BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bobmaloney on March 31, 2015, 06:57:22 pm
-
Mods: This may have been discussed and flushed out in the past, if so, please link to relevant thread and lock this thread.
Idea:
Setting 100% pay rate for the highest approval delegate and paying down a percentage relative to the highest delegate to 3% pay for 101st delegate. (or some differing calculation if the community believes all 101 deserve >3%)
Advantages I can see:
1. Allows community to set varying pay rate per delegate, rather than requiring a re-approval to change.
2. Allows constant feedback on perceived value/performance of delegate.
-
I don't see any advantages. The disadvantages would be that you would pay a bunch of current low-pay technical block producer delegates who are not attempting to run as paid delegates, and you make it so the paid delegates don't know how much pay they are going to receive. It also provides lots of incentives to try to game the voting system.
-
If it was that simple right now, it would suggest a ~62% increase in payments. I see no advantage in expecting reality to fairly match such an artificial spread.
-
I don't see any advantages. The disadvantages would be that you would pay a bunch of current low-pay technical block producer delegates who are not attempting to run as paid delegates, and you make it so the paid delegates don't know how much pay they are going to receive. It also provides lots of incentives to try to game the voting system.
I agree if the current approval ratings carried over equally - but wouldn't this system encourage the community to moderate each delegate?
I would imagine that the community would simply re-position the current delegates into something more inline with their desired/deserved pay rate?
Additionally, could this also drive the perception of voting importance within the community to get higher % of active voters?
-
If it was that simple right now, it would suggest a ~62% increase in payments. I see no advantage in expecting reality to fairly match such an artificial spread.
Is there a reason you would expect the current set of approval ratings to carry over at the same percentages into the new style system?
Wouldn't the community simply re-align their votes accordingly?
-
If it was that simple right now, it would suggest a ~62% increase in payments. I see no advantage in expecting reality to fairly match such an artificial spread.
Is there a reason you would expect the current set of approval ratings to carry over at the same percentages into the new style system?
Wouldn't the community simply re-align their votes accordingly?
?the sum of the percentages atm, doesn't match the sum of the percentages you suggested.. it's an increase of ~62%. Unless you're proposing fixing the fees they receive to match but there's too much discontinuity then between those who are on 100% and those on 3%.. it makes no sense for either group atm and I can't see an advantage in the future either.
-
since voting ranking (or even votes received) is not proportional to value add, this might not work.
100% delegates are supposed to contribute 33x more to the network than a 3% delegate. However, the #1 voted delegate is not expected to produce 33x more value than the 101 delegate. The "business model" of the delegate sets the payrate, but the binary "approve/disprove" gets them to execute the business plan.
-
since voting ranking (or even votes received) is not proportional to value add, this might not work.
100% delegates are supposed to contribute 33x more to the network than a 3% delegate. However, the #1 voted delegate is not expected to produce 33x more value than the 101 delegate. The "business model" of the delegate sets the payrate, but the binary "approve/disprove" gets them to execute the business plan.
I agree. Much better system to have it the way it is.
Is there a central delegate website that lists all the 'business model's as well as maybe a place to have weekly reports? That would be nice to have.
Only around 30 delegates are being paid 100%? Why so low? We should at least use multiple delegates to pay and incentivize developers since $ prices are so low.
Are transaction fees being burned? Why? Revenue should all be put back into the system. I mean we should be very selective with who to select, but we really need to fund growth.
I would use delegate pay to fund a referral team. The team would be primarily used to fund referral programs and oversee quality. I'll discuss this further on the other referral thread..