One thing you are overlooking is that BTCD compounds at 5% per year, for long term hodler this is very powerful, it will take some years but BTCD will end up doubling initial dividends, whatever they are, if you are hodling long term. InstantDEX does not give you more InstantDEX.
But the supply goes up by the same amount, so getting 5% doesn't give you any extra in effect. If you start off with x% of total BTCD supply, and gain 5% every year forever, you'll still end up with x% of BTCD. The only difference (compared to 0% increase like InstantDex) is that the individual BTCDs will be decreasing in price (assuming fixed demand). If 5% was powerful, why not make it 50%?
In my opinion, mgwBTCD shouldn't be getting dividends. Dividends should only be for staking BTCD. But the MGW operators could stake with the gateway-deposited BTCD, receive dividends for that and decide to pay that out to mgwBTCD. That seems much cleaner. Otherwise, what about other gateways (say someone made a mgw2BTCD), other assets that BTCDs could be used to buy (why is mgwBTCD an exception), it all gets complicated. There's also the timestamping issue. Will people be able to get dividends twice if they stake and then put their BTCD into the multigateway at a certain time just to receive extra dividends.
the ones that stake will get more than the dilution, maybe the effect is like 1.5% to 2% net, at least that is what I am seeing now. At worst BTCD stakers maintain their percentage and this compounds, so it is something assets dont do. 5% inflation allows for many decades of continued income that will have the effect of distributing to a much bigger base of people than if it was 50%, which would exhaust the supply in a few years.
multisig BTCD does not stake, so if this is a big amount, it further increases the 1.5% to 2% net compounding this is why I want to at least get the mgwBTCD hodlers a dividend. BTCD cannot both stake and be in mgwBTCD form at the same time, not sure how anybody can do what you suggest. I can get dividend list as of any timestamp. All the staking is also timestamped. Where is the problem (other than coding it?)
James
P.S. We can have a poll on whether mgwBTCD should receive proportional share of BTCD hodler's revenue share
5%inflation==0%inflation==50%inflation when they are returning back to those who own them. Because it's not the actual number of BTCDs that matter, it's the percentage of supply. So inflation does not provide income, it just maintains the status quo in terms of how many BTCD you own. If there were 1 million BTCD in existence and you held 10,000 that is exactly the same as holding 100,000 when there are 10million BTCDs in existence (You don't suddenly become super happy because you now have 90,000 more units). So the 5% is not (in effect) producing extra BTCDs that can improve distribution, it's just diluting the worth of each individual BTCD.
That said, I agree that people who do stake may get 1% to 2% extra, net, if others don't stake. Which is good thing, be interesting to see how much that gets people staking longterm. The only thing is that, at the moment, it's based on coin age, so people can be intending to stake for a day once every few months. This will give them their stake as if they had been continually staking, so might skew the day-to-day figures you are seeing.
As for giving dividends to mgwBTCD owners, this is bad from an economic incentive point of view. Say a person wants to get dividends for their BTCD. Two choices, stake or have them in mgwBTCD. Staking implies a cost, either leaving your computer on or having a VPS node. So putting them in mgwBTCD is cheaper. What happens if that incentive encourages 30/40/50% of the supply of BTCD to be put into mgwBTCD. First, none of them is staking, so you are reducing the BTCD network (maybe by a large degree if lots of small stakeholders use this tactic.) Second, all the stake is concentrated in one place. This is very bad for a PoS coin, we've already seen what has happened to Nxt and Vericoin when lots of the coin where in one exchange. (Bter actually paid people a small % for holding Nxt in their exchange, probably one of the reasons so much Nxt was concentrated there.) Holding a large percentage would also give MGW operators a lot of power over the coin: Do we want MGW to be the ghash of BTCD? Why incentivize people to hold their money in an exchange, this goes against what everyone in crypto has been shouting against for years.
If you want the BTCD tied up in MGW to be able to stake, why not make multisig wallets able to stake?
Poll
