5% is still okay in my book, but that's about the limit. LiteGuardian does 2% PPS, and it's not doing any hybrid.
The reserves a pool needs to handle the swings of PPS are too much for it to be a consideration. Combine that with the block withholding attack risk that can drive the pool bankrupt it's not worth it.I like mmpool with or without PPS, I'm just giving my opinion on PPS in general.
Oh, well yea, I agreed with you 100% with PPS in general.
Personally, I think PPS rates should be trailing; based on the pool's average rate at which they find blocks for one Difficulty Term.
I would first set my break-even, minimum PPS %, then choose an arbitrary number + % as the first control term. After the Network Difficulty adjusts, get the avg. Time between blocks on network and between blocks found in pool. I would see how the pools avg. Hashrate changed +/- then adjust the PPS n% higher, or lower.
Of course you would need an upper bound limit pool miners would agree too, but adjusting the PPS between let's say 1.25% and 5.05% could average out nicely for Pool managers and Devoted Miners.
My math is 'Pseudo Math' I would need time to write an actual formula, but that's my idea.
PPS with a variable fee based on luck. Interesting.
