Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Delegate subsidy clarification  (Read 371 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline toast

Delegate subsidy clarification
« on: August 04, 2014, 05:44:55 PM »

The subsidy is "use it or lose it", meaning it is treated as income and pay rate applies.

Suppose in the first year the average delegate pay rate is 30%.

That means only 1bn would be added, not 3.1bn like the theoretical maximum subsidy.
Furthermore, the 2.1bn are NOT recycled into the delegate pool, so the theoretical max supply drops from 10bn to under 8bn.

Meanwhile the subsidy *rate* has still decreased on schedule, because the amount by which subsidy_pool_remaining decreases is independent of pay rate.

All this means is that early voters have to be proactive about only approving high pay-rate delegates to people or groups which add value and want the DAC to succeed. I know and trust enough AGS whales to think that this is no more dangerous or "unfair" than giving ourselves a huge dev preallocation.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BTS: clains
Re: Delegate subsidy clarification
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2014, 09:47:26 PM »
The main considerations that come out of all these discussions is this:

1) Inflation with voting-authorized spending has the potential (it might!) to solve tragedy of the commons.
1.2) This is required because DACs face dynamic threats and opportunities that are external to its operations.
2) Unlike initial allocation this solution is dynamic, decentralized and trust-less with no single point of failure.

My own opinion is that everyone should be discussing Voting Incentives, Voting GUI, etc. instead since now this is the most critical issue to make sure voter interests fall in line with DAC interests.

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
Re: Delegate subsidy clarification
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2014, 10:06:13 PM »
Cool, thanks for the clarification.

My concern still is that shareholder participation is low early on, so the developers stake will be deciding the majority of delegates.

Obviously the developers want the DAC to succeed so they're not on a mission to award themselves a huge % of the equity by the end of the year. So it's fine.

I think it's just such a big amount of potential equity release that it could create some problems and the market may have been more comfortable with a little less is all.

Offline 天籁

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
    • View Profile
Re: Delegate subsidy clarification
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2014, 10:48:48 PM »
Cool, thanks for the clarification.

My concern still is that shareholder participation is low early on, so the developers stake will be deciding the majority of delegates.

Obviously the developers want the DAC to succeed so they're not on a mission to award themselves a huge % of the equity by the end of the year. So it's fine.

I think it's just such a big amount of potential equity release that it could create some problems and the market may have been more comfortable with a little less is all.
+5%
 The theoretical maximum subsidy 3.1bn is always a sword hanging over the head.
BTS account: disneyland
PLAY account: playone

 

Google+