BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Empirical1.1 on October 12, 2014, 03:34:58 pm
-
Bytemaster has said you could easily spend/need $10 million a year to keep BTSX competitive for the next 10 years. Unfortunately this is unlikely to be able to be derived from fees alone.
(Currently 36% of BTSX remains unclaimed) However if we assume that 5% of all BTSX is never claimed then a 5% annual inactivity fee would provide 0.25% of BTSX a year to fund development.
At a $2 Billion CAP this would be $5 million a year.
So I'm open to an inactivity fee as it could provide a significant funding source once BTSX got a reasonable CAP even if it was only applied to stake that was never claimed.
Thoughts?
-
At a $2 Billion CAP ....
fair enough :o
+5%
-
This is pretty tricky ground.
From a pragmatic and system life perspective this makes sense. I'll probably even support it.
From a moral perspective the very nature of the words, "Unclaimed stake", means that we know it belongs to someone else. What we're trying to do is think of a way to steal it without feeling like we're doing so.
A number of people have expressed concerns about the security of claiming by importing private keys and perhaps more people are in wait-and-see mode, secure in the knowledge that part of this supply is theirs.
What we can't know is how much of the unclaimed stake truly cannot be claimed (private keys lost, pass phrases forgotten, owner dead or otherwise unable to physically claim).
Let's discuss some conditions that need to be satisfied before reclaiming stake. These are just a starting point so we have something to talk about.
1) The management, whomever they are at the time (3I, delegates, whomever) demonstrate a budgetary need for the funds for the next fiscal year.
2) Some funds are burned on a marketing campaign to attempt to alert stake holders of what is about to happen.
3) The reclaim rate is set to the minimum required to fulfill the shortfall identified in #1 above.
4) At least 60% of delegates (or whatever the decision making structure looks like at the time) approves the tax.
Discuss.
-
This is pretty tricky ground.
From a pragmatic and system life perspective this makes sense. I'll probably even support it.
From a moral perspective the very nature of the words, "Unclaimed stake", means that we know it belongs to someone else. What we're trying to do is think of a way to steal it without feeling like we're doing so.
Imo the 5% inactivity fee was a feature of the original BTSX design, so it's not stealing if you were aware of this possibility during the donation period.
I'm also not advocating claiming it in advance or anything just once a year on 20/07 at which point it can be released via delegates over the next year.
What would be a departure from the original design is dilution which is an outcome I'd like to avoid for numerous other reasons too. However I'm open to dilution if BM is for it and it's absolutely necessary.
I'm just trying to go through funding options that don't include dilution.
Also at a $2 Billion CAP rising at 20% a year, even 1% of BTSX set aside via AGS would also be able to provide $5 million a year of development funding for 10 years. So if possible I'd like clarity on how much has been set aside and what the kind of long term plan for it is.
-
I think what gets me the most is that it's almost a third. I wonder how much is held by PTS mining pools that haven't claimed or early PTS miners that mined thousand last year and have since forgotten about them or lost them.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
I think what gets me the most is that it's almost a third. I wonder how much is held by PTS mining pools that haven't claimed or early PTS miners that mined thousand last year and have since forgotten about them or lost them.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of the total remained unclaimed.
A 5% annual inactivity fee on that even at a $1 Billion+ CAP would be a way to fund BTSX development, keep fees competitive and avoid dilution all while keeping in the original design.
If so that only leaves a short term funding gap with regards to kick starting and bootstrapping BitAssets.
-
I'm undecided on the morals of this. But at minimum, given the BTSX belong to somebody else, those people should given as much chance as practically possible to claim and use their BTSX. Announcements on exchanges, news services etc.
In future, it would be good for inactive accounts to trigger a message (e.g. an email?) to the owners before such deadlines ever hit. Or even active owners could make the mistake a leaving a lesser used wallet inactive too long.
From a practical perspective, can the inactivity fee even be claimed without access to private keys?
-
Personally i don't like it. I think people should be able to sock money away without being taxed for it. However I like the dilution idea even less, at least with an inactivity fee you can avoid being taxed if desired where dilution essentially taxes everyone.
