Proposal for Small Change in Block Rewards

(OriZ) #22

You mean that the collateral will be vaulted but obviously not the rewards right? Anyway, I’m in favor of writing into the original proposal and maybe even into the code ahead of time, that this will go back to “normal”(ie wp) after 2 years. We can always vote to NOT change it back to normal if we feel it is still needed, but I don’t think it should be open ended/permanently changed. Although I was one of the community members you had mentioned that suggested a change, I never intended for it to be a permanent change but mostly until we get on several GOOD(by good I mean the cream of the crop - binance, okex, huobi, upbit, etc) exchanges. I do think eventually charity will be important at 2%, and eventually, higher(original) rewards will be important as more people will be joining the ecosystem which will bring the rewards further down.

I would likely vote for 1, but my contingencies would be first, that it is made known it is not meant as a permanent distribution, and 2, pending more clarification still regarding rewards post seesaw.


I think that masternodes holders will give more value to the things that will make us grow. (exchanges/ rewards, development, charity…) In the long term, will also be more profitable.

About the charity coins, our aim is not to give away coins that then get dumped on the market, but instead to strategically give away masternodes, to be used as funding sources for people. Perhaps even vaulted, so they can’t be dumped, but provide a continual source of revenue for the receiver.

That is a wonderful idea! :heart_eyes:

(OriZ) #24

I agree, I think we shouldn’t sell the community short, it has proven so far in every single vote(to my perspective anyway) to exhibit the wisdom of the masses(which to me is normally a myth, tbh). I will dive deeper into the other governance threads soon when I have more time because I do have ideas on how to have the votes go(some are detailed above in this thread already), but I’m personally not worried that under the right circumstances the right options will be chosen.


I propose a improved option #2

  • 45% Masternodes
  • 40% Stakers
  • 5% Exchanges / Platform Rewards
  • 8% Development & Marketing
  • 2% Charity

Charity less than 2% seems “not serious” to me.

optimally I would like it to be 5% but I know it wont happen.

Seems fair masternodes get more reward than stakers. Then also copper nodes gain a bonus over staking as they do not have at the momement.

(~ Node of the Realm ~) #26

@geoff Clearly there is a lot of consideration going on here as to what is best way forward. Are these percentages based on a $ value of DIVI? You must be surely making an assumption of Divi being worth x amount… If so, what is the rough assumption of a Divi in $ for the changes? Is it based on current values of the ratio swap?

I feel Option 2 is reasonably fair… but again without attributing a real world fiat value to Divi how can the extra % here and there make the difference?


I propose a improved option #2

  • 45% Masternodes
  • 40% Stakers
  • 5% Exchanges / Platform Rewards
  • 8% Development & Marketing
  • 2% Charity

Lowering Exchanges and development? Which are the two most important things that will help us grow? I agree Masternodes should have more block reward than stakers.

I propose a improved version of option 1.

  • 44% Masternodes
  • 37% Stakers
  • 7% Exchanges / Platform Rewards
  • 10% Development & Marketing
  • 2% Charity

Also, i don’t know if masternodes can also “stake” + earn from the masternodes reward? Or just the masternodes reward? I mean if masternodes don’t sell or move any of their coins… They will also stake? Or how that is going to work?

(Johnny401View) #28

Reading through the thread, I agree keeping Masternodes at 45% since that’s what everyone has been referencing with the MN calculator. So my final thought is:

45% MNs
35-37% Stakers
7-8% Exchange/Platform Incentives
10% Development
1-2% Charity

Those are the ranges that seem to make sense to me. I think the team should just present their case on the ideal scenario and go from there. Plenty of feedback here to start that process in my opinion.

(Iron Man) #29

Totally agreed. Might be better to earn a little less in the beginning so the coin can get known in big exchanges. I think it’s a little sacrifice for a very nice move.

(Johnny) #30

Geoff have you spoken to Ian about this? His advice here would be great. He’s invested in a lot of projects, he would have some great insight. Maybe you can ask him to post here on the subject

(Steven) #31

Option 5: 3% from both sides.

I firmly believe that stalkers are vital to the success of this project and they should be rewarded accordingly.

When our cap is in excess of 500mm we will need to incentivise people to hold their coins rather then sell.

I have seen many projects that focus too much on the big bag holders rather then the stalkers. Causing downward pressure from Seller’s and less buy pressure because it costs too much to start staking.

(Johnny) #32

I’m completely in favor of this.

(Johnny401View) #33

There’s certainly a lot of complexity when dealing with multi-tiered MNs. It’s not like we can follow another project’s model… we’re blazing a new path. I love what I’m seeing from the initial discussion so far, I expect we’ll be taking a deeper dive.

(Iron Man) #34

The charity percentage should stay anyway. For most of us it’s pretty nothing to afford a Masternode, for others they are happy with staking and some others might dream about staking. It will make some people very happy to have this passive income, I don’t know how you going to chose who win but it’s a good thing.

(Johnny) #35

@geoff are we holding off on the vote for now? Can you make an official announcement when you guys have taken into consideration everyone’s opinions. Also what are the timeframes on this?

(Nick Saponaro) #36

This will need to be decided before launch. I will discuss w/ the team how much time should be given before a vote is started.

  1. I would put ‘Marketing and Platform Rewards’ as one category, Exchanges and Development as two others.

  2. How did the team imagine the split for development versus marketing?

My gut tells me that masternodes and staking are best kept at same level - 45/45 or 43/43.

Anything above 15% treasury seems too much to me.


Anything above 15% treasury seems too much to me.

Why is too much for you? Treasury is what is going to make this projects stands out from the rest and achieve mainstream adoption (making the masternodes profit much more in the long run). Smartcash has 70% treasury and just 30% for masternodes and stakers. Even with that % amount that low, a smartcash masternode gives around 40-50% ROI a year at current node count.

I even would like the treasury to be higher than 19% like option 1 says. 20-25% would be ideal. Also this is just to start kicking off really well after mainnet release, later this % amounts can be lowered via governance.

I’d even lean harder on Exchange rewards.

43% MN
36% Stakers
10% Exchange
10% Team
1% Charity

I agree and 1% more in charity.

42% MN
36% Stakers
10% Exchange
10% Team
2% Charity

We have to understand that there will be times that we have to raise or lower MN and Stakers Block Rewards via governance. If we need to increase node count due to scalability reasons we would need to attract MN investors by raising the MN block reward. Sometimes there will be the need of more marketing, exchanges, development, etc and sometimes there will be the need to increase MN rewards.


No need to deviate so far from whitepaper right now. It can always be increased if votes determine use of budget is impactful. This should be about spending wisely.

Increasing treasury too much concentrates and centralizes.

Say we get some momentum and want to increase bounties through wallet downloads and user profiles setup, we can do so then. Less is more right now.

I didn’t get involved to have the decentralized nature of the project turned upside down with some behemoth of a treasury.


Treasury will not make the network centralized. Lack of nodes/masternodes will make it centralized. I don’t see smartcash centralized at all, they have 15000 masternodes worldwide and proof of work miners. The treasury will be democratised by voting on proposals.

(Johnny401View) #42

This one governance issue is important, however, as one more reminder, we have a thread dedicated to building out the actual governance model where all proposals will interact with:

Would love each of you that posted here to also provide feedback on our future governance system. My last request for it. :slight_smile: