The real issues that needs to be remembered is that the value of capital accumulation / centralization is non-linear. Take $7 billion dollars and give everyone in the world $1 and how much will get done? Take $7 billion dollars and give it to a company like Apple and how much can get done? Take a startup company with a fixed budget and try to hire 1000 people at $100 / year or one person at $100,000 per year and which company will get more done?
So those who are arguing Pay-to-Win as a fault are doing so based upon envy and not based upon economics or reason. The most I can grant them is that the general population is as ignorant as they are and that it could result in complaints. Ultimately the complainers are not justification for creating an economically inviable system and instead should be viewed as a marketing challenge and perception management.
Focus instead on:
1) Anyone can become a delegate if they can convince enough people to support them.
2) Equal opportunity
3) Everyone gets a voice
What I know from the gaming community is that the players and culture around it has determined that Pay-to-Win isn't fun. They vote with their dollars and time and typically choose the games which they perceive as being fair.
Whether or not it's economical isn't entering the minds of the players. The players for instance don't play Diablo because it's good for the economy or to make Blizzard rich but to have fun playing it. It's all on the forums to see for yourself. https://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/9882019032https://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/9165847048http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/11298399749?page=1http://www.reddit.com/r/wow/comments/1ym140/blizzard_world_of_warcraft_is_not_going_to_become/
So you can see that the sentiment isn't coming from me and that I'm not making it up. It's an observation of gaming culture and I think it is important for the Bitshares community and for technology in general to appeal to this demographic. If we can't get gamers how are we supposed to win and who are we going to attract instead?
I find it bizarre that we would want to try to appeal to Apple consumers when Apple specifically banned Bitcoin for the longest time. It's a strategy which could work but I think getting gamers is a lot easier and I think a lot of miners are also gamers which could explain the popularity of mining.
Agree with bytemaster here. I don't really understand the problems you guys raise.
Why is being a delegate being a winner? It is a job that you are voted into by the shareholders. Normal shareholders just want their shares to go up. People who use the DAC just wants the service it provides as cheaply as possible.
The checks we have on delegates being responsible, incorruptible, open, honest, is through shareholder votes. Is it not enough?
If someone buys up a lot of shares to vote for their delegates the price of the whole system goes up, and their money is as tied to the success of the network as anyone else. If someone buys up all of the delegates - or blackmails/threatens them - without any of this being detected, then the shareholders likely did a horrible job voting for delegates?
That being said, if there is no incentive to vote on delegates then shareholders might do a horrible job at voting. If there are too few delegates they can all be coerced/bought, and if there are too many the network will be slow. Dynamic number is better than magic numbers, but evolution through testing seems to be the only way to fine-tune all things considered.
It's not a problem for now. You're not looking for enough ahead.
Today our community is small so we cannot see problems with the way things are because it's only maybe 5000 people on the forum and less than 20,000 (I'm being generous) who will use Bitshares and who know what it is.
My opinion is that with a small community like this of course what we are doing is going to look good in an echo chamber. If we want mass appeal I believe we have to do something different because the earth has around 7 billion people and the vast majority don't have enough money to win.
If it's Pay-to-Win then the vast majority of potential users are going to think it's unfair. They already think this in the gaming community which is where the phrase came from and if you Google Pay-to-Win you can see this is how the majority of gamers already think. They think if you do something Pay-to-Win it's a sign that somehow you're selling out and that it is unfair.
The problem is that in order to grow long term and be used by all people in the world the DPoS technology and Bitshares brand must appeal to all kinds of players. This includes the players who don't like Pay-to-Win. Today Bitshares appeals to people like us, and do you really think there are enough people like us in the world to make Bitshares a global phenomena?
We aren't like Apple because Apple has been around for a long time, has connections everywhere, has boatloads of cash to buy everyone out. We are like the startup community trying to create an industry and we have to target the demographics of early adopters which includes Apple consumers but is not exclusively Apple consumers.
These are my opinions, I offer them to encourage debate even if I'm in disagreement with Bytemaster.