Proposal for Small Change in Block Rewards


(OriZ) #65

Ok after taking into consideration a few factors(which I won’t get into now to keep it short), I have altered my view slightly. My thinking now is:

Years 1-2:
44% Masternodes
34% Stakers
10% Treasury, Development, Marketing
8% Exchanges and Platform Rewards
3% Saved aside as bonus/incentive for locked/vaulted masternodes/coins
1% Charity.

If no 3%, then Masternodes 45% and Stakers 36%. I also think that stakers should receive bonus for vaulting their coins as well, they receive 1%, masternodes receive the other 2%. This doesn’t have to be done as a consistent reward, but can be done as a bonus/airdrop annually or semi annually imo, without necessarily waiting for vaulting to be ready(for masternodes - simply by length of time coins have been allocated to fund the masternodes, for stakers - by length of time they have been actively staking). Bonuses will depend on the amount of coins staked/locked. More coins = higher bonus.

Years 3-4:
45% Masternodes
40% Staking
6% Treasury, Development and Marketing
4% Exchanges and Platform
3% Bonus
2% Charity

If we forego the 3%, then 8% for Treasury and 5% for exchanges.

Years 5-6:
45% Masternodes
42% Stakers
10% total for Treasury, charity etc(basically the current white paper)
3% for Bonuses

Again, if no 3%, then can go back to the stakers, or be added to the treasury.


(Johnny401View) #66

I support the 3%:

Years 1-2:
44% Masternodes
34% Stakers
10% Treasury, Development, Marketing
8% Exchanges and Platform Rewards
3% Saved aside as bonus/incentive for locked/vaulted masternodes/coins
1% Charity


(Iron Man) #67

I agree with the last two posts. Good idea.
Do you think the bonus thing have to be available in first release ? Because it might require some more developing.


(OriZ) #68

I think since the distribution is already going to be changed with the impending vote, probably shouldn’t be too hard to throw that in there at the same time, but I’m not a developer.


(John Slater) #69

I would generally support the direction we are heading, but one thing I am not comfortable reducing is charity. That is one of the most important things Divi can and should do and 2% is as low as it can go to be meaningful. So, I would support:

Years 1-2:
44% Masternodes
34% Stakers
10% Treasury, Development, Marketing
8% Exchanges and Platform Rewards
2% Saved aside as bonus/incentive for locked/vaulted masternodes/coins
2% Charity

John


#70

I support the direction we are heading too! And I also support what John says about increasing charity to 2%… but i do not think we should take it from the bonus/incentive, which will keep off masternode holders and stakers from selling.

So, i propose taking that 1% from the masternodes block reward… 43% to masternodes and 34% to Stakers. Numbers even look good inverted 43/34 :slight_smile:

Years 1-2:
43% Masternodes
34% Stakers
10% Treasury, Development, Marketing
8% Exchanges and Platform Rewards
3% Saved aside as bonus/incentive for locked/vaulted masternodes/coins
2% Charity


(OriZ) #71

I think if we keep charity at 2%, we can take treasury/marketing down to 9%. Should still be plenty, and charity can be a sort of marketing as well.


#72

So voting was going to end in september 10 what was the final result?


(OriZ) #73

looks to me like everyone voted for the change


(John Slater) #74

Given the situation that staking appears to be much higher ROI than intended (given token distribution) we may need to change the ratio in favor of higher MN ROI. We want successful copper ROI and reward rate to incentivize MN holding. Copper is the gateway drug :slight_smile:


(Johnny401View) #75

I would disagree. The whole idea of removing seesaw is to allow the free market to experiment with the best return. If you adjust the MN percentage, you just drag over guys like me back into MNs and you’re back to the same issue.

In my opinion, our focus should be providing tools to help people make informed decisions and not adjusting what we agreed on weeks within the process.

Divi stated that these type of considerations are voted on every 6 months. I’m okay with that… does that mean I could call for a vote again in a few weeks since we’re breaking protocol? I always get nervous when MN projects start messing with this early on… as I just recently dealt with this issue. They started with a 80/20 split which was supposed to move to 60/40 after y amount of time. They decided to stay 80/20 which basically screwed up everything in my opinion.


(John Slater) #76

I don’t think we are talking about the same issue. Let’s focus on this one issue: staking rewards may be 50% higher or more than copper masternode. That is not a desired chainstate and not healthy for incentivizing people to upgrade to masternodes. We don’t have visibility to staking rewards right now for the average holder, because we don’t have an accurate measure of staking rewards yet. If we were to post an estimate of what I just said above, then every single copper mn would defund. Given that chainstate, what would you recommend we do as an ecosystem? Waiting six months is not really a great solution because it implies some are capitalizing at the expense of others in a non-designed way. At least, that’s my take on it. If you want the governance to remain as is, then disclose the reward rate for staking transparently and let the chips fall as they may. Just my two divi.


(Johnny401View) #77

Staking is a tough thing to guage, especially with Divi’s implementation of being fully charged at 7 days. I recommend better tools to allow the market to shift properly rather than adjusting ranges when we’re only a few weeks in.

6 months is not my suggestion, its from a Divi blog. We still have 25% that haven’t redeemed yet, just feels premature and another Divi pivot.

“If you want the governance to remain as is, then disclose the reward rate for staking transparently and let the chips fall as they may. Just my two divi.”

I agree, I look forward to seeing the math on that one! MN calculations are FAR more predictable. I guess we would do the math on past performance and different staking percentage scenarios.

Other projects offer charts such as UTXO patterns and median amounts chosen across a timeline.

TLDR: I rather see mature staking tools and not trying to adjust percentages with 25% of the market still unredeemed.

It’s not an easy issue, most MNs tend to screw this up when they devalue staking. Ive lost money on quite a few.


(John Slater) #78

We agree pretty much all around.


(Johnny401View) #79

Yeah, it’s now a question on how to best present the info to the masses.


(OriZ) #80

To my understanding Nick is working on a calculator with values dynamically retrieved from the blockchain.