If it's determined that more funding is absolutely necessary and either inactivity fees OR a dilution scheme would fund that need fully then I'd be happier with the inactivity fee.
-
Applying the inactivity fee only to unclaimed stake is ridiculous. But an inactivity fee is most definitely needed, if the DAC is to survive long term and ensure long term voting. People who wish to park their wealth could have a special command that forfeits their voting rights and makes it publicly possible to see the total amount of coin in non-voting, long term storage.
-
Applying the inactivity fee only to unclaimed stake is ridiculous. But an inactivity fee is most definitely needed, if the DAC is to survive long term and ensure long term voting. People who wish to park their wealth could have a special command that forfeits their voting rights and makes it publicly possible to see the total amount of coin in non-voting, long term storage.
That issue will be more contentious because even though it was part of the original design it may not be great for marketing etc. Either way it can be approached as a separate issue.
I think though people who would like to avoid dilution but still would like BTSX to be competitive with plans like this https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9452.msg123029#msg123029 may support this measure and it would help give BTSX a potential long term funding source that keeps within the original design.
-
I have a somewhat related question. I haven't claimed the BitsharesX I am entitled to from my Angle Shares donations yet. The reason for this is two-fold: the BitsharesX client doesn't run on my Mac (OSX 10.6.8) and I don't know of a simple paper storage method available for when I do claim my BitsharesX. It will probably take me a full day or two to upgrade my operating system and sort these issues out, which I don't have the time for and don't foresee having the time for anytime soon.
So the question, aside from this proposed inactivity fee, is there a problem with waiting to claim my BitsharesX? Will it always be waiting for me to claim it or are there plans to burn or redistribute it after a period of time? I can't imagine there are, but I want to be sure.
-
I have a somewhat related question. I haven't claimed the BitsharesX I am entitled to from my Angle Shares donations yet. The reason for this is two-fold: the BitsharesX client doesn't run on my Mac (OSX 10.6.8) and I don't know of a simple paper storage method available for when I do claim my BitsharesX. It will probably take me a full day or two to upgrade my operating system and sort these issues out, which I don't have the time for and don't foresee having the time for anytime soon.
So the question, aside from this proposed inactivity fee, is there a problem with waiting to claim my BitsharesX? Will it always be waiting for me to claim it or are there plans to burn or redistribute it after a period of time? I can't imagine there are, but I want to be sure.
As far as I know your BTSX is safe except for the potential of a 5% annual inactivity fee.
(Though I would recommend claiming them when it becomes possible possible for you to avoid the worry and as it helps decentralise the DAC when your stake is occasionally voting. Also don't forget you also have shares in BitShares DNS & BitShares Music etc.)
-
I have a somewhat related question. I haven't claimed the BitsharesX I am entitled to from my Angle Shares donations yet. The reason for this is two-fold: the BitsharesX client doesn't run on my Mac (OSX 10.6.8) and I don't know of a simple paper storage method available for when I do claim my BitsharesX. It will probably take me a full day or two to upgrade my operating system and sort these issues out, which I don't have the time for and don't foresee having the time for anytime soon.
So the question, aside from this proposed inactivity fee, is there a problem with waiting to claim my BitsharesX? Will it always be waiting for me to claim it or are there plans to burn or redistribute it after a period of time? I can't imagine there are, but I want to be sure.
As far as I know your BTSX is safe except for the potential of a 5% annual inactivity fee.
(Though I would recommend claiming them when it becomes possible possible for you to avoid the worry and as it helps decentralise the DAC when your stake is occasionally voting. Also don't forget you also have shares in BitShares DNS & BitShares Music etc.)
Thanks, yes I have my eye on the other DACs. Bitshares Music in particular is an incredible idea.
-
Applying the inactivity fee only to unclaimed stake is ridiculous. But an inactivity fee is most definitely needed, if the DAC is to survive long term and ensure long term voting. People who wish to park their wealth could have a special command that forfeits their voting rights and makes it publicly possible to see the total amount of coin in non-voting, long term storage.
