RE: Thoughts on GRC [002] – How the user experience could be improved (1)
I read both your first post in this proposed series, and this current post. Due to the fact I disagree heavily with a lot of what is said, I had decided not to comment. However, as you asked me to fill in my opinion as a scientist who wants to add their project to BOINC, and as a BOINC cruncher, I will try and explain my thoughts on this article.
I think that while articulated well, the article demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding not only what the Gridcoin network is, but also how it functions and what is already available. As I do not yet see a response nor an upvote from some of the core active members of the GRC Steemit and development community, I would be interested to see what their opinions are too.
You began by opening a list of four areas of suggested improvement, but as you only chose to address the first two I will only respond to those:
Problem 1: 'semi-required investments & resource availability'
You say that there is a requirement to have high end hardware, and that this will drive new potential recruits away from the scene. Then go on to say that there is a case to consider on the:
availability of tasks that require high-end hardware
and
which projects have the best rewards for their system in a certain amount of time
First and foremost, lets look at how the Gridcoin POR payout distribution system actually works. Every day, the total POR payout pool is split equally between the number of projects within the whitelist. The payout within each project is then split based on the magnitude (and thus based on the RAC) of individual users.
There is no such thing as tasks which require high end hardware, nor are there project that are best for a user's system, bar a few notable exceptions. As long as you run a CPU project for your CPU, and a GPU project for your GPU, you will get a fair payout for your system. Maximising your payout then depends on doing the work units of the project with the least competition. This encourages Team Gridcoin to spread its compute equally accross the whitelisted projects.
The notable exception to there being no 'tasks that require high-end hardware' is GPUs that are specifically built to excel at FP64 (double precision) tasks will massively outcompete all other GPUs. This is currently only relevant in MilkyWay@Home, and you can easily avoid this project if your GPU falls outside this bracket.
I think this has also proven that this is not actually a problem, but a feature:
This then may force projects to adapt to a situation that didn’t exist before: a competition among projects to convince users.
Problem 2: '(newbie) user experience'
You mention that as a result of GPU scarcity and power price differences across the globe:
people with high cost of power will either try to find high return projects, high profit coins (not GRC) or just not mine at all.
That is crypto mining in a nutshell. Any coin that requires work, whether POW or DPOR will be affected by power prices and GPU availability. It is not the job of the network to subsidise based on this differentiating feature. I know several users who buy and ship GPUs across the globe to perfect their rigs, and they do so cheaply and profitably. You then say:
Yet, these are (for some people) legit reasons to not join BOINC/GRC after consideration of all aspects – or less motivation to continue to contribute, thus moving on to mine other coins instead.
And I would again reply that this goes for all POW and DPOR crypto. Your argument essentially says that users are entitled to payout, regardless of their actual contribution to the system, which is fundamentally the opposite of the GRC POR model.
You then listed 4 ways to improve the Gridcoin ecosystem:
a) better rewards, especially for newbies
This would encourage serious miners to set up many noobie accounts, and undermine the fair reward system. Noobie miners already get a one-off 100,000 DPOR weight bonus to stake their first block.
b) better project/task filters to find profitable projects faster
There is a fantastic website resource maintained actively by, among others, @cm-steem and @barton26 which when combined with the Gridcoinstats website allows you to find the most profitable project at any point in time within 1 minute flat. Like all crypto, you just need to be willing to put in the time to understand the system.
c) better rewards for older systems
This undermines all the attempts to add compute to the network, and would encourage everyone to go and buy up old, inefficient systems. That being said, the most cost-efficient FP64 cards are actually half a decade old. Food for thought?
d) better rewards for users with high electricity costs
This is not only impossible to police, but again skews the rewards system. Does this mean if I have a solar set-up I should get paid far less for my BOINC contribution?
You then mentioned:
I don’t think BOINC/GRC's main motivation should be mining GRC for profit and I also don’t think it would be healthy for the relationship long-term.
But that is literally the entire purpose of GRC beyond its POS model. GRC exists solely to pay out holders 1.5% annual interest, and to reward BOINC computation. It has been incredibly healthy for the relationship - just have a look at the contribution stats for Team Gridcoin!
