Hello guys.
I Need more info about delegates. I unvote 60% of all my delegates because they dont pay anything. I got only 41 from 101.
Can sm1 give me his voting list. I really dont understand why more than 50% dont pay, its ridiculous. Should we do smthing with this problem?!
Thanks
This post actually makes me a bit angry. What's "ridiculous" is the fact that you think the delegates should pay you anything.
Originally, the delegate system was not supposed to have pools. Instead, voters should vote for delegates who were actively helping the development of the project, such as devs, public speakers, ambassadors and so on. This would further the adoption and therefore ultimately rise the value of the whole system, including the holdings of the voters.
This system was perverted by two things:
The first thing is that a lot of the delegates have so much voting power on their own that they don't need you or anyone to stay active. Why should they share their revenue with you then? I agree that this is a problem, but it is inherent to the system. You could change the system to a split vote system like Ark has, I would be all for it, but that is a bandaid at best.
The second thing is the emergence of pools.
Before pools, potential delegates made long statements about what they were doing to do with the money they earned, funding development, giving out grants, attending conferences as ambassadors and so on. This was completely beat down by the pools, which simply stated "we will share 80% with you" and that was it. Who cares about future development when they can make hard cash now, right?
And this is the current climate DPoS systems exist in. This is not exclusive to Shift, mind you.
I agree that there should be no expectation of (direct monetary) payment for voting for people.
With the influx of the newer users over the last few years, there seems to be a gap in especially fundamental understanding of block chain projects.
Arguably, the proposed method dpos provides of bribing new users to get involved in literally the least involved way by voting has very few beneficial aspects. It reeks of entitlement and unfortunately the reality of staying relevant these days more often than not typically employs this methodology.
While I think it's helpful for crypto projects where the typical development involves only merging the most recent upstream developments from the project it was likely forked from in some way or another, with projects that have become as focused as Shift this often becomes a crutch for a busted leg that's long since healed.
Fortunately in Shifts case, much of the actual programming work needed to satiate the entitled poor was already in place so all it's taken to keep them quiet was to put the spoon back in when it fell out, and just unvote the heathen not paying them, change names then vote them back in. Point is is that this hasn't been much of a draw on the scarce Shift development resources available due to someone else aready did the work, so instead they could mostly focus on putting out something at least mildly interesting.
Whether it remains with Shift or goes into something else is beyond my ability to accurately predict for the moment. I'm currently guessing it will be staying here, after watching for the last year or so.
Specifically, I mention this because they have been mentioning for a while now a new core that hasn't been explicitly mentioned as not being lisk, but this also hasn't been said that it won't be either.
