Delegates responding to market rates, weird game theory with current set-up

[Riverhead]

The way BM explained it another thread was that your pay rate was part of your campaign platform and making it so you could reduce your income but not raise it would remove at least one thing people needed to trust in their delegates.  He also mentioned that if you want to raise your fee just create another delegate and campaign to have the votes switched to that one.


I'm not saying I agree or disagree; I haven't given this aspect a lot of thought because my delegate is really cheap for me to run and I'm happy to do my bit to secure the network even at a loss.  This is just what was imparted to me in another thread.

[bdnoble]

I never really understood why increasing fees was not allowed. That's why I chose to start with 100% because of the risk of not being able to increase it. I plan to lower my rate as the market dictates. I should be able to increase it for the same reason. And in either case if someone doesn't like my rate/service then they can vote me out.

[maqifrnswa]

There is a weird game theory thing happening with delegate payrates, by preventing delegates from raising rates you risk damaging network coverage.

Current Rules:
1) You are allowed to lower, but not increase fees
2) Once elected a delegate, you remain one until votes decrease to eliminate you.

Market forces:
1) BTSX price and BTC are volatile, as is daily fees earned
2) there are fixed expenses (for the most part) for running a node/delegate
3) People are bidding on fees, lowest bids should, in theory win.

Outcome:
1) Delegates bid such that they make a profit
2a) If BTSX increases in value, they can decrease to stay competitive in the market
2b) If BTSX decreases in value, there is no ability to increase fees to stay competitive. The delegate will turn off their machine since income is less than cost. Voting response is slow. Network yield is hurt.

I currently am only running 1 delegate, at 15%, and am providing services to the community (maintaining an ubuntu PPA, bug reporting/testing/validation). Others are running 5 nodes at 100%. That's fine, I don't mind only running one delegate since I believe in decentralization - but now that BTSX is slipping I see I'm stuck with the choice of losing money or hurting the system. I'm going to keep it running, but others in my situation will hurt the system.

Could there be a mechanism by which delegates increase their fee? perhaps they declare a fee change and have to wait x number of days before it is implemented so voters can vote them out if they think it is unfair?