WEP 4(rev.2): Block Reward and Community Driven Monetary Policy

Waves Enhancement Proposals
#8

Voting idea looks nice, but I suggest a few adjustments:

  1. Voting for numeric parameter (miner reward) using arithmetic mean is not the best choice. I suggest to use median voting in this case.
  2. I propose miner to specify target value, not its change. E.g. if I am sure reward should be 5 WAVES per block I would prefer to specify this 5 constant in my node’s config and not to change. Currently depending on current value I’ll have to write there +3 or -2, and change it after every period.
  3. 250000 and 150000 voting intervals look too long, I’d prefer more dynamic system.
  4. 8 WAVES max value looks rather artificial, if we make miners responsible for determining reward level, why not to let them choose any level they want? I would limit the speed of grow, e.g. max increase per period is +2 WAVES.
  5. Why not to start with initial reward level 0 WAVES? This looks reasonable since it is actually current reward level.
3 Likes
#9

We don’t need such a huge amount to incentivize miners. It can lead to make rich richer. Waves didn’t built with inflation you have to solve the incentivization problem with less damage(low inflation).
We need incentivization for miners and sustainable network. The best solution is inflation (for now). Also we know the inflation not fully supported by community. That’s why you have to do it with low inflation. If you won’t burn the fees , 2-3 waves per block quite enough. Sasha never did things normal. First he was against inflation, today he is ok with 8 waves per block. :slight_smile: Do things without breaking ppl hearts.

1 Like
#10

Inflation is not a sustainable incentive!
you are thinking only in the short term, most people have kept their waves and leased exactly because they have no inflation, because it is an efficient and constantly developing platform

you are thinking only with emotions, just because she had such strong devaluation you think you have no inventive to keep holding waves and running full nodes

this will be a tragedy, I hope you don’t even put it to be voted!
You guys who want inflation are losing their minds

#11

Inflation: more expensive “tax” than we pay!
“Inflation is taxation without legislation”

#12

No matter if this inflation is low, it will always erode the platform’s entire monetary ecosystem in the long run.
People will lose confidence in the platform if such changes are made!
Changing the rules of the game with him running is a very wicked scam!

#13

Be aware that this is not a FORCED currency!

#14

Dislike! Show me at least one crypto without additional reward in block.

1 Like
#15

In long run deflation model proved unsustainable. Or we must wait another 3 years. Or may be 6?

1 Like
#16

Guys I invested in waves from beginning exactly of the reason we do not have inflation at all, no emission of new coins - inflation in the long run makes prices of waves lower on the market, which makes transactions more cheap but does not increase amount of transactions (they are cheap now as well) and in the end reward in fiat will be lower. Where is the guarantee that earned waves won’t be used to flood the market with newly earned waves? If we compare annual increase in waves only then yes you have imaginary increase on year basis of about 5% but amount of waves in circulation will be also increased by 5% which probably will be on the market. Now small calculation: If waves team proposes that with this change about of 10% Waves will come and start mining also meaning that the same 10% will be back on exchanges because of the inflation we have on the price of waves token its self. Who is going to uphold the earned waves when the price on currency dropping and continue to drop by the means of inflation?

I still believe platform should continue to work on attracting new users to platform who will create new transactions - this is the only way of making waves more profitable without introducing inflation. Don’t forget that even Etherium is thinking also that amount of Etherium is very high already.

If you still are going to continue with this proposal as it is i’ll vote against it even it means to receive less income in near future but in the long run with increase of transactions community will win and demand for waves will increase. Don’t forget that we can increase cost of transactions for now as a mean of reward increase. As the price of the waves for fiat is at it lowest its just a proper way to deal with it - let’s say we fix minimal transaction cost to some level in fiat, and that’s it - we have sufficient model which will allow us to decrease fees if required, but minimal level cpuld be set (ie at half of highest fiat value, meaning that tx feed could be increased right now by 6 times - which will have absolutely same effect on amount of reward lessors will receive and as we price of waves rises, fee of transaction decreases untill waves are at its fiat level and after that transaction will stay on fiat level with possible miner voting to increase this level)

