biggest PR problem of crypto is that it’s full of charlatans
This is in regards to your pool weight idea, called “lever pulling” by Charles, and which the team are no doubt debating this very topic right now.
I’ve worked out a small scenario based on this Per-Human/Per-ADA proposal.
Lets assume only 3 pools:
- Pool A with 5 large holders of 1m ADA each.
- Pool B with 5k holders of 1,000 ADA each.
- Pool C with 50,000 people, but only holdings of 100 each.
For better visualization, imagine:
- Pool A is 5 early investors, who purchased their ADA at a very low price.
- Pool B is a Youtube continent creator, who has a popular crypto channel and has managed to attract 5,000 of his followers to buy ADA and stake with him.
- Pool C is a developer who managed to build an app that rewards gamers on Twitch every time they sign up, with 100 ADA, meaning 50,000 people are now holding ADA.
As per the Per-Human/Per-ADA proposal, The Network is able to value the work done by Pool C as the work of highest value, as it values humans in the network, rather than just ADA, and thus highest reward.
In a 1 ADA = 1 Vote scenario, all 3 pools get an equal payout, regardless of the people brought into the network.
When it’s launched, I suspect the team will have a more considered weighting structure than simply 1 ADA = 1 Vote.
Nice work there… In response to @lovelacepool
As you can see on your stats It seems very skewed to those who have the least, has the most say… Like do people with 100 ADA really have an incentive to be informed and educated about decisions? I guess they could delegate to specific people… But why would we trust those with the least stake and risk to have the most say?
I know EXACTLY how this will end, socialism… Lets for the sake of argument say this governance structure has the power to redistribute… Thats what it will end with… They will vote for redistribution… We know this, because that always happens in the real world… In every culture… In every corner of the planet… Because there is clear incentive to do so. Organized theft has been morally green-lighted in modern culture… Once we go down that road, Its over with… We will become a Socialistic Crypto, and it will fail, and there will be competitors that are not…
People like @ADALove (no hate) are going to say… LOOK… LOOK AT THESE WHALES… See how much they got, and how big of a risk they are… Delegate all of these votes to me, and Ill redistribute or come up with some scheme… and all these holders with 100 ADA would love that, because they only have 100 ADA, they have nothing to lose… This example was just for entertainment purpose, but this is serious stuff and the threat is real… and in the charting you just made you show that those with 100 ADA are stronger than any other group by that metric, they have absolute voting power if its by 50-50.
Lets say we stick to 1 ADA = 1 Vote
You could have a Yes (75%) No (25%) to reach a consensuses on decisions, aka. requiring 75% majority vote… in this way, you significantly reduce any probabilities of screwing someone over, because it is unlikely that the majority of the network, would screw the remaining 25% there is no incentive for such a thing - of course this also requires a large amount of voter participation, but again, if votes can be delegated, we would see that.
This is highly robust, simple and transparent way to do it, as it is adaptable to any type of distribution…
We will never see reverse distribution from 25% to the 75% that will never happen, because the loss of the value of the network would decrease more than whatever could be redistributed (with any kind of scheme whatsoever) because ADA will be competing in a free market and there will be many choices.
This ratio can be played with, and adjusted for the impact of whatever is being decided on.
Lets for fun just even take this to an extreme. Lets say I had 75% of all ada, 25% to everyone else.
ADA market cap 100 B, majority vote on everything is 75%, so I have COMPLETE control. My value is 75B, What if I stole the 25B? Wouldn’t work, cause I couldn’t cash out, there would be no buyers of ADA. What if I start ripping them off in redistribution? There would be an exodus of the 25% and the value of my ADA would plummet more than I could ever rip anyone of for. Because I cant accumulate my own ADA. So even if I was the SOLE dictator of ADA I am competing in a free market, and I would only want the BEST for ADA for my own selfish purposes… I couldn’t rip anyone off, it would hurt me more than anyone else. Its like running a business, you dont screw your customers if you have competitors, you want the best for your customers because it is the best for yourself. So even in this fairy-tale where one had 75%, there is no incentive to be a bad actor. Yes the one with 75% might be incompetent, and in that way crash the network, but there is no incentive to be malicious - and thats very important to understand. If it was a dicatorship and ADA had monopoly on money and was backed by force, then thats a different story. Then you guys would have a point, but thats not the case here so we cant compare this to traditional power structures
Why? Isn’t it the same in POW? More hashpower = more hashpower. DOn’t see anyone trying to say 1 human = x hashpower max
Consensus in pow = longest chains or biggest hashrate chain.
