its time to talk about MRT and how the Waves team is dealing with it.
Today I read the recent Miners Reward Token Update and it made me gasp. Why? Because nearly every single number in this report is total ■■■■■■■■. In the following I will go through the article line by line and show in detail what I mean when I call this ■■■■■■■■.
For all people which are not up to date: In June 2018 Waves team announced the trial of the buyback & burn programm for MRT.. The plan was simple: Buy MRT worth 500 Waves a days. Burn 20% of it. Distribute the rest to nodes. Repeat daily.
Sounds great? Well, I thought so too until I read the MRT update from 9th August.
The madness already starts at the second phrase.
Over the last two months we have been purchasing, burning and distributing MRT as promised. Total figures since 15 July 2018 are:
Okay, you bought back MRT for two months. Why do you give us numbers for 15 July - 9 August? Why not the whole two months? This is totally random!? Why do you think anybody is interested in the buyback stats of 3 random weeks?
“as promised” (will be important later)
• 278,734.74 MRT bought
Lets juggle with some numbers. Waves team is making it hard here, maybe thats the reason why they dont give us the real numbers, only a random timeframe. The 278k MRT are bought during 25 days, which equals around 11.1k daily average. Now its getting interesting. 3 Month high of MRT was at around 0.038. Lets assume Waves team bought every single MRT at latest high (which they didnt). Now every child can do the math: 11.100 * 0.038 ~ 423 Waves. Something is fishy here. So my first blame: Waves team is not buying MRT for 500 Waves a day as promised! And its easy to proof that by their own ■■■■■■ article. Lets go deeper.
• 26,933.66 MRT burned
This is freaking amazing. Is an ape doing the math at Waves team? Okay lets rewind: In both(!) articles about MRT you are talking about 20% burn. Sidenote here: You promised 50% burn. The quote below is from sashas telegram channel (Telegram: Contact @absolutelysasha)
For the next two months we will be distributing 10 MRT for each generated block, plus smaller miners will be incetivized with additional MRT. The source of this will be our own stake in MRT plus we will be buying back MRT from the market, burning half of the amount and sending the other half to miners. After that we will be targeting the achieved daily profit for the miners, and if it falls below the average amount it will be compensated by MRT distrubution. The goal is to increase the miners profit by at least an order of magnitude, potentially more.
Alexander Ivanov, 5th March 2018.
But lets forget that and lets just look at the numbers again:
• 278,734.74 MRT bought
• 26,933.66 MRT burned
Alright. Nice 20% you burned there. Im not sure if you are able to do the calculation, so here is my result: 278,734.74 * 0.2 = 55,746.8 . Would love to hear the explaination on that difference of about 50%.
These were my concerns regarding the latest Update. Now I want to say some general words about this topic.
First of all Im very disappointed by the waves team. I really understand mistakes, I also understand that plans are changing, but what I see here is far away from a mistake. Its planned misleading and im not very happy with this.
Next point I want to mention is how my doubts regarding this obviously wrong numbers were adapted from your so called “community managers”. When I mentioned it in General Chat in telegram Julia (@yukatyan) decided to just delete my messages, Miroslav (@MiroWavesCM) decided to ignore me when I messaged him in private.
The last group of persons im very dissappointed of is the waves community itself. How the heck is it possible that they released this ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 4 days ago and nobdoy complained or commented it?
Now I ask for clarification and if you plan to do the buyback & burn as promised or if you will keep doing totally different stuff?
The process is progressing
But unclear notices
There may be a misunderstanding in interpretation
Necessary, clarify notices
To prevent misunderstandings
@deemru Well, seems like we have different opinions here.
I think its neither okay, nor “close enough” to be accepted.
Another example: 60 days × 500 Waves = 30k waves. 30.000 Waves ÷ 0.04 (lets assume MRT is at 0.04 waves per MRT, which it is not) = 750.000 MRT. 750k MRT * 0.2 = 150k MRT burned. On dev.pywaves.org/assets/mrt we can see that roughly 37k MRT are burned, so this number from the article might be the reality.
If you are happy with less then 24% burned (and I used very high numbers. in reality they should have burned way more then 150k) of the promised amount fine.I am not and I will not accept this awkward numbers without an explaination.
And its a shame that waves team still got the nuts to write lines which include the words as promised…
EDIT:
numbers are different, that`s true, but close enough… for a free/bonus service.
This is another point where I dont agree with you. Currently nodes earn more via MRT then they do via fees. So this “free service” is like the main reason people still mine.
I think its important to be honest about that because mining reward already is at only 1% a year. Number of nodes dropped from 220+ to 85. If you want to keep the network decentralized you need incentives for miners, but you wont attract miners if your incentives are as shady as MRT is. I think that the declining number of nodes and the MRT-Madness are related.
I appreciate Waves approach on MRT, but I cant see the reason why they are not simply doing what they announced. I think I delivered enough to proof that the team is not fullfilling their promises.
Now I would love to hear an explaination and Im sure Im not the only one…
We’ve checked everything one more time and this is true - MRT bot doesn’t work well - it actually didn’t spend 500 waves because of wrong algorithm. Also it started to burn tokens only on Aug-2, but was buying and distributing MRT before this, so MRT burn rate is less for the total period, but starting from Aug it should be ok. Bot was also unstable because of several technical issues.
We are now reworking bot’s algorithm and fixing issues which may affects it accuracy and stability. Ones we do this let’s check one more time to insure it works as expected.
Honestly, the root cause of all the listed issues is the fact that this this project (I mean MRT) was a second-priority for us comparing to our main products development (blockchain node, wallets, etc). We’ll also try to fix this process, including communication.
I really appreciate your honest answer and the explaination of this issue! I think many people in the community would like to stay up to date on this topic. A detailed update on the algorithm changes after you checked it back would be awesome! (I would appreciate a detailed report of the “several technical issues” but I also understand that this is not important for the main part of the community)
After all I think the main issue here was the communication. I really like the approach with the MRT buyback & burn program but it was obviously not working as promised. The part which made me mad was that nobody from the community mangers seemed to care. My messages got deleted or ignored. I really hope that they somehow will be able to diversify between baseless rant and profound criticism in the future.
Thank you for showing some interest on this issue!
Hey @Lennart!
Yes indeed, by mistake there was burned more than needed on 29th August, that’s why for the past several days there was no burning. Today MRT burning was resumed again.
When talking about the profitability of mining please mention the 6 WAVES per block that are generated. As little as 2 transactions per block & 6 WAVES created? It is super inflationary & this current formula is holding down the ability of WAVES to grow in value & consequently making WAVES less attractive to new users, lowering the overall value of the platform & the miner’s ability to make a profit.
Thanks! That was an interesting article. From the info in there I would say Waves is highly inflationary. Guess we’ll see how many users we have when we hit 200 million waves. Inflation might not matter if we were experiencing rapid growth in the ecosystem, unfortunately waves.exchange volume is extremely low, which is not a good sign.