I have thought of your proposals more and I do believe that we must allow space for improvement on both staking rewards programme , Liquidity Mining rewards etc.
I think that we should think about changes in case the current models fail. Currently these programmes have not had the chance and conditions to prove themselves and I feel like there is very little evidence to support the Idea that these models are failing.
I feel like we should definitely continue or revisit these subjects in a few months to a year when we will have enough data to make an informed decision. If the data shows failure of these models to achieve what we want then I would definitely support further tweaks of both Bitocracy and Liquidity Mining.
I am really happy that you brought these subject forward. I think we have to be proactive, always anticipate and have a ready solution to any possible problem.
I think we both speak about the same thing.
‘‘Faithful’’ is demonstrated commitment in perpetuity ,‘‘separating boys from men’’ is actually proved competence, at least in my view.
I like to use more abstract terms in my speech because I feel like I can communicate more this way. English is not my native language , so my brain does not understand English! I can use English words to express what my brain thinks but my brain is still wired to think in my native language. So I tend to use archetypal concepts that are universally understood and that way I can communicate more easily and give some depth to my speech.
I understand if you don’t like or agree with my speech but I am not willing to change it just because of that. I am aware that sometimes I might be misunderstood or misinterpreted but I am willing to suffer the consequences.
In terms of ‘‘we are not a sect’’ I think we actually are, whether we like it or not. We are viewed as heretics in the Bitcoin sphere and Heretics in the ETH/Altcoin sphere there is no doubt about that. The quicker we acknowledge that the better would be for Sovryn.
Thanks for your response, it’s really helpful to see your thoughts on this.
I’m not yet convinced. I don’t see these analogies. No capital is burned by locking up your SOV in the current system. Locking up is not analogous to PoW. With rewards going to stakers, the rich get richer, also with the lock up system.
One challenge is to avoid centralization of capital. That requires that newcomers find it easy to start staking, and that newcomers get richer quicker than the rate at which the already rich get richer. That is what the proposed system tries to offer: it makes it easy to start staking, and the multiplier builds up quicker in the first periods of staking and then grows at a slower rate over longer periods.
With the lock up system, it is a handful of core community members with high conviction that get richer quickest and hence, it seems to me, there’s a danger of centralized capital building up around a few.
Liquidity has monetary vale. Indeed we have seen this in action in Sovryn itself. There were many complaints that people had staked their SOV and where then unable to add it to Liquidity pools where yield was higher.
They gave up, in a very real way, the ability to obtain that yield. Staking has a cost, this is where it is analogous to PoW. Staking for longer has a higher cost and receives higher rewards - again analogous to PoW. Bitocracy is PoW. The work here is the activity of staking - and eventually the plan is to make earning through staking dependent on voting as well.
That said, we do need to find a path to making it more attractive for new participants to enter. One way that I could suggest, just to start eliciting some out-of-the-box thinking: What if there was a way you could stake without the timelock, to a delegate. This delegateDAO would stake a set of tokens into perpetuity (these tokens could be gifted from the Adoption fund. The delegateDAO would then hold a lottery between (short term) stakers and distribute the value earned as winnings.