BP Community Proposal: bpminpayment

in eos •  2 months ago

bp-proposal.jpg

Question: Do you support a proposal to lower the minimal BP payout threshold to 50 EOS per day?

We propose to lower current minimum Block Producer payout threshold from 100 EOS/day to 50 EOS/day.

Why the ‘bpminpayment’ proposal?

This will instantly include about 20 additional BP teams into the paid status and create an incentive for them to keep their infrastructure running and continue to contribute into EOS community.

We have many talented teams who actively participated in Testnet effort and preparation for the EOS launch that are not compensated currently and continue to cover the costs of running their infrastructure. If EOS community is to remain an inclusive and innovative environment - we need to put right incentives in place and retain good talent in a community.

Current compensation curve:

Our proposed model has longer tail compensation curve to include more standby BPs:

See more details here: BP Compensation Model

Proposal registered on Blockchain:

./cleos.sh get table eosforumdapp eostribeprod proposal
{
"rows": [{
"proposal_name": "bpminpayment",
"title": "Do you support proposal to lower minimal BP payout threshold to 50 EOS per day?",
"proposal_json": "{"type": "bps-proposal-v1", "content":"We propose to lower current minimum Block Producer payout threshold from 100 EOS/day to 50 EOS/day. \nThis will instantly include about 20 additional BP teams into paid status and create incentive for them to keep their infrastructure running and continue to contribute into EOS community. \nWe have many talented teams who actively participated in Testnet effort and preparation for the EOS launch that are not compensated currently and continue to cover the costs of running their infrastructure. \nIf EOS community is to remain an inclusive and innovative environment - we need to put right incentives in place and retain good talent in a community. "}"
}
],
"more": false
}

How to vote for the proposal:

Screen Shot 2018-08-05 at 8.46.18 AM.png

Credits

Many Thanks to @genereos for developing EOSToolkit.io voting portal.
Special thank you to @eos-asia for covering the news about this proposal to token holders in Asian region and providing voting portal MyEOSKit.com.
Thank you to Alex @eos-canada for providing guidance and instructions on command line tool.

Connect With Us


Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Interesting initiative, is the ongoing voting turnout visible somewhere?

Great work and great post! I support this fantastic idea!

How would this lower overall pay for all BPs, given the part algorithm? What is your proposed transaction code to implement this change?

·

Thomas you can take a look on BP compensation model I did in Google sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oS7zUpzOgeK_id3q3fz73JpSGZZB82m0JAsi9P2Qes4/edit?ts=5b6066d8#gid=0

The model above follows simple known formula for BP compensation and doesn't take into account "leftover tail" redistribution to paid BPs.
By my estimate if we lower threshold to 0.25% (50 EOS/day) - that will add roughly 20 more paid BPs and cut that leftover tail by about 1500 EOS daily.
Depending on how this tail is redistributed to paid BPs - it would translate to a modest decrease to payout to paid BPs by average 20 EOS/day.

Again I welcome others to double-check my assumptions and math and adjust my estimates.

But then you still need to reach the 0.5% vote threshold in order to get paid, no? I'm neutral on lowering the minimal BP payout threshold but I definitely think the 0.5% vote threshold should be lowered.

·

0.5% vote translates into 100 EOS/day
Lowering it to 50 EOS / day is equivalent to 0.25% vote.

This is a great initiative that is worth supporting fully!

There are so many respectable and knowledgeable teams that are diligently working for the Network with no reward.

All EOS followers already realize that there is a group of self-interest whales that are dominating the BP's paying positions, systematically milking the system. Most of them without even complying to basic BP requirements.

If "the people" do not take action in these early stages, this EOS network will end-up being controlled by the whales and their puppet BP's.

Thus, making Vitalik Buterin's prediction come true: that the EOS network will eventually become a Plutochracy.

This is not what token holders want this EOS network to become!

·

Thank you @cryptohead for your support!

There is human factor in this proposal we have to consider.
I see many talented independent teams that have contributed in Testnet efforts and making EOS Launch successful months before the launch.
Those teams have sticked around after the launch and continued paying expense of running their infrastructure without getting any compensation.
They can only go so far though and many will be going offline and focusing their efforts somewhere else.
Can we afford as EOS community to loose that technical talent that would otherwise have contributed into EOS ecosystem?
I think what we propose is a small price to pay to keep those teams motivated and working hard for a sake of EOS Blockchain and community.

This should be combined with inverse weighted voting (as is planed by TELOS) to avoid situation where whales vote themselves in to get paid.

·

@dan - that's fair but would you please justify your conclusion.
I would like to point out that this proposal came out from a joint BP session during Unconference in Seoul.
We have formulated this joint sentiment in a proposal for community discussion and voting.
Hence all sides of the argument should be explained to a community to enable them to make informed decision.

·

We respect your wisdom @dan, just relaying what was brought forth in Seoul (unconference). If you think this is a bad idea, please give us some more insights into your thinking.

·

Has B1 voted yet?

To my mind that event will raise as many as 30 BPs to the distribution level or am I missing something?

·

Because lowering the vote threshold would further open the gates to BP positions being bought by large stake-holders simply to capture rewards? Your thinking then, is to incentivize voting vis a vie a precondition for participating in the REX rather than lower the barrier to entry?

·

@dan
again, again and again, please justify your opinions/critics.

as for proposal:
from EOS Romania point of view, this proposal it is not properly justified, not enough solid arguments have been brought forward.
why 50 and not 49? or 41, or 13 or 0.5?
simply throwing big words like "great teams" , "good talent" it is not enough. there are other ways to absorb the great talent if indeed it will not be any incentives left for it to stick around.
of course there's not a good explanation of why 100 was in first place but to change it now we should provide a good argument why, let us show b1 how it is done, not copy their way of doing things.
this proposal as it stands right now it is not good enough, not even close. it should not be voted, nor implemented.
also, why allow more BPs since we don't even have a proper way to measure their current performance nor if they abide by the BP agreement?
the number of paid BPs should not be a fixed number, first of all one should prove it is capable to be a BP, then be paid based on how much votes it has and number of blocks produced, but only if it qualifies to be a BP technically (a minimum set of tests shall be passed).

·
·

All good points. Why this number was chosen and not the other - the answer is simple: it came out from a brainstorming session among BPs. We took it upon ourselves to propose a single point in those recommendations. We could argue about exact numbers for ever and never come to any agreement - "analysis paralisys". Hence it sometimes helps to pick a reasonable number an run with it.
Also if you think it's terrible idea - just vote 'No'. We get more 'No' then "Yes' and put this issue to rest for once and for all.
I agree this doesn't resolve the issue of matching capable BPs to votes. It's a much bigger problem to solve that has to be solved outside of Blockchain.

sounds like a plan.

I'll look into this. I absolutely want more BPCs being supported and paid, but I am disheartened that our first referendum proposal, arguably historic, has to do with increasing payment to those sitting at the top of an influence hierarchy. It is so starkly a proposal that is likely to have come from a BPC that sees the ecosystem only through the eyes of a BPC.

·

That's a fair analysis, we were just following through. This was the outcome of a referendum discussion among mostly BPs at the unconference in Seoul Korea FYI.

How do we see the votes for this proposal please?