5% Annual inactivity fee applied to unclaimed stake?

[gordonhucn]

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.

[gordonhucn]

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.

[Empirical1.1]

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.

[Rune]

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.

[xxeyes]

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. 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.

[Empirical1.1]

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. 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.)

[xxeyes]

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. 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.

[Empirical1.1]

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.

[Rune]

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.

[amencon]

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.

[starspirit]

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?

[Empirical1.1]

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.

[Riverhead]

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

[Empirical1.1]

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.

[Riverhead]

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.