consensuns in pos = majority of stakeholders
This should be a piece of the argument here, Who set’s the foundation of voting and what are the rules defined to vote from pool or from staking in general?
The arguments and solutions raised do not actually address the technicality of clarifying the rules of voting, which may seem to be a small piece of the distribution of votes but absolutely should be incorporated into this conversation.
This is truth, there would be no backlash that could harm Cardano if it was restructured, although Cardano has its sight on being decentralized it is not currently attempting to develop new age banking rules that are out of the norm.
I personal hope that this could only be done by Genesis Block Contributors Consensus to affirm that the original investor’s remain in control of their share, if they truly are interested in the future of Cardano than it is something they would be interested in.
Agreed. You might find this post interesting:
There is more to a network than hashpower or majority votes. Consensus in Bitcoin, was a big interesting puzzle 10 years ago. But today it’s been figured out, and with so many flavors that, it’s hardly the key piece of blockchain network anymore. Today, the interesting puzzle is building a network with sustainable governance.
That said, it very well could be 1 ADA = 1 Vote, but whatever it is, will have governance considerations.
For sure, we might have governance debates. But, let’s keep in mind it’s a decentralized network. It doesn’t have a “history” of governance - so we will have to make one. By having thir proportional reward + no min needed (like all mn coins) will for sure make ada attractive for both small, medium and big (institutional) investors.
I still think the community is over evaluating the voting and making decision part. It will be a huge deal in 10-20 years but not for medium term. I would speculate that 100% of all voting proposals in the next 4-5 years will be from IOHK and we will all, friendly and united (small and big holders) will vote for them.
They Treasury mechanism is in the latest stage of the roadmap! Not sooner then 2020. I would also speculate, 2 years will make the ada more evenly distributed. It’s only traded for 5 months, and the last 2 months have low volume.
As I’ve said to you many times: Trivializing and over-simplifying problems does not make them go away. Every successful organization plans and builds for the long-term, even if it’s harder in the short-term. The community is building this platform to exist for generations, which means every decision that we make today will have consequences for decades or centuries.
Just like launching a rocket into space: Even 1 tiny degree of deviation in the beginning can result in huge course trajectory mistakes, which can result in the rocket crashing and burning up in the Sun instead of landing safely on Mars.
It’s not a fixed concept like “the country”, it’s always “changing” ppl are selling out/buying in. Today the community has x members. In 1 year it will have maybe x10 times more. For sure, it will still be “the community” but will not be the same as the one today. It’s a total waste of time to try to figure out a solution to a problem (Governance/Treasury)
I am sure you know from cardano road map that “Voltaire (Scalability & assurance)
Voltaire is focused on assurance and scalability and will see the introduction of a treasury model. This will ensure the sustainability and self sufficiency of the blockchain and community.” is due to be released in 2020. There is enough time for the network to grow, change, for ada to be redistributed among a broader nr of people before the questions of distribution of “power that controls the treasury” is valid.
We can or should consider some other types of votes: not just +1 but also -1
Or - if we assume a 50stake/50human weighting is practicable - both stakeholders and humans have a certain amount of votes. It would be one relative to stake and a fixed (equal) amount per human. Let’s say 5. (or why not 10 or 50)
Now everyone involved in this vote can place his “points” on the table where we wouldn’t see simple questions like “Question X: yes / no ?” but much more a list of proposals, and everyone collects OK and KO votes.