Finally, you wrapped up with some things you would like to see added to incentivise new members to join:
Better/more interactive project/task overview
Our current Home Page contains this information, with links to everything you asked for. Displaying it all on one page would be impossible to navigate. Further details are provided in your BOINC client, and on the individual project sites, depending on exactly what stats you want.More communication with scientists to help promote their projects
Scientists are busy. We work on VERY tight funding, to VERY tight schedules. Celebrities like 'Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Brian Greene or Carl Sagan' make money by being science figureheads. They are not traditional scientists.
Even so, all projects that I keep tabs on are very active in updating their users on developments, from new research outcomes to server issues, and even publications. Some projects even publish the names of teams or individual crunchers in their publications.Project roadmaps
There exists, on the project homepages, in great detail where appropriate.Project suggestion hub
There are many different places around the web to access the total list of all BOINC projects, and anyone with more than 100,000 GRC is able to initiate a vote to have one added or removed from the whitelist. This has happened frequently in the past. In fact, you can review all past votes!Additional prestige reward systems
All projects I have crunched for have this already in the form of badges. Many BOINC users chase these badges to add to their collection, and ammass huge amounts of them to add to their forum signatures. This therefore also already exists.
I really like people adding value in the form of suggestions to the community, but I think it greatly hurts the community when articles like this are posted. It gives uninformed readers a false impression that many of the things that are already present in the community are missing - but they are not. The least we can do for the volunteers that implemented these tools is recognise their work and dedication to their projects.
Impressive answer. This needs more votes than the actual topic.
Thank you for your reply. I'll split up my responses for less confusion.
I would like to start with the suggestions a) - d) since there seems to be a massive confusion about them. I will not edit the main article, otherwise it will end in chaos, so I'll try to solve this in the comment section.
These are very hypothetical suggestions which I'm using to explain the basic drawback of a profit-oriented approach to attract more miners by making mining more lucrative.
Maybe I worded it really poorly, but I actually did say that these are not viable options because they would result in short-term incentive to jump on the crypto hype train with no real long-term value for GRC itself. Not to mention other drawbacks like you mentioned.
It is not my intention to suggest a) - d) as realistic options. It seems I did not make that clear enough in the article, and thus I repeat myself again: they are to be considered as case examples to illustrate why suggestions like 1) - 5) are more healthy compared to a classic market strategy to attract new miners on the hunt for short-term profits.
No worries, and thank you for yours. I am sure you have great intentions, it just feels very counterproductive for people new to the scene to be misinformed about what does and does not exist in the GRC community and network.
You titled your article 'how the user experience could be improved', but now say your suggestions in a) to d) are not realistic options. I don't agree with them, and suggestions 1-5 are largely implemented as I explained above.
So, in light of that, I fail to see the point of the article. That could just be me though...
"You say that there is a requirement to have high end hardware, and that this will drive new potential recruits away from the scene."
In my introduction I mentioned that the beauty of BOINC is that all systems can contribute. Yet, there is a semi-requirement often perceived as essential for efficient mining.
If you take a look at /r/gridcoin as well as other crypto subs you will notice that GRC has managed to attract a few new miners/investors - but you might also have noticed that some people suggest to only mine GRC if people really want to contribute to science. If they want to make actual profit, it is suggested to use resources to mine other coins instead.
The reason for this is, that some potential GRC miners interpret the facts wrong and/or are not told all the facts. Especially the FP64 requirement is something that supports this narrative even though we know there are no real minimum hardware requirements for BOINC/GRC.
This is what these conversations look like:
Q: "I have GPU x. Is this any good to mine GRC?"
A: "If you like science, go for it, but if you want to make real profit, this coin is a lot better."
My personal experiences with this are anecdotal, but when I started with BOINC/GRC a few weeks ago I also shared this with a lot of nerd friends who usually are willing to test out new things. Even though there is information that there are no minimum requirements, people assume there are some sort of hardware requirements for efficient GRC mining based on advice given mainly on non-GRC channels.
Another point I did not include at all is the requirement to have a minimum balance of roughly 1k GRC in order to stake and receive rewards. People see this as another obstacle that prevents them from making profit with GRC. Even though other coins might have similar restrictions, the fact that mining them is more lucrative overall is a good reason to mine those instead.
