Does "fund" have any value? Or does the amount of fund just show that you are voting for some of the delegates in the fund group?
See this https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5775.msg77810#msg77810
The happyshares concept would be harmful to any DPOS network if it is applied at scale.
I think the people who vote base on a small bribe does not have enough asset to control the system.
Rich guys who have much voting power will not accept a small bribe.
so,you get my point.after all ,DPOS voting power is not about head count,it's about the amount of the asset.
You are completely right with what you said! I would only be worried if a "voting culture" is established where shareholders do not vote anymore for the best delegates but instead for the biggest pay back.
Like you said there would be little benefit for big stakeholders to vote for delegates who are not the best for the job but give high pay backs. 2 Questions / issues arise here:
1) There is no difference between small and big shareholders here (with small shareholders the pack back is small compared to the effect they have on the delegates approval).
2) If such pay back culture is establish and wide spread once big shareholders might just do the same without thinking much about it because they might not completely comprehend that the benefit/cost ratio is negative here.
One question I have: Do you get "fund" proportional to the amount of stake you voted with or x amount of fund if you vote at all vote a delegate. The last option would be beneficial to the system because it would encourage voting at all...
Normal mode：choose the 100 delegates from the 1000 delegates，for reason:the server configuration ;system maintenance ability ;
In FUND game :choose the 14 delegates from the 27 delegates ，for reason:the server configuration ;system maintenance ability ;reward .
The reward can improve the enthusiasm of retail vote;Why we will focus on retail? Because they don't care the vote system.
Who will leads to centralization? I think is the dealers .
We are all free , include big shareholders.We are monarch，include big shareholders.
In addition,everyone can cast opposing votes in any reason.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delegate is a company,
Voter is a shareholder,
You become a shareholder with voting rights;The company to distribute dividends to its shareholders.
--------Fund
Bytemaster:
I am not terribly worried about this kind of behavior because market competition to reduce transaction fees will quickly eliminate the potential for profit sharing.
I say let them do their best, in order to get elected they need to be in the top 101 by shareholder approval and if this is what shareholders want then that is what they will get.
Happy I appreciate the effort you are putting into the ecosystem and hope things go well for you. One thing I can say is that compared to bitcoin we already have a ton of people reinvesting their fees/profits into helping the community in what ever way they can.
By paying 2/3 to all shareholders he has already helped increase the dividend for everyone and providing incentive for people to take some time to actually vote for him. If he provides a reliable service then the network will continue to function.
Lets not demonize people because of a gut reaction to "vote buying". After all votes are personal property and if you think you benefit more by giving your vote to happy than by giving it to someone else then that is legitimate.
I would encourage everyone to drop the personal attacks and instead make the case for why voting for some other delegate is *BETTER* than voting for happy.
A DAC is a Sovereign Co-op
Show Posts