I might consider to vote in favor for inflation option only if:

  • amount of key blocks emitting new waves will be limited by 25 blocks per day per node (that way will at least increase decentralization) - meaning that right now only about 1/3 of all generated block will create new waves, but the urge for decentralization will also be increased (similar idea as a node program support).
  • emitted waves can be transferred/sent/spent only after 100-250k blocks but will participate in generation of new blocks right after they are created. That makes a mechanics to use waves to generate more waves and probably that waves will be left for generation.
  • we can vote only in favor of decrease of rewards. We cannot have a model where we could destroy deflation system.
  • amount of waves created per block could be lower than 6 waves (2-3?). 6% per year is damn very high…

And also please explain what means:
3) Use of the coins by the miner
A miner receives a reward when they create a key block. The miner must be able to use the received reward in the first transaction of the first microblock created after the key block.

Does that mean that miner should distribute the created coins right after they are created?

4 Likes
#17

I agree that increasing the earnings of miners is necessary by increasing the number of transactions.

#18

Which voting period(V) is correct?
100,000 blocks (in “4) Interest and voting periods”) <= Is this typo?
10,000 blocks (in “Designations used”)

#19

Even if the inflation system was like you proposed, it would still be evil!

#20

The idea was to propose a finite inflatory model, but i totaly agree that inflation sux and other mean should be used like:

  • node programm support
  • distribute DEX fees to nodes (partial)
  • MRT buy back

The only progress there could be is via mass adoptation = a lot of transactions.

#21

distribute DEX fees to nodes (partial)

The DEX fees have always been distributed to nodes (the matcher keeps less than 20%). No idea where that myth came from but it’s been around for 2 years or more.

#22

I know, idea was that it should continue :slight_smile:

Tradisys Node
#23

I see voting’s already happening. How many attempts will be done for voting? 1-2-3 circles? If not accepted by that time maybe we should consider separate proposal of fixing cost of transaction in other currencty, ie in USD and minimal transaction cost equivalent could be appointed by voting?

Ie minimal fee is 0.001 waves but also fee must be minimal in fixed min fixed currency price (which could be fixed daily based on previous day’s transactions). For instance min fee in USD should be 3 usd cents (0,03 USD). Meaning that if 0,001 waves is not 0,03 USD at the time on commencing transaction, fee must be increased accordingly.

This type of approach could be done in transfer/masstransfer/exchange transactions if they are not part of script.

1 Like
#24

I would like to ask a question: With MRT dist, there was a change in the algorithm so small nodes had an advantage over big nodes (i think MRT were sent only for first x blocks). Will small nodes lose this advantage with block reward?

Thanks.

1 Like
#25

basically yes, as there is no more incentive for small nodes - the only small bonus is from node program. Considering late support of 3 nodes with total of 2M waves, these 3 nodes will be showing most “lease profitability” so we might see some changes on lease attraction to these 3 nodes. But of course it depends on how well are lessors aware of the fact and actually wish to ditch decentralization.

prolly best option would be to support small nodes with bigger amount of waves than 15-25k, but it depends on amount team still can lease.

MRT could have still its role - if node has it, Waves team could lease some amount to those nodes in some proportion. Cause right now as MRT is being ditched in future we will definitely have issues with credibility behind decisions proposed. Especially as lessors cannot cast their votes directly. I still believe that choice which was done by 81% of votes, most of lessors not even aware of the fact that such vote happened or for what it was voted. And we will be discussing again options on how voting should be done in future - as right now decisions are basically done by node owners.

#26

I really don’t understand that the max and min is been removed out of this idea.
This means that it has no limitations of Improving the max amount of waves.
In the article that they provided this means that waves can have a max supply of 8 billion tokens. What is more then 99% of what we have now.

I liked the idea with a min and max of amount of waves, where node owners can vote for the amount between those area’s. Now I have my doubts on it…

It is not attractive anymore when we get 30 waves for each block over 10 years :frowning:

Can we still change it with a minimum and maximum amount of waves per block ? or no minimum and 8 waves per block as a maximum ?

2 Likes
#27

Yeah, a great! Thank you