dev-Pool for other Operators. We provide tools, help and knowledge since the early ITN days to help the whole ecosystem grow further. We have over 3M ADA Pledge in the game, we care about #Cardano. Spread the love😍 Happy to welcome new Delegators.

What a fantastic new feature from Cardanoscan! 😎 I already secured the shortcut domains: spo.me/atada spo.me/atada2 drep.me/martinlang Love it!

Words cannot express how much this means coming directly from @Cardano. 💙 From the very first Byron blocks to the Voltaire governance era, running our bare-metal JOY & HOPE infrastructure has been the greatest honor of my life. This recognition belongs entirely to our faithful delegators in Korea and around the world, who believed in mathematical truth and sovereign decentralization from day one. A special debt of gratitude to @ATADA_Stakepool and @amw7—your unwavering technical mentorship, camaraderie, and brotherhood in the trenches made running these nodes through every epoch possible. Thank you, @Cardano, for nine years of unyielding engineering and vision. We will continue holding the line and pushing the frontier forward into the next decade. Happy 9th Genesis Anniversary! 🏛️⚡🤝 #Cardano #CardanoCommunity #SPO #Decentralization #ADA9Years

🚨Ledger Cardano-App v8.0.8 is officially out !!! Checkout the new features in my video from a while ago here:

🔥 New update - StakePool Operator Scripts Cardano Ledger App v8.0.8 is officiall out !!! github.com/gitmachtl/scripts - Minimum HW-CLI v1.20.0 - Minimum Ledger CardanoApp v8.0.8 - Minimum Cardano-Signer v1.35 - Added more and detailed Error-Outputs while signing with a HW-Wallet, output was improved in HW-CLI 1.20 for scripts 01_claimRewards, 01_sendAssets, 01_sendLovelaces, 03b_regStakingAddrCert, 05c_regStakepoolCert, 05d_poolWitness, 06_regDelegationCert, 07b_deregStakepoolCert, 08b_deregStakingAddrCert, 11a_mintAsset, 11b_burnAsset, 21b_regDRepCert, 21d_retDRepCert, 22bregVoteDelegCert, 23c_regComAuthCert, 23e_retComColdKeys, 24b_regVote - Added the feature to allow "unrestricted" signing mode for voting on multiple Governance Actions at the same time with the DRep-Key on the Ledger HW-Wallet (24b) - Added the feature to allow "unrestricted" signing mode to pay for a CLI-Key DRep Registration/Retirement with the Ledger-HW-Wallet (21b, 21d) - Added the feature to pay via CLI-Wallet for a DRep Registration/Retirment on the Ledger-HW-Wallet (21b, 21d) - Added the feature to register/update a Stakepool with the Pool-Key and Payment-Key on the Ledger-HW-Wallet (05c) - Added the script 04f_genBLSKeys.sh for Leios-Testnet environments

The document actually says that we should concider minMARGIN. SPOs/DREPs have acknowledged that and it looks like they do not support the rush to bottom. Good.

Fellow SPOs, I’ve submitted a new Info Action: “Should stakePoolTargetNum (k) be raised from 500 to 1000? (SPO poll)” This action builds on earlier work by Cerkoryn and the Parameter Committee, whose work in developing the background and bringing this question forward I explicitly acknowledge and appreciate. Where I took a different approach was the polling methodology. After the discussions over the past few days, I did not see a path toward a common voting methodology that I could support. I therefore decided to submit an alternative version using the established CIP-1694 voting semantics. Under the established CIP-1694 semantics, registered SPO stake that does not vote behaves like a No vote. I personally see that as a legitimate part of the existing governance design. If the community believes this should work differently, I think that deserves a broader discussion about SPO governance rather than changing the interpretation for this particular highly contentious parameter poll. My aim was to create a neutral, standalone SPO poll. The action presents substantive arguments both for and against the change, explains how the result should be interpreted, and documents its provenance. This also follows the broader principle on establishing SPO mandates that I previously set out in CAP 10: cap.intersectmbo.org/#/detai… Please read the full action, make up your own mind, and vote: adastat.net/governances/f6fd…

posts like that coming from a non spo are always funny. no we should not push spos further and further down. spos should lookout to deploy there own servers for blockproducers and relays in datacenter, colocation, homesetups with fibre, etc. not pushing them down to minimize there infrastructure, centralize at the cheapest possible cloud options. this will backfire pretty hard at some point! so fellow dreps, i encourage you to vote NO on the minPoolCost=75Ada change. and wait until we have the minMargin settings in place to make it fair for every spo, large or small. Thanks!