That issue will be more contentious because even though it was part of the original design it may not be great for marketing etc. Either way it can be approached as a separate issue.
I think though people who would like to avoid dilution but still would like BTSX to be competitive with plans like this https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9452.msg123029#msg123029 may support this measure and it would help give BTSX a potential long term funding source that keeps within the original design.
Security is more important than marketing. It would downright immoral to remove an essential security feature just to improve the short term gains of early adopters.
-
Applying the inactivity fee only to unclaimed stake is ridiculous. But an inactivity fee is most definitely needed, if the DAC is to survive long term and ensure long term voting. People who wish to park their wealth could have a special command that forfeits their voting rights and makes it publicly possible to see the total amount of coin in non-voting, long term storage.
That issue will be more contentious because even though it was part of the original design it may not be great for marketing etc. Either way it can be approached as a separate issue.
I think though people who would like to avoid dilution but still would like BTSX to be competitive with plans like this https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9452.msg123029#msg123029 may support this measure and it would help give BTSX a potential long term funding source that keeps within the original design.
Security is more important than marketing. It would downright immoral to remove an essential security feature just to improve the short term gains of early adopters.
I think it depends on its relative importance to both security and marketing.
For example they're changing the shorting mechanism from one of competing on collateral to one of competing on yield. Some have argued that 200%+ collateral is significantly riskier than a 500% average collateral system. However if the market will choose the DAC with the most interest then it doesn't make sense to me to choose a worthless model even if you personally feel the increased security it provides makes it more morally justifiable. However that's a separate issue.
-
It doesn't make sense to me. The fee will force people either sell their unclaimed stakes or transfer the stakes once awhile , neither way you can get 5% fee from them, unless they don't know about it at all. Which means although this can be announced as widely as possible but the punishments will only drop to the people who hasn't heard it, it still feels morally not right.
-
It doesn't make sense to me. The fee will force people either sell their unclaimed stakes or transfer the stakes once awhile , neither way you can get 5% fee from them, unless they don't know about it at all. Which means although this can be announced as widely as possible but the punishments will only drop to the people who hasn't heard it, it still feels morally not right.
People with unclaimed stakes paid for their stakes as everyone else, they are being more supportive to the whole market than the dumpers at least.
-
It doesn't make sense to me. The fee will force people either sell their unclaimed stakes or transfer the stakes once awhile , neither way you can get 5% fee from them, unless they don't know about it at all. Which means although this can be announced as widely as possible but the punishments will only drop to the people who hasn't heard it, it still feels morally not right.
People with unclaimed stakes paid for their stakes as everyone else, they are being more supportive to the whole market than the dumpers at least.
The 5% inactivity fee is not new & I don't think it's immoral, it is part of the original design, I think it's been in all the whitepapers so they knew about it.
Also even if it just made people claim their original stake, that's good for helping keep the DAC decentralised by having more stake voting once in a while.
-
It doesn't make sense to me. The fee will force people either sell their unclaimed stakes or transfer the stakes once awhile , neither way you can get 5% fee from them, unless they don't know about it at all. Which means although this can be announced as widely as possible but the punishments will only drop to the people who hasn't heard it, it still feels morally not right.
People with unclaimed stakes paid for their stakes as everyone else, they are being more supportive to the whole market than the dumpers at least.
A fee that can be avoided with a as little work as importing your wallet and making a single transaction is not really a fee. All future DACs will have a much stronger inactivity fee: losing 100% of your stake over 12 months if you don't get involved within the first 3 months. This is a good way to drive new users to try out your DAC and gain adoption. Otherwise many people may not even bother trying a new DAC.... silent partners if you will.
-
It doesn't make sense to me. The fee will force people either sell their unclaimed stakes or transfer the stakes once awhile , neither way you can get 5% fee from them, unless they don't know about it at all. Which means although this can be announced as widely as possible but the punishments will only drop to the people who hasn't heard it, it still feels morally not right.
People with unclaimed stakes paid for their stakes as everyone else, they are being more supportive to the whole market than the dumpers at least.
