[00:00:36] now that we're discussing dis-incentivising exchange staking by reducing the reward, i was wondering what people thought about reducing the reward for people who are not voting? We've seen some wallets dis-engage with the voting process recently so i thought perhaps one way to address it is by rewarding voters [00:02:22] i think the plan is for the reduced stake of the exchanges to go into the community fund, but i was thinking that another option would be to distribute the additional reward to the people who have locked staking & are actively voting? [00:02:49] otherwise we are penalising stakers rather than rewarding them [00:03:14] just a thought, i mean, i think that more money in the CFund is better than rewarding individuals more [00:03:26] but im a anarcho-socialist [00:04:28] and wanted to get some other peoples opinions on what should be done with the leftover rewards from the people who aren't fully participating in consensus [00:19:29] i like the idea of taxing passive stakers [00:20:23] wouldn't it make people vote for something even if they hadn't read the proposals? [00:20:49] or if they didn't want to make a decision beforehand? [00:21:20] yes that's a possible outcome [00:21:35] the good is that the new dao will introduce abstain votes [00:22:17] so people do not necessarily need to vote yes or no. they can vote abstain when they don't know what to vote, or they havent read [00:22:48] that's a good solution. [00:35:12] With abstain vote and not bloading the chain, I would not be against reducing the reward. But still I think for high participation with good decisions we need delegation of votes. New dao should provide this [00:45:27] yes new dao allows delegation [01:07:39] i like the idea as well [01:58:40] what do we think about sending the taxed amount to the CFund vs redistributing it as a bonus to fully engaged stakers? [02:28:13] I can write up some thoughts into a NPIP and formally propose a change to the consensus if people think its a good idea. [08:41:25] i think stakers already get enough reward while the cfund lacks of coins [10:07:11] I dont think there should be more adjustments to the Cfun at this time. With current price it might lack coins, this could change. Perhaps best to just destroy these coins. Less inflation. [10:08:01] So rewarding stakers that vote instead of punishing those who don't. [10:15:45] i dont thinn non voters are less punished if coins are destroyed while the project can greatly benefit from more coins in the fund [10:16:01] the dev bounty wallet has 2,5k$ [10:36:44] I think higher NAV value would benefit the fund. Just increasing the amount of coins will not im afraid, only short term perhaps [10:47:43] sure, but the project has expenses [10:55:46] Maybe reducing the block reward to 1nav. This will decrease the inflation and keep the cfund much longer strong. [10:56:28] you mean for non voters or for every block [10:57:50] Every block 1 nav And for non voters maybe 0.75nav [10:58:30] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/416000318149754881/618731602066931722/Inflation.png [10:58:55] Thats the inflation right now [12:35:18] i think if we reduce the inflation further we are making navcoin less attractive than other coins in terms of ROI [12:36:00] right now we are about the same as other comparable POS coins which usually sit somewhere between 5 - 10 % ROI per user depending on how many people participate in staking [12:36:36] if we halved the reward to 1 NAV per block, it would be more like 2.5 - 5% and you'd just be better staking another coin all things being equal [12:37:44] this was part of the decision making when we moved to 2NAV per block, that it would keep the network inflation to around 4% (same as before) but each individual would get around 8% - 10% making it comparable to other projects [12:51:35] Need to get some hype going, get the marketing machine running. Coin value will appreciate, everybody happy 😀 [13:49:59] I think we shouldn’t change the 2nav/block. It would be another change in a short time. However we have to come up with something to incentivize voting. [13:50:31] Although can be said that the incentive to vote is having a say in decisions. Like any election. [13:50:54] Not sure it should be incentivized by money. [13:51:19] the thought was to remain at 2NAV per block but if you dont vote perhaps 0.5 NAV goes to the CFund [13:51:29] as a "FUCK YOU" tax [13:51:30] haha [13:51:31] 😛 [13:52:06] Lol! Not sure Tax is the thing people are looking for here heheh [13:52:12] yeah [13:52:19] that's why i thought maybe distribute it back to the stakers [13:52:35] so like 1.5 NAV for not voting, then 2.5 NAV for voting [13:52:47] or