Me too. Although, I temporarily plan to switch to https://poolharvest.io about 48 hours before it reaches 100 PiB in order to get a share of the pool’s 25 XCH bonus (if it ever reaches 100 PiB - it has been stagnating at 55 PiB for some time; and as I expected it switched from immediate payouts to max 1 payout per time interval (currently, per 2 hours)).
The question would be better addressed by Chia itself.
First of all, as in a decentralized environment, every one could play a good guy or bad guy. It’s pointless to accuse others as a cheater without evidence. Baseless accusation won’t help to build the trustworthy reputation of adversary.
Second, Chia didn’t do enough to build up the intrinsic value itself. Look at the 90-days chart. Bitcoin went from $36K to $48K, a gain of 30% +/-. In contrast, Chia went down from $700 to $250.
Chia is money. But time is money, too.
John Paulson, the billionaire investor today calls the entire crypto business a “bubble bound to eventually collapse”. Fair enough, John doesn’t believe in Chia. But should those Chia billionaires put in extra efforts to make Chia attractive to folks who believe in Bitcoin and alike?
Until then, you can’t tell who is cheating on whom.
Does it matter? All pools are subject to syphoning tactics from individual farmers that can only be detected through speculation. A 1PB farm can almost double their XCH without raising a brow. Any size farm can almost double their XCH but once your farm gets too big, it becomes easier for the pool to make the assumption that it is happening.
To answer the original question for my case. Chia is very much a side project for me. I joined ecochia because of its regular payouts and 0% fee. It’s been a low-priority question for me since joining: is it trustworthy? I semi-assumed that the official pooling protocol took care of that.
I finally got around to doing my research today (while procrastinating more important things). Aaaaaand I’ve left ecochia.
So, why don’t you be more vocal, and start pushing the official Chia to have some sort of validation of pool results? To me, if I look at Chia UI at my pool performance, and don’t see some sort of verification that what that pool is reporting is right, I don’t think that there is a point to trust those pools. It looks to me that Chia is basically enabling that kind of shady practice.
For that reason I keep few plots in three pools (same number in each pool) to compare results in the “long run.” It is a really poor-man check, but much better than what I get from Chia’s UI.
Kind of. Their scheme seems to have paid out. They are still quite big. Like someone else here said - they just log on and doesnt care. Still, I wonder if they are allowed to keep Chia as part of their pool address