A fee that can be avoided with a as little work as importing your wallet and making a single transaction is not really a fee. All future DACs will have a much stronger inactivity fee: losing 100% of your stake over 12 months if you don't get involved within the first 3 months. This is a good way to drive new users to try out your DAC and gain adoption. Otherwise many people may not even bother trying a new DAC.... silent partners if you will.
What? I may loose all my BTSX after 12 months, if I don't do something in the first 3 months?
What if I do something after 93 days? Just a day over 3 months? -- please clarify this idea, it is crazy can this be implemented in already running DACs?
-
It doesn't make sense to me. The fee will force people either sell their unclaimed stakes or transfer the stakes once awhile , neither way you can get 5% fee from them, unless they don't know about it at all. Which means although this can be announced as widely as possible but the punishments will only drop to the people who hasn't heard it, it still feels morally not right.
People with unclaimed stakes paid for their stakes as everyone else, they are being more supportive to the whole market than the dumpers at least.
A fee that can be avoided with a as little work as importing your wallet and making a single transaction is not really a fee. All future DACs will have a much stronger inactivity fee: losing 100% of your stake over 12 months if you don't get involved within the first 3 months. This is a good way to drive new users to try out your DAC and gain adoption. Otherwise many people may not even bother trying a new DAC.... silent partners if you will.
As mentioned elsewhere above, no rational person will pay this fee, so it only really catches those unaware of it. Or perhaps they are aware of it, but with so many DACs coming out, they don't have time to test everything all at once, despite being supporters, and make a timing mistake. Should they be justly penalised? It does not actually penalise anybody for being a "silent partner" if they are aware of it, because they can do such a small (yet unnecessary) thing to avoid it. In theory everybody could avoid the fee and still not use the DAC. I concur that this does not sit well with me.
The incentive for people to try the DAC is the opportunity to gain something from its use or to understand its potential better. That needs to be promoted.
If this is required for funding, are there not better ways?
-
It doesn't make sense to me. The fee will force people either sell their unclaimed stakes or transfer the stakes once awhile , neither way you can get 5% fee from them, unless they don't know about it at all. Which means although this can be announced as widely as possible but the punishments will only drop to the people who hasn't heard it, it still feels morally not right.
People with unclaimed stakes paid for their stakes as everyone else, they are being more supportive to the whole market than the dumpers at least.
A fee that can be avoided with a as little work as importing your wallet and making a single transaction is not really a fee. All future DACs will have a much stronger inactivity fee: losing 100% of your stake over 12 months if you don't get involved within the first 3 months. This is a good way to drive new users to try out your DAC and gain adoption. Otherwise many people may not even bother trying a new DAC.... silent partners if you will.
As mentioned elsewhere above, no rational person will pay this fee, so it only really catches those unaware of it. Or perhaps they are aware of it, but with so many DACs coming out, they don't have time to test everything all at once, despite being supporters, and make a timing mistake. Should they be justly penalised? It does not actually penalise anybody for being a "silent partner" if they are aware of it, because they can do such a small (yet unnecessary) thing to avoid it. In theory everybody could avoid the fee and still not use the DAC. I concur that this does not sit well with me.
The incentive for people to try the DAC is the opportunity to gain something from its use or to understand its potential better. That needs to be promoted.
If this is required for funding, are there not better ways?
I think one better way to "expose" people to their shiny new DAC would be to give them a guided tour, introduce all the new services etc, and get a little treat of "extra shares" for having done it. Like in Reward Training vs. Discipline-Based, I go for the reward!
and all the (transplanted) DOGE supporters would probably do too! :P
-
The issue is that if bitshares_toolkit becomes the standard DAC launch platform and the PTS/AGS agreements are honored we could be seeing dozens or hundreds of DAC's a year popping up in all sorts of different geographic/business/hobby areas. It'd be like trying to keep up with every web business being developed. At some point people aren't going to try and claim every last token they're being given.
-
and all the (transplanted) DOGE supporters would probably do too! :P
Ok... I asked in another thread but I get my answers where I can get them.