however the math would work out so its the same eventually [13:53:33] Could be an interesting approach. I’m not against putting it in the fund. Just trying to be devils advocate so we think through different options. [13:54:05] there's 3 i can think of [13:54:13] burn it, tax it or take it [13:54:35] Agreed. [15:50:12] the new cold-staking fee re-direction is consensus based right? so it'll need 50% of the stakes on 4.7 before it's activation? [16:09:41] Why not let the static reward to 2 NAV per block in order to save the inflation. Give 1.5 to every stakers and put 0,5 to a fund. This fund will be used to splitt the rewards threw the voters after a period, like 7 days (could be another range). After this seven days, it means 10.080 Navs will be automatically put in this fund in order to be divided per the number of votes each week. Total new fund / Number of votes -> Nav Reward per [16:09:41] vote. NavRewardPerVote * Number of each adress's vote(s) -> Voter weekly reward. Just to save the inflation and have a fair rewarding long term system. With this implementation, in the future, if we got like 100 proposals per week it means that the more a staker is involved, the more he'll get rewards, in theory. Because with the actual system, you just have to cast a single vote to get the total reward, correct me if i'm wrong. [16:14:17] @developer Which branch in core is the 4.7RC? [16:15:45] @prodpeak https://github.com/proletesseract/navcoin-core/tree/v4.7.0-rc [16:16:32] @salmonskinroll TY [16:44:19] yes @salmonskinroll [18:33:13] Imo is better the whole lock of coins for better returns rather than punishing users for not voting [18:39:15] @Moon I think I like the locking idea better as it's not a punishment, but rather a bonus to people who lock coins, and makes it better to keep coins off of exchanges [19:11:08] it is a punishment though compared to the current reward. i like what prole is suggesting because it not only encourages voting but also it's simpler compared to users having to lock coins. locking coins is a little like masternodes. that's the other thing that i don't like. plus we want people to vote, the locking mechanism doesn't encourage that. people can still just lock coins and not vote [19:14:28] locking coins is more effective in terms of preventing exchanges staking though [19:17:09] @Moon i like your idea, but it seems complicated to code lol [19:20:32] @mxaddict I dont see it as a punishment but as an improvment. Locked coins will be needed to get the staking service active isnt it ? [19:22:58] I think the exchange staking is a bigger issue [19:24:34] @Moon for MN you need to have a collateral locked... [19:24:44] With Nav you can stake with 1 coin. [19:24:52] May be a progressive lock. [19:24:59] 1 week 70% [19:25:08] 3 weeks 85% [19:25:18] 4 weeks 100 % [19:25:49] The most important thing here is bug Exchanges staking and ruining Dao concensus [19:29:44] A progressive lock means a progressive unlock thats it ? [19:29:50] https://www.reddit.com/r/NavCoin/comments/cznzj6/navcoins_privacy_update_part_1_dandelion/ [19:33:03] a progressive lock would complicate it [19:33:51] id have a network parameter which the dao can modificate through votings to set the minimum amount of blocks coins must be locked in order to accept votes from blocks staked with those coins [19:36:54] Maybe a combination of a voter incentive + a locked coins incentive [19:37:20] And only way to claim full amount of 2 NAV is to lock and vote [19:38:01] This would incentivise taking coins out of exchanges and voting at the same time. [19:38:40] IE, staking = 1 NAV to staker, 0.5 NAV to cfund [19:38:58] Then 0.5 for locked and 0.5 for block with votes [19:41:38] If no vote, then cfund = 1 [19:41:53] If no vote and not locked = 1.5 cfund [19:42:03] What do you guys think? [19:42:11] @prole @aguycalled [19:42:17] @Juguelio [19:45:52] its good to me. vote requirement meaning staker must have voted for all proposals/p requests/etc which are in a cycle higher than 3. so stakers only need to review votes every 2-3 weeks [19:49:45] I see it as a temporary measure [19:52:42] i dont see it as something temporary [19:57:52] As I said before, vote for all proposal is a thing we can easily do now. But if the project grows and we got 100 proposals each week (in many years, yea i'm optimistic) so, vote for everything will be pretty time consuming. [19:59:21] - I dont have all the ins and outs on this. Locked coins, what does it means in the details ? I got this image, after a time range your coins are locked and you can start the staking. If they're not locked you dont get any stakes. Means that you will need to keep some coins in an "active" wallet