"I had another idea that we could have the protocol reward all unclaimed interest at each block to the winner of the minting process."
Sorry but I am very much against this. If someone is not minting, it's their choice but it doesn't mean someone else should get it. These coins should never be created.
It puts the person not minting at disadvantage. It doesn't feel right imo.
edit: just read the discussion:
"PoS reward is a zero sum game. If everyone is generating stake, their slice of the pie remains unchanged. Only if you fail to mint are you punished and wealth is transferred towards those who do. Therefore it almost isn’t even a reward unless others fail to do it."
This is a very bad idea. You want to force people to mint while they don't want to. It's a way to demotivate people to spend their coins.
Also you have to concidder the CGB price, someone else can sell his extra coins and put pressure downwards while when they are not created price can grow. If the price grows then those who do not get the extra reward will see a higher price and be just as happy. Dillution of stake is very bad.
This idea only makes the rich and dedicated CGB'ers richer while punishing the ones that prefer to spend or hold their coins elsewhere.
What an awesome discussion to wake up to, thanks guys!!
I want to say first off, that you have all brought up valid points, each one contributes to the balance we are looking for.
Second, it is important that we realize that we are dealing with a security model here which is actually based on punishment for non-participation and actually rewards no-one if all participate. This is the true nature of PoS, though in actual practice, it does reward those who work for it. This is about finding the right balance.
Third, someone who makes a habit of not minting, may notice the monetary base expansion which works to slowly inflate away purchasing power might go from 1.4 to 1.8% for example. Again, we can study the current rate for further discussion but I think it would be something like this. The impact would be very minimal, and yet in line with our long standing goal of emulating the fundamentals of the gold supply. In this light its actually a fix to match our target.
Fourth, this inflationary "tax" on the backs of those who are
not particpating in network security, is actually the cost of running the network. Without this motivation, CGB would have zero viability as the security is not "paid for." The value in percentage of each CGB would take a hit much greater than 2% if it were a mere punching bag to hackers. This is the key point, to consider that we are talking fundamental viability here. Security vs. Convenience is kind of an overall theme to our global monetary system which is apparent these days.
This idea came out of the extensive discussion that we had recently (linked at the bottom of the post). It seemed that it was a battle of extremes. Some wanted the return to hyperinflation, while others saw the wisdom of remaining a more "hard asset," staying true to original vision. This proposal is a compromise. It has the potential to encourage minting, and simply ensures that today's
maximum rate of reward, is tomorrows guaranteed rate of reward. In other words, the original vision is maintained.
It's all discussion at this point. We have made no solid plans for the unclaimed coins. Much appreciated discussion!!
... as long as we stay true to our established inflationary profile.
Does this mean you are also in favor of paying out the not-minted coins to people that do mint or what is your idea about this? You can look at it from CGB as a whole, all the total coins inflation or a more individual look inflation per coin where some coins do have 1.5% inflation and other coins do not.
Although I do think not-minted coins should not be created an alternative is to gather these for development, marketing, promo's etc. that can help all if spend correct. Just an idea.
I do like the idea very much as it keeps us in the inflationary profile while encouraging CGB owners to secure the network. Your idea of using this unclaimed excess for development projects is very intriguing as well and is something we should by all means look into. Very good idea BTCat!
Keeping them for development purposes is an interesting idea. My only issue with this is it will be looked at as a virtual premine. We can look at it as cash sitting there. Do we want to spend it on development (which is difficult for a community to verify it was actually spent on), or give it back to the community in the form of an extra bonus for security participation.
If we were to go the way of encouraging security participation, this would most certainly not include any form of retroactive coin creation. I just wanted to note this in case anyone thought about it. We would start only right at the moment that it was implemented, if implemented.
I know we all have our perspectives, but please try to have the perspective of CGB, the cryptocurrency, when thinking about this. How can we motivate the population to better secure our network. Remember, none of it would exist without rewarding active participants with the proceeds of monetary base expansion. Yes, as an investor, we might have a lot of CGB and not want to cash in the paper wallet every month, but this kind of stuff will become a fact of life as we start to take
responsibility for our own banking as a society. The tech will be advanced to allow conveniences such as cold offline minting and this will all be part of adapting.
Thank you very much for your contribution! Your point of view is a valid one that absolutely needs to be considered. What are your thoughts regarding these unstaked funds going to the foundation fund for development and advertising as BTCat suggested?
I think it is a good idea, the only problem I can think of at the moment is the fact that for those CGB to be of any value to ongoing marketing and development, is for them to be dumped onto the market creating a further downward pressure on an already low volume currency. I have no idea on the percentage of un-staked coins, but for example if only 50% of coins are currently staked that leaves 7125 CGB per annum/ around 593 CGB per month going to the Devs. At the current price level and volume it would not be feasible to dump these CGB on the market. This is the only thing that worries me about that course of action.
I agree, this is another point against the devs accepting these coins to the foundation for marketing. It will likely hit the exchange and be sold. If we instead give it to active participants, who are already proving their interest in CGB, it would be a better home.
One last point I want to reiterate, if we are giving out x extra coins for every single mint block, this will encourage people to come up with more blocks (which helps our security greatly). If still a small group of people are minting, they will reap major rewards, once others catch on and the PoS block supply becomes more robust, this leftover amount will become smaller as more CGB is periodically brought online. It should find equilibrium at a higher state of participation. This is the main goal.
edit: Just thinking through the game theory. Each mint block pays a small reward on a per block basis regardless of the return earned ( based on coin age). This would encourage a competition for every single potential block slot. A large wallet will receive relatively no reward compared to its coin age return, and a small wallet that wins a block could have the extra coins
outweigh the expected return. This seems a little complicated for our current market cap, but this could lead to a smoothing out of the influential power (total coin age) of wallets. Let's illustrate this: A wallet with 5% of currency waited 90 days to achieve maximum interest return of 1.5%. They go to mint the coins, done, no competition, they get the block instantly. The network was
really secure for one block... funds may be transferred or otherwise go back to sleep for 3 months. Paying out unclaimed interest per block may incentivize these wallets to be broken down to compete for more blocks and spread the security influence.
Again, this is so very much appreciated. An opposing view is the most valuable. As always, such an important change would not be made without extensive community input. This is a preliminary discussion.
papersheepdog, Canada
