Author Topic: Loyalty Rewards Program  (Read 6675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav

Unless there is a significant flaw in the current plans, lets worry about getting them complete. We can always test other things later.

 +5%

Offline Thom

This is a gimmick and provides no value to stakeholders.  It is a wealth transfer from short term holders to long term holders.
...
4) It could be implemented manually by any paid delegate without any trust. 

Given that it is already possible I thought a discussion on its merits would be interesting and engaging.   

This could also be viewed is financing development without short term dilution.

I sure don't see how the last item could be true. How much of the delegate's pay for devs is being sold vs held? It begs the question, is BM involved in this primarily to address concerns expressed by the dev staff? Should a distinction be made for dev staff and other paid roles, like essential / should have / nice but not necessary roles?

How do the changes proposed affect existing (non-dev staff) delegates like fuzzy, methodx or bitscape? Or the standby's like cryptosmith?

I agree 100% with davidpbrown and 90% with tonyk. DSN and others don't think this proposal has much merit. I too see it as incentivizing those that don't need it and that it will not be effective in the short term. It's definitely not worth BM's time to deal with this. Why doesn't the author of this idea present it themselves?

If this can be implemented right now why hasn't it been? The answer is obvious: b/c the delegates don't want to. Isn't implementing this proposal essentially forcing them to do what they clearly don't want to do? How is that a good thing?

Frankly I need a summary of this new "worker proposal" that appears to be eminent (not this one the "other" one). I haven't been able to follow the discussion, tho I've tried.

My understanding is that the essence of the new delegate proposal is they will be split into two roles, workers (block producers) and a manager?  Not sure how either will be paid. Will the manager role pay the worker? Are they elected as a team i.e. 1 delegate = worker + manager? If that is the case, and the delegate team can decide for themselves what they will do with their pay I'm OK with it. Beyond that I want to see all of the requirements, rules and the reasons for them spelled out in black & white. I don't get that from the discussion, perhaps b/c it's ongoing. Yet I hear people refer to it as changes that will take place very soon.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Pheonike


Unless there is a significant flaw in the current plans, lets worry about getting them complete. We can always test other things later.

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
this idea has many "if's and maybes".

i am on tonyks camp. We has better things to do. Move on this are not the solutions you are looking for.

Offline bytemaster


Do no come up so many idea. focus on develop


从我的 iPhone 发送,使用 Tapatalk

He didn't come up with the idea, just presenting it on behalf of another so we could review it and bytemaster could avoid thinking about it after we dismantle it. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My initial response was:

This is a gimmick and provides no value to stakeholders.   It is a wealth transfer from short term holders to long term holders.  It can only be done with stakeholder approval.   Then I thought through it some more and came to some more conclusions:

1) The prospect of "earning" by holding is being used by Proof of Stake competitors and encourages people to hold irrationally because they feel like they are gaining something.  This extra irrational holding represents a decrease in sell pressure.  I say it is irrational because any rate of return that could be offered by such a system would be insignificant next to the daily volatility.   If you were going to sell then no amount of interest should change your long-term prospects.   
2) Some people *want to be buy and hold* and will sign up today, but then the going gets tough or something new comes out and they "change their mind".   You cannot presume that everyone who thinks they will be "buy and hold" will actually follow through.   End result is that this process will actually create more "buy and hold" demand than would actually exist without it. 
3) Some people try to day trade and momentum trade but would become "buy and hold" if offered the incentive.     
4) It could be implemented manually by any paid delegate without any trust. 

Given that it is already possible I thought a discussion on its merits would be interesting and engaging.   

This could also be viewed is financing development without short term dilution.   In other words, rather than diluting today to pay developers, we opt to dilute years from now after the market is more secure and the amount of extra dilution this represents is meaningless.   

The downsides are how it could be spun for negative effect.   

Like I said before, I only want to give the community tools and options to use the resources at your disposal.    The time to implement such a proposal is relatively small (days). 
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Doesn't sound exciting or attractive.

Lets move on to another idea.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
sounds like the nubits idea... don't know if that's what we need right now.

Offline sittingduck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
    • View Profile

Do no come up so many idea. focus on develop


从我的 iPhone 发送,使用 Tapatalk

He didn't come up with the idea, just presenting it on behalf of another so we could review it and bytemaster could avoid thinking about it after we dismantle it. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

zerosum

  • Guest
This feels like a gimmick to me. Imagine if it were proposed on the bitcoin blockchain. People would say, "That isn't what bitcoin is for."

I say, "This isn't what BTS is for."

I am surprised you do not like it?! It is one for one how Nushares pays interest for holders to park their Nubits....so I expected more enthusiasm from you... :)

Offline lastagile

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Do no come up so many idea. focus on develop


从我的 iPhone 发送,使用 Tapatalk

zerosum

  • Guest
In short - totally useless idea.


 1. The hodlers are holding anyway, locked or unlocked.
So you will end up where you started - the holders are now holding (just in a lock state) and the sellers are selling just as before.

 2. The hoped for 10x-20x of the dilution is totally overstated. Obviously you mean the delegate produced dilution and not the merger one. The latter is the important one, but 10x of it is more than 100% of total shares so you are not talking about it obviously.

So the aim is 50-100Mil BTS locked? First the number is insignificantly small. Second, For what interest rate do you expect this result. 1 delegated will 'absorb' the dilution of 33 full pay delegates at 3.33% annually. Right now anyone interested in that can short bitUSD to themselves and the interest is for very flexible terms => this interest is not attractive at all.

So to sum it up - putting development time and effort (much needed elsewhere) to give unattractive yield to he one that already holding long term (and to change nothing about the sellers/bears), so you can show a small amount held long term is a totally unnecessary exercise.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Someone proposed this idea to me and I wanted to present it for general discussion:

1.  Assume a worker was elected and had a fixed daily budget
2.  Assume the worker used their daily budget to pay people to lock up their funds for 1 year.
3.  Assume the worker prioritized users by who was willing to lock up the most funds for the least reward

Under such a system, funds are taken out of circulation increasing the price in the short term.  Everyone who is a long-term holder should be competing to lock up their funds leaving only those who value liquidity more than the reward holding the liquid coins.   

In general this should lock up 10 to 20x more funds than it would release via dilution and if the program is "maintained" would certainly reduce the liquid supply for many years.   In effect, it could more than counter all dilution for at least 1 year after the program is voted out.

The key points are this:
1. No extra dilution
2. Everything shareholder approved

Those that lose under this program are those who "hold for years" but don't participate.   Everyone else benefits.   In other words, those who "might want liquidity but never use their liquidity" end up slightly diluted after many years.

Anyway, I just wanted to remind everyone of the policy of all such spending being subject to shareholder approval and that I am committed to not increasing the dilution rate or long term supply.  Merely trying to give us tools to empower you all.   

Feedback appreciated.

I endorse. It looks like a good idea if you believe you can implement it.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline mint chocolate chip

Maybe consider following through on the other program you started 4 months ago. Besides the paid delegates, the other referrers on the list have been loyally getting new accounts signed up and have not been rewarded.

Offline Chronos

This feels like a gimmick to me. Imagine if it were proposed on the bitcoin blockchain. People would say, "That isn't what bitcoin is for."

I say, "This isn't what BTS is for."

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
A real "loyalty Program" would be something like the more you use BTS and the Assets the cheaper your fees get.