BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: oollff on October 10, 2017, 08:34:56 am
-
Many POS coins now make it possible to stake your coins and earn more coins passively. For example, with just 250 Lisk coins you can vote for delegators and earn about 1 Lisk each 14th day, same is true for WAVES, NEO, NAV, OMG and so on.
Is this something you can do with BTS as well?
Those models are very attractive for investors and would definitely have a positive affect on the price. I think much of NEOs success lies in its economic model, wish i had invested more there early on.
-
See "Witnesses"
-
See "Witnesses"
I don't know of any Witnesses that pay out a % of their earnings directly to their voters, are there any??
I see delegated PoS used in LISK very successfully where voters receive a portion of the witness rewards, but don't see it happening in BTS, and have wondered why not, the same as the original poster.
-
This is a conceptual issue, part of what makes Bitshares brilliant, and yet so hated.
It's like the distinction between capital growth and dividends. Even relatively experienced coin hodlers want a yield on their numbers, via a debasement of their hodl. Ridiculous, when you actually think about it. Almost as problematic as being paid to vote for a Bitshares witness.
A fundamental of DPoS is that fat nodes get paid to do costly work for a decent cost:decentralisation tradeoff. Fuck a +5% The idea is that Bitshares will eventually turn profitable, partly because it controls its costs.
-
That doesn't really address why there aren't Winesses paying a dividend to their voters like in other dPoS projects. I'd love to know if it's due to some kind of technical limitation of BTS or only a philosophical one.
-
That doesn't really address why there aren't Winesses paying a dividend to their voters like in other dPoS projects. I'd love to know if it's due to some kind of technical limitation of BTS or only a philosophical one.
unlike the other dpos networks you may know, bitshares is playing in a whole other league.
we're paying witnesses in order to ensure the best possible service for the chain, not to please some investors.
-
That doesn't really address why there aren't Winesses paying a dividend to their voters like in other dPoS projects. I'd love to know if it's due to some kind of technical limitation of BTS or only a philosophical one.
unlike the other dpos networks you may know, bitshares is playing in a whole other league.
we're paying witnesses in order to ensure the best possible service for the chain, not to please some investors.
That may be true, but I'm surprised no enterprising delegates/witnesses offer a % of their earnings to their voters... which makes me wonder if there's any technical impedance (or difficulty) in the system preventing them from doing so.
Wouldn't it serve as an incentive to hodlers to generally engage with the DPOS system in more depth than they currently do?
Are there are any calculations of what proportion of BTS are not delegated? Surely a greater number of people would engage with Bitshares' DPOS system if there was some tangible reward for doing so, in addition to the other advantages.
-
That may be true, but I'm surprised no enterprising delegates/witnesses offer a % of their earnings to their voters... which makes me wonder if there's any technical impedance (or difficulty) in the system preventing them from doing so.
If it was possible to buy votes like this, this would be a flaw of DPOS.
-
That may be true, but I'm surprised no enterprising delegates/witnesses offer a % of their earnings to their voters... which makes me wonder if there's any technical impedance (or difficulty) in the system preventing them from doing so.
If it was possible to buy votes like this, this would be a flaw of DPOS.
Votes for a witness aren't private, are they? so what is stopping a witness deciding to share a dividend (if they wanted to)? I'd just like to know for my better understanding.
-
That may be true, but I'm surprised no enterprising delegates/witnesses offer a % of their earnings to their voters... which makes me wonder if there's any technical impedance (or difficulty) in the system preventing them from doing so.
If it was possible to buy votes like this, this would be a flaw of DPOS.
Votes for a witness aren't private, are they? so what is stopping a witness deciding to share a dividend (if they wanted to)? I'd just like to know for my better understanding.
Stakeholders would vote them out
Commitee would start discussing lowering Witness payment, because they get more than they need or else it would not be shared with others.
-
That may be true, but I'm surprised no enterprising delegates/witnesses offer a % of their earnings to their voters... which makes me wonder if there's any technical impedance (or difficulty) in the system preventing them from doing so.
If it was possible to buy votes like this, this would be a flaw of DPOS.
I disagree, that would be like saying that Lisk is a flawed system. What are your reasons for thinking that such a system would be flawed?
I like the reply Methodise wrote, it gave me a better understanding on how Bitshares is trying to gain value. Capital growth vs dividends - POS systems, it is nice to have diversity in the market.
I think however that getting payed to vote is not that bad of an idea as it first might sound.
1. It will engage users of the system, and we all know that both user engagement and the size of the community increase the value of a system.
2. It will make users feel like they hold something rare and valuable, something worth holding. Something they would be hesitant to trade away, and therefor stay in the system.
3. It is a great way to redistribute the system so it stays widespread.
4. It makes the system more attractive to investors. See the economic model of NEO, that system is almost perfect from an economic point of view.
5. It will probably gain more publicity and attract more users than the referral system which is in place right now.
Why couldnt there be a combination of capital growth and dividends, giving out "dividends" (or shares for taking the effort to vote) doesn't necessarily exclude capital growth.
The payout wouldn't have to be by the delegator you voted for but maybe from the system, as an incentive to vote. As it currently is now, that you have to pay to vote doesn't really incentivise engagement and voting.
As mcoin have pointed out, it would be interesting to see what proportion of BTS are not delegated.
-
The problem with paid votes is that those witnesses should be elected that provide the best service, not those that promise the highest payouts.
-
The problem with paid votes is that those witnesses should be elected that provide the best service, not those that promise the highest payouts.
With this i agree. Making the system give these payouts when voting would "solve" that problem. Similar to how it is now, but instead of having to pay to vote you would receive bts for voting. If the payout is standardised and handled by the platform, then the witnesses cannot compete with the highest payout.
-
Making the system give these payouts when voting would "solve" that problem. Similar to how it is now, but instead of having to pay to vote you would receive bts for voting.
That only means that people would vote for the sake of voting, not necessarily with the intent to choose the best candidates. I don't think it would improve the overall situation.
-
Making the system give these payouts when voting would "solve" that problem. Similar to how it is now, but instead of having to pay to vote you would receive bts for voting.
That only means that people would vote for the sake of voting, not necessarily with the intent to choose the best candidates. I don't think it would improve the overall situation.
A blank vote could be an option If what you are saying would be an issue. My points i want to bring forward is that it should be easy to "mine" in a POS system, thus providing validation with stake and for that you shall get rewarded.
-
Making the system give these payouts when voting would "solve" that problem. Similar to how it is now, but instead of having to pay to vote you would receive bts for voting.
That only means that people would vote for the sake of voting, not necessarily with the intent to choose the best candidates. I don't think it would improve the overall situation.
A blank vote could be an option If what you are saying would be an issue. My points i want to bring forward is that it should be easy to "mine" in a POS system, thus providing validation with stake and for that you shall get rewarded.
I disagree. Its in every investors interest to vote for the best fitting candidates, as they give your money more value, or increase the network worth.
Force/incentive is terrible for a company (BTS is a company)
If you really need that, there are alternative coins offering this, it seems not to work too good in their favor though