I strongly encourage DReps to not create a race to the bottom and wait for CIP-23 (minimum margin in Dijkstra) before dropping min cost again. It costs about 100/mo for a single AWS server. At current Ada price an spo gets $80/mo from their cost at 75 Ada cost.

Just found this CIP-0182 and i find it disturbing that it flies way under the radar of most cardano people. Making such drastically changes to governance action voting behavior for CC members must be discussed and presented on public platforms that are more cardano related than just in the comment sections of a github pull request. I have added my thoughts, because i don't like that CIP at all. Trying to solve something that has not even be a problem at all. Its a dangerous shift to switch to "default YES" behavior imo. github.com/cardano-foundatio…

If anyone needs a -10% ticket for TOKEN2049, here is a referal code if you like. Gives you -10%, gives me -10%: checkout.token2049.com/event…

🚨This is alarming - With great conserns, i am seeing public cardano community members calling to strip away the option for SPOs to vote on Governance Actions, or to change a default behavior to make it easier for Governance Actions to pass without SPO interaction. Some are saying that SPOs don't wanna vote at all - WTF? SPOs are the only one of the three entities (CC, DReps, SPOs) that are currently forced to vote with there holy grail Pool Cold Keys. Which is a frustrating process to do on an airgapped "cold" machine. Compared to a CC or DRep Hot-Key that can live in a LightWallet if you want. SPOs vote when it counts, SPOs do not vote just for fun or so on InfoActions that do not need an SPO vote at all. Accusing them that they are "Lazy Voters" or that they "Dont wanna vote" is more than alarming to me. --------- Let me be straight, there are only 4 different Governance Actions that require the vote from SPOs: HardForkInitiation, Security-Critical Protocol Parameter Changes, NewCommittee and NoConfidence. Last one never happend on Mainnet (thank god). There were only 2 Hardforks so far - since we introduced governance - that required an SPO vote, both were obviosly greenlit. (see the screenshot below) There were only 4 NewCommittee(UpdateCommittee) actions so far. Three were greenlit by SPOs, one was rejected, same one was also rejected by DReps. (see the screenshot below) There were only 2 ParameterChange(Update) actions so far that required SPO voting. The first one (inc. Transaction and BlockMemoryUnits) was greenlit by SPOs and DReps. The second one is a current one (red. minPoolCost and inc. PlutusMemoryLimits), which looks like will be rejected by SPOs. Could be greenlit by DReps by a marginal value above 67%. Sits at 66.7% by the time of posting, but lets say it will be greenlit by DReps. --------- So, out of ALL the Governance Actions so far that required a vote by SPOs, there is currently only ONE action, that is rejected by SPOs and greenlit by DReps! ONE! And now voices are coming out and calling to strip away SPO voting power from governance actions or change ledger behavior to make it easier for actions to pass without SPO voting interaction! Because that one action will not pass and those voices don't like that fact. Are you f*cking kidding me????? This is how governance works! --------- There is a solution on the horizon that would make it way much easier for SPOs to vote more often on like f.e. InfoActions - even if they don't have to. Its called CIP-175. It introduces Hot Voting Keys also for SPOs, to close this gap and "disadvantage" against CC and DRep Voting Keys. We need this to be integrated within one of the next HardForks, sooner than later! So i am calling every SPOs, every DRep and of course the CC members to support this CIP-175 and to push it forward to a higher priority. Thank you very much already for your support, and that you have read this whole post til the end, thx! 😍

Cardano is now live as the public proof layer in Blockforce’s traceability platform, with more than 500,000 supply chain records already anchored. Commercial data stays private on Hyperledger Fabric, while cryptographic proofs on Cardano allow records to be independently verified by auditors, regulators and customers. Joint engineering work also cut the cost per record by 92%, helping bring public verification into production at enterprise scale. Read the full announcement: cardanofoundation.org/blog/b…

Now after my holidays, ATADA also joined the Leios-TestNet (MusashiNet) ... Already updated the "Stakepool Operator Scripts" to provide BLS-Key (LeiosKey) support. Will be released in a bit, when the Leios cardano-cli got some updates. 🔥

Voting decision update: I have voted NO on the "Reduce minPoolCost to 75 ada and increase Plutus Memory Limits (Part 2)" governance action as a DRep and as a SPO, because reducing minPoolCost even more makes no sense to me. Thats not sustainable for an SPO on any level. And even this small value is a threshold that puts small pools in a disadvantage. We need a minMargin parameter with a sustainable level first, before getting rid of minPoolCost at all. Evens the field for everybody, small and large pools. I would have voted YES on the Plutus Memory Limits, but not in this combination.

I am bullish on Cardano

I love NYC