I second it too. 

It just haven't come straight to me that what is going to happen to the current nominators with the 10 DOT if this proposal got implemented. 

Say as one of them, do i just top up my the minimum bond to 50 then keep up with the game or i can just leave the account to death. Either way, my account's existence is not effecting the maximum nominators that much I think?

Correct me if I'm not making sense here :)



After `MinNominatorBond` changes, accounts will no longer be able to `nominate()` below the new threshold. But there will probably be a number of users still nominating below 50 DOT. In which case we can call `chill_other(controller)` to permissionlessly chill a nominator below the threshold. https://paritytech.github.io/substrate/master/pallet_staking/pallet/enum.Call.html#variant.chill_other



<blockquote>
It just haven't come straight to me that what is going to happen to the current nominators with the 10 DOT if this proposal got implemented.
</blockquote>
They can be chilled by the <code>chill_other</code> transaction, at which point they can unbond and leave the system.
<blockquote>
Say as one of them, do i just top up my the minimum bond to 50 then keep up with the game or i can just leave the account to death. Either way, my account's existence is not effecting the maximum nominators that much I think?
</blockquote>
You can either top up to 50DOTs, or you can remain as long as you are not chilled.

锁定的的dot是到期自动解锁吗？

As pools are launched, I think we have even more confidence that nominators with less than ~190 DOTs will not be useful to neither themselves, nor the system. Given this, I actually suggest setting:&nbsp;
<ul>
<li>minimum nomination bond: 150 DOT</li>
<li>maximum nominator count: unbounded.</li>
</ul>
The latter is also because we don't effectively need to have any bound on nominators. Recall that the NPoS always takes the best 22500 nominators based on the bags-list process which is explained in detail in Match and April staking updates (<a href="https://polkadot.network/tag/staking-updates/)">https://polkadot.network/tag/staking-updates/)</a>.&nbsp;

This makes a lot of sense to me. On Polkadot now the minimum bond to be actively nominating is 160.97 DOT, increasing by 30 DOT since Kian posted this - and which will most likely go up with the advent of nomination pools and _much_ larger nominator bonds.

As Kian points out, with this change there will be less incentive to nominate which may result in less inactive nominators.

50 DOT is a substantial / meaningful increase relative to 10 DOT, but is also quite modest given the minimum active bond is now 160 DOT. I'm in favour of the increase, and perhaps further increases after we witness the effects of nomination pools on bond thresholds on Polkadot.

Nomination pools are just around the corner for Polkadot, and this suggests some changes to be applied to the staking system.

First, let’s recap on the current status quo: Currently, nominators can freely set their intention to nominate in Polkadot, as long as they meet two limits: a minimum of 10 DOTs is staked, and a maximum of 50_000 nominators is not filled. This creates a nomination market, where in every era, the top 22_500 nominators from this open market are chosen to participate in the election process, and possibly receive staking rewards (if other conditions like over-subscription are not met).

> This is a complicated and involved process. Nomination pools are exactly here to combat this and provide a simpler experience for DOT-holders to participate in staking. 

Based on this, let’s cluster Polkadot nominators into two groups: **active** (in the top 22500), and **waiting**. The main concern at this point is to

1. Encourage all existing waiting nominators to join pools. This is mainly a task for the Wallet/UI development ecosystem, and is beyond the scope of this discussion. 
2. Prevent too many waiting nominators to be created. The reason being that I speculate that most of these nominators have **erroneously** in the waiting queue, and prefer joining pools instead. 

To achieve the second goal, we can set the nomination limits (10 DOTs, 50_000) such that the system is not so *inviting* to waiting nominators. In other words, the system should try and prevent nominators from being created, if they are certainly going to end up being in the waiting queue. 

For example, we empirically know that the actual amount of DOTs needed to be an active nominator is around 130 DOTs as of this writing. Therefore, we can set the minimum nomination limit to a higher value such as 50.

Note that keeping a buffer of waiting nominators is a positive factor for Polkadot's economic security. It allows for buffer of waiting nominators to be ready, should a (malicious) cluster of nominators decide to chill all at once, preventing nothing at stake issues. Therefore, I am not suggesting lowering 50_000 as well, and find that a reasonable bound. But, with nomination pools, I do think we should immediately forward anyone with less than e.g. 50 DOTs to join pools instead, and the way to do that is to immediately reject their nominate transaction. 



#1224 Proposal: Slightly higher nomination limits