IMO having a decentralized governing body to vote over token creation after they must have read through the project WP, website etc could be good. These persons could be anonymous and the vote could also be over a smart contract to avoid a project get desperate and buy all votes. Also allowing project community to vote with WCT could be good for Waves and WCT holders but could defeat the purpose of voting as a project/scammer could buy many WCT and use to influence vote
That’s why you should cap votes to a maximum weight to avoid whales from having too much power over votes.
I was thinking the same
Giving the vote to WCT owners is like to put the power of decisions in the hands of few people or whales
What will prevent me from splitting tokens into multiple accounts in this case?
You are right nothing will stop that. However if the cap is low enough owners of huge amounts of WCT will have to split to hundreds of accounts. Given airdrops are also dropped to WCT usually this will give them huge amounts of work in the future.
I would not agree with “huge amount of work”, one can automate these operations with a simple script
That’s true. Only the transaction fee’s would be a minor nuisance I guess. Would you prefer to not have a cap on voting weight at all?
Yes, if you use asset-based voting it’s strange to have per-account cap. But I’m not sure that we need voting for this at all
If you want to make it simple, why not just require any asset to be verified to have a certain amount of Waves staked somehow. e.g. My new token can be accessed by anyone at any time, but it only gets a ‘verified’ flag if it’s had 100 Waves staked (not leased) for a minimum of 1 month.
What does the verification have to do with the possession of 100 waves?
It’s a way to avoid verification - which is a problem whenever there is human involvement.
So, the suggestion is to avoid verification and have asset owners ‘pay’ for verification. The cost will stop spammers and non-serious projects, but by implementing some form of staking, the net cost is really zero, because the asset creator will get there staked Waves back.
this is an interesting idea actually
Maybe to support decentralization the addresses which generate assets and want these assets to be trade-able on DEX, Mass-transferable with mass transaction to more than 1k addresses or transferable by transfer transaction to more than 1k addresses within a short time frame (ie 50k blocks), and etc limitations we could define else ignored/released, the creator address must be a generator of blocks atleast with minimal amount waves required: 1k waves. The amount of assets supported by the generator could be limited by the number of blocks generator generated for the past 30 days (50k blocks). As generator disappears so are limited the capabilities with it’s asset(s). Basically supportable assets should be defined within a node configuration in added order.
That’s just another crazy idea as I read ideas above
I agree with you, we need to distinguish.
I can’t totally agree with the comments that want to add a “filter” at the beginning by raising costs so much. I think:
- It could be ok to raise the cost to create a token at 10 WAVES to limit test assets, but not more.
- This solution, however, is totally useless against scammers, even if you put the cost to 100 or 1,000 WAVES. An expert scammer got for sure the funds to create it, imho. Definitely you can’t solve this problem in that way.
Some proposals to distinguish real projects from scams could be a check of the presence of:
- good website containing relevant info about the project
- email or other contacts
- a blog or a social media for announcements
- a telegram group or channel to fast communication with investors
- announcement thread on BitcoinTalk
- announcement thread on Waves Community Forum
- the ACTIVE precence of a project on Waves Platform for i.e. 6 months, without negative reports
I’m partially against KYC, but if it were deemed necessary, I would opt for a solution that respects privacy, also for reasons of security.
The question of the benefits and effectiveness of such manipulations. First of all, the mechanics of the project provides for a number of measures creating obstacles for fraudulent projects such as KYC and Escrow. Also KYC for advisers (freelancers ).These obstacles make fraudulent schemes very expensive difficult to implement relative to the exhaust, and therefore not very effective. But it makes life easier for bona fide issuers of custom tokens. They will just have a place to find experts to help in the integration of tokens and promote their concept.Will not need to create separate ico ,attraction traffic to your resource.There will be no need for additional guarantees for users, TK is escrow . The key point of this story is that we are not talking about millions of dollars. We are talking about much smaller investments, which do not need a special venture expertise.And this finally discourages the interest of scammers.For millions ICO there is East with its expertise and integrator.But we must not forget that waves is a public blockchain for people, where everyone can easily create a token, and there should be some kind of simple external public transparent integrator and public moderation of private relatively small initiatives. All this can be obtained from the community of free enthusiasts in Trustamust (advising, assistance in integration, voting) and a small x custom investment will make the usual Scam in this niche simply uninteresting .
Just realized that what we need here is very close to Token Curated Registry (TCR) idea. Brief descriptions is here.
Token Curated Registries do away with the need for a centralized List Owner, and instead create economic incentives for decentralized list curation.
Also there are some examples of already developing systems like this.
Guys we are in the end of mockups and specifications. Can you help us with smart contracts?
That seems like it will add a burden to users - so you’ll just replace one burden with another. Also, the system seems like it could be gamed by a determined spammer and if they win a challenge, everyone else will lose their deposit and won’t be interested in participating again!
I agree on everything with Angry_Panda_ROAR.
In addition, some may need time to carry out the project, some may even prefer to carry on the project with long time, after all there have already been cryptocurrency and token scams, all fast projects, big investors, big advertising and then they are escaped with money.
In the phono projects need trust and we all know how true, trust is gained with time that can be different from project to project. As mentioned before some projects with time have proved to be scam others no. The Bitcoin how old it was to pass in the dark before establishing itself. Today everyone wants everything and immediately, but in this way projects will die in the bud that could be good. For example, I hate crowdfunding, I prefer to raise funds in other ways even if they are very many.
So no to live voting or die, I would prefer a ladder with more reliable and less reliable token rankings, with the appearance that could be of different colors or drawings to indicate the degree of reliability.
In addition to the checks made by third parties is not decentralization, so it may be possible favoritism. Then it always comes up in the WCT, it comes to me that someone has noticed that there are many tokens and in offering a solution you want to get rid of the competition and to earn money as well.
The idea of iQCash is interesting.
This is my thought, I’m sorry if I will urge someone.
It’s cryptocurrency, the responsibility of knowledge lies with the user.
Perhaps for fiat back currencies, it’s not a bad idea, but does that give to much false hope if the fiat gateways aren’t subjected to an agreed upon 3rd party audits.
Proxy tokens issued by crypto gateways would be good to be verified, but still flawed. The better solution would be eliminate gateways in favour of a smart contract ecosystem verified by PoS and the full nodes for issuing crypto proxy tokens backed by the actual crypto token. See my brief outline here, https://forum.wavesplatform.com/t/how-are-crypto-gateways-secured-and-what-would-happen-if-they-are-hacked/1860/6. These should be marked as such.
So maybe rather than a boolean for verified, it needs a voting mechanism to tag tokens, eg, Spam, Fiat Backed, Scam, Gateway Crypto Backed, etc.