This variety IMO is asking for more granular voting capabilities.
In a simple yes/no poll it would be completely brain-dead if one voter gives 3 OK and 2 KO points.
But it makes sense when a voter can put “all-in” in favour of his very important project or against something he has big concerns. He can also say: 3 points for proposal A, one in favour of B because it sounds good, and one against C because this draft seems not jet ready for implementation.
the incentives must be proportional to the work you do (stake)
to get proportional rewards / we need proportional power attributed to the nr of ada staked cos this also creates an direct incentive to “buy more power”.
BTW, as we’re still discussing the title of this thread: "whale fears"
Not sure what you think about Elon Musk. I’m definitively not a VIP and celebrity worshipper, but his strong belief in his disrupting innovative and sustainable projects, wherein he put his whale-money is already awesome. And now this: Musk get’s only paid if he’s successful and with him all other large and little stakeholders: http://fortune.com/2018/01/23/tesla-elon-musk-targets-valuation-compensation/
This proofs, even if it’s not common, that it’s possible to have good whales.
this could become a new thread (@ADALove ? ;- )
I wonder how all this invested (FIAT) money affects the real world’s economy.
We all know, only circulating money creates wealth, allows production, and so progress and success. I say this because I strongly believe that by far the most things every human needs, from the very primaeval basics up to all these new things we saw coming in the last 100 years, were and are still created by human hands and brains. Not by staking and waiting to become rich. (sorry whales)
So not sure what you watched last December. In the region where I live employees get a 13th and 14th reward. They’re usually used for things like Christmas goods, holiday, house furnishing, … in short circulating money.
In December I was asked quite a lot about what’s going on with these cryptos and how someone could put in some money. I’m sure I only noticed the tip of the iceberg. Then in January, this iceberg melted and flooded. This money is not circulating, which means artisans get fewer orders, hotels fewer bookings, …
HODLing is the epitome of frozen money.
And besides, ADA will be available to staking/mining when Ouroboros is launched.
The iceberg melted and that money went in to the hands of smart money. That smart money could also spend it if they wish but instead are probably doing something smart with it. Productive efficiency is flawed and I mean really flawed. 18 or 20 % of what it could be. A little less money buying a little less crap. Hodling in mid Jan was a mistake but holding almost the rest of the time …that is to say feb through whenever is not. Now if they were buying up ICO 's they are stimulating economic growth in the future token economy and they contributing to potentially very important work at level usually only reserved to accredited investors and vc’s. Think about a project like ambrosus and ask yourself if that money is not contributing to the economic efficiency making possible a safer future for everybody
Agree. In PoW, “work you do” was narrowly defined as processing power. Cardano may see “work you do” being defined more broadly - encompassing any work that is able to be incentivized and valuable to the network. Can include running nodes, holding/ staking coins, to voting, usage, and other novel metrics.
The founder of UBER has a solution to whales, with a crypto currency called ECO. 1 trillion tokens which 50% will be given away.
" If properly executed, this token allocation strategy will accelerate platform adoption and network effects, and help achieve a gradual reduction of economic inequality across the globe. Instead of rewarding anonymous miners, Eco will give the majority of its value created to billions of users around the world. This can help more than two billion people in developing nations gain improved access to financial services, and achieve a more balanced distribution of resources."
There is no solution to whales, because there is nothing to solve, the only thing to solve is make everyone equal in terms of rights, “whales” are a natural consequence of a free-market economy - because wealth is created out of thin air and few has the skills and interest in doing so.
Regardless of what money we will use, this is how things are going to be, it is the way things has to be. There are no way around this, if you want a wealthy society with rising sustainable living standards.
Just like you have an elite in any sport, It is only a few that have the skills to compete on the highest level or interest in reaching that point, because it takes a dedication of a life-time, and even if you dedicated your life to that goal, there are no guarantees you will succeed, it is all in your hands and the mercy of randomness.
I agree just pointing out that others are trying to “evenly” distribute their currencies