You DO realize that posting in all the appropriate threads, and on all the issues that you might think are wrong with the Bitshares system can not be done by someone who just happen to land on this forum, do you... funny man...
[edit] I also wondered why you say you are in Europe and your IP seems to not be even close to that....
-
Bytemaster has said you could easily spend/need $10 million a year to keep BTSX competitive for the next 10 years. Unfortunately this is unlikely to be able to be derived from fees alone.
(Currently 36% of BTSX remains unclaimed) However if we assume that 5% of all BTSX is never claimed then a 5% annual inactivity fee would provide 0.25% of BTSX a year to fund development.
At a $2 Billion CAP this would be $5 million a year.
So I'm open to an inactivity fee as it could provide a significant funding source once BTSX got a reasonable CAP even if it was only applied to stake that was never claimed.
Thoughts?
from the OP above, I was wondering how you can see how much has been "unclaimed"... where can you garner such data about BTSX DAC ..and others?
-
from the OP above, I was wondering how you can see how much has been "unclaimed"... where can you garner such data about BTSX DAC ..and others?
delegate (locked) >>> blockchain_unclaimed_genesis
711,574,579.54392 BTSX
-
from the OP above, I was wondering how you can see how much has been "unclaimed"... where can you garner such data about BTSX DAC ..and others?
delegate (locked) >>> blockchain_unclaimed_genesis
711,574,579.54392 BTSX
Thanks... where is info about how to do command line stuff.. and perhaps all the available codes?
-
Thanks... where is info about how to do command line stuff.. and perhaps all the available codes?
you just click "console" in the GUI :P
-
It doesn't make sense to me. The fee will force people either sell their unclaimed stakes or transfer the stakes once awhile , neither way you can get 5% fee from them, unless they don't know about it at all. Which means although this can be announced as widely as possible but the punishments will only drop to the people who hasn't heard it, it still feels morally not right.
People with unclaimed stakes paid for their stakes as everyone else, they are being more supportive to the whole market than the dumpers at least.
A fee that can be avoided with a as little work as importing your wallet and making a single transaction is not really a fee. All future DACs will have a much stronger inactivity fee: losing 100% of your stake over 12 months if you don't get involved within the first 3 months. This is a good way to drive new users to try out your DAC and gain adoption. Otherwise many people may not even bother trying a new DAC.... silent partners if you will.
people will try the new DAC because it is interesting, not because there are fees for being silent. People invest in a new DAC and hope it could be something interesting, if such fees exist they will be forced to sell all their stakes and close their expectations for this DAC, maybe the DAC will become something interesting later but definitely without those people. For me, the whole "using fees to activate people to use a DAC" thing doesn't make sense at all. Drive people with hope, with product features, with innovations, but never with fee that makes no sense.
-
Remember the fee is for inactivity for a year. To avoid it just transfer your balance to yourself once a year. Call it proof of control so the DAC knows the coins aren't orphaned.
I don't see it as a great hardship. You could even setup a simple script to do it.
Open client, click update votes button, close client. Repeat once a year.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
IMHO there shouldn't be any inactivity fee before a very strong security is in place (cold wallet, trezor for BTSX etc). Some people do not want to claim their shares for the next 5 years and only trade a very small portion of BTSX until the whole thing goes mainstream.
Once all the security (easy for very stupid people like me) is in place I would not mind a 30% inactivity fee for 1 year. Until then you are asking people to risk their security measures. In my thinking BTSX is bitcoin in 2009. If I could go back in time and had a small batch of bitcoins I wouldn't want to expose them for whatever reason but just leave them somewhere securely for the raining days...
-
from the OP above, I was wondering how you can see how much has been "unclaimed"... where can you garner such data about BTSX DAC ..and others?
delegate (locked) >>> blockchain_unclaimed_genesis
711,574,579.54392 BTSX
Thanks... where is info about how to do command line stuff.. and perhaps all the available codes?
You can also look here lot of interesting stats for someone like me that's allergic to the console.
http://www.bitsharesblocks.com/home