Giving it a different name (RDPOS) isn't a good idea. You guys had problems with the weird BitShares X branding. Now we'll have RDPOS and DPOS. Explaining how RDPOS improves anything will not be an easy sale. In fact, "recommended" psychologically frames the whole process negatively in terms of what crypto people are wanting.
totally agree marketing wise. Just leave the name DPOS.
The basic problem is that the motivations of stake holders are not the same for Delegates. Delegates are in it to profit off transaction fees by being elected. Users are in it to profit of appreciation or the burn rate. Delegates aren't necessarily looking after users.
That is a general problem whenever you delegate something that is not really solvable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem You can only try to optimize incentives. Gamey, where do you see potential for optimizing incentives and where do you think incentives (incentives that are trying to align the interests of the two different groups like shareholders have the right to vote)
Writing the above, wouldn't it be possible to mimic corporate incentive structures: Executives are getting paid with shares but can only sell the shares after a few years. Also the pay (with good incentive strucures) is decoupled from the development of the business sector. Practically that would mean: Delegats are paid in bts x that have a time lock of say half a year which incentivizes to act in the long term interest of the system + it they get less bts x in case the overall bitcoin market developes well. The latter can prob. not be hard coded.
Delegates will provide a self-serving slate that end-users will not easily be able to discern. In addition, we may end up with a lot of nastiness. "Such and such was removed off slate GOOD GUYS for petty reason #4923". It just won't look good. You are centralizing things on different levels, allowing more gamification of the system.
Interesting comment! Well worth thinking about. Summary:
- delegates can provide self serving slates. I think that would be easily obvious. And if he creates a lot of names that are not obviously his name but operated by him. All those strangers would not be very trustworty anyway.
- "Such and such was removed off slate GOOD GUYS for petty reason #4923" <- needs un-emotional discussion style, true!
- "gamification" (ways to game the system) - in which way?
Having read gamey's good post I think the biggest problem is the principle agent problem: If shareholders do not invest in informing themselves, it would be possible for delegates to collude. Problem before: Lack of information and potential in-activeness of shareholders -> Problem now: Principle agent problem: Information imbalance (delegates and slate selectors have a lot if internal information) and personal relations between delegates, that will form to a certain degree, increases the possibility of corruption. Overall I still think it is a good suggestion that brings more positives than negatives.
How would the compensation model for "slating" look like?
In the spirit of specilization, should be "slate selectors" do only the slating job and not run a delegate themselves? On the other hand, slate selectors will be good judges only if they can run a delegate themselves...