to do little transactions. If you want to move a big part of your staking coins, u must wait they finish the unlock procedure, Am i right ? [19:59:55] locked coins means you can't spend the coins for some amount of time. you can only use them for staking [20:01:28] ^^^that's the part that reminds me of masternodes. [20:01:43] i know they are not the same but still [20:02:58] Masternodes works like servers. This would work completly over blockchain [20:04:33] yeah but if someone with small holdings, they probably wouldn't bother locking anymore just in case they need to spend it [20:05:09] dunno [20:06:29] then the question is, should they vote if they can't commit to hold an amount of coins which does not have a minimum? [20:06:54] masternodes are exclusive because there's a minimum required [20:15:53] Well, this is pretty blurred. I agree the solution to lock the coins is a solution for a problem, but only a specific one and brings multiple complications. Is this the best solution ? We can think differently upon it. Like legal terms with exchanges. If they want nav on their platform so they need to respect some rules. Thats all. If they're not they broke the terms and they are in an illegal path. What about that ? [20:16:05] I feel like we are exchanges puppets. [20:17:12] @Moon such is the nature of a trustless blockchain. [20:17:27] The rules need to be implemented on chain so they can't be broken [20:17:36] Code is law [20:17:51] If we just trust exchanges to do the right thing, it's not trustless anymore. [20:18:14] locking coins could be eventually needed in the future for a revamp of our proof of stake protocol. many of the new pos protocols work like that. it's needed for trustless light wallets [20:19:35] It's actually not a temporary solution in my eyes. It solves the issue and prevents it in the future. [20:20:07] And it rewards desired behavior of holders. [20:21:22] I was talking about the requierements needed to get the voting reward when i said temporary solution. [20:21:56] And yes, i agree, code is the law. [20:22:13] How so? [20:23:02] If we implement it in a way where it requires only a few votes, it should still be fine. [20:23:20] "its good to me. vote requirement meaning staker must have voted for all proposals/p requests/etc which are in a cycle higher than 3. so stakers only need to review votes every 2-3 weeks" I was responding to this. Vote for all proposals is possible now, but maybe not in the future if we become very big. [20:23:25] So that you don't have to vote for all, just the ones you like. [20:24:31] you can just vote abstain for everything you dont like/read/have the time [20:25:18] Yes, that is what i mean, only things that you care about that you vote for. And the rest you can abstain. [20:26:23] This would undoubtedly increase participation in the voting [20:33:53] Yea sure, but take the example of 100 proposals per weeks. You'll not click on every box "abstain" because it is time consuming. So you'll in the future create a new feature box "Abstain for all". And thats not what i call implication. This kind of things must never exist. I higly prefer really involved people who reads the proposals they like and support it and being rewarded for it. Maybe put an additional limit vote, like 10 votes [20:33:53] at a time. Dont know looks clear to me. But i suppose the system will be adapted in time if needed. [20:38:05] maybe the requirement should just be to lock the coins [20:38:25] and trying to make people to vote must be done through annoying warnings in the wallet, social media pressure, articles, etc [20:38:38] education [20:52:54] Great discussion! [20:53:52] @mxaddict I was always suggesting to have both a lock reward and a vote reward. Sorry if I was not clear on that, but something like what you describe is what I meant 😎 [20:56:44] I think the issue of having hundreds of proposals it's a luxury problem which we can address at the time. We have had other discussions of how to deal with that because regardless of whether there is a penalty for missing votes or not it is a problem. This is where the idea of multiple DAOs comes into play. Perhaps users could signal they are only interested in the marketing DAO and they still get the reward as long as they vote on [20:56:45] all those proposals at least [21:00:54] @Moon There will never be 100 proposals per week. It will be more like this: The DAO will vote for proposals of groups who will manage the funds. The dao will only decide for big payments in future, and a group will manage it. Btw. Because a payout is only once a week, I would change the dao fund reward to every 10k block [21:01:19] that can be changed with the new dao