Maybe I'm mistaken about this, but it does look like a major issue to me.
What do you see the chances being of GRC being the #1 most profitable coin to mine? For that to even be a remote possibility, we need to have droves of people mining it for science first. The increased competition and rising power cost per coin mined will provide a higher price floor.
This is just honesty from the community. It is true. You said yourself the focus should not be on profit, so why should we not openly tell new members that this is not the most profitable coin? I would 100000 times rather have someone mine with clear, accurate expectations than have them leave pissed because they did not make much.
Where? I personally wrote project selection posts for generic hardware and never came across this. The perception as I have seen it is better hardware = more rewards, which is correct.
In pool mining, setup is very fast and you need no GRC to start at all.
When solo mining, you need 1 GRC to send a beacon which registers your CPID in the Neural Network. After this, holding more GRC just increases your POS rewards and thus your DPOR - you will stake more often. You need to stake once every six months at minimum to not lose POR rewards. Mag increases your DPOR too.
There is no 'minimum requirement' to get started with GRC.
"Any coin that requires work, whether POW or DPOR will be affected by power prices and GPU availability. It is not the job of the network to subsidise based on this differentiating feature."
That is not what I'm asking, nor do I suggest this anywhere. Remember: a) - d) are examples, which I later describe as "how not to do it". I even explain why.
"Your argument essentially says that users are entitled to payout, regardless of their actual contribution to the system."
No, that is not what I'm saying at all.
... Then why make a post on 'how the user experience could be improved' if you now say that all the examples given were ways not to do it....?
So you are saying that, yes, you did make that argument, but then later described that is a bad suggestion? I don't get it.
"But that is literally the entire purpose of GRC beyond its POS model. GRC exists solely to pay out holders 1.5% annual interest, and to reward BOINC computation."
You are taking this out of context. The first part of this article is a rough analysis of some of the reasons I consider roadblocks when it comes to motivate non-/semi-altruistic people to become GRC miners. The concerns and problems I see are to be seen in context with a certain potential group of future users.
If we use marketing strategies that - additionally to "support science" - focus to much on the mining aspect of GRC from a "profit only" point of view, it is simply short-sighted imho.
Profit-oriented miners sure will contribute - but they also will leave as soon as the next hype coin makes better promises. Just take a look at the 900+ coins currently available. All of them had this one, often transitory phase, thanks to a "profit only" mentality. If we shift our focus towards such strategies (as has been suggested during the past weeks) I don't really think that will be helpful.
Instead - while staying true to what GRC is today - I would recommend marketing strategies that do not convince people because of possible profits, but because of other values that are not related to greed.
But that is already the case... We do already push the science angle over the profit angle - it is GRC's point of difference...
We have not been trying to shift the coin to a profit mentality at all... I don't know where you have been getting that idea, as keeping science the main focus is both popular opinion and the primary active marketing angle.
Are you aware of the current marketing campaign? Have you looked at the images and slogans?
I don't suggest to have one single page displaying all available information. I suggest to have a wiki (like wikipedia). The current home page does not contain all the information, just very basic info. It requires people to visit other pages, the information is spread everywhere which makes it very tedious. Having all the information in one place would be beneficial in many ways.
This is not about scientists doing more promotional work - it is about the GRC community to help them with promotional work. We support them with mining - why not support them with PR as well?
Wouldn't you like to have someone who constantly checks your project's site, gathers all news and promotes your project for you, posting on various subreddits and social media so people develop an interest and maybe start mining GRC because someone was able to promot your scientific work for free (or a small GRC bounty provided by whales)?
I'm aware of that (which I already wrote in the main article as well) But again, it would be beneficial to have all this information in one place. Why should people have to browse ten different project websites to get their information if they could just check out one wiki instead?
You are missing the point here. The suggested "project suggestion hub" would be an additional feature to make it easier to gather information in order to make a decision before voting. How many pages of forum entries on several boards should people read to get the necessary insights? How many past poll results should they google, how many hours should they spend on reddit, IRC or slack, going through tons of comments in order to get the full picture? The more time it takes, the less people are inclined to participate. This is the same for real life elections. Why can't we try to provide a place that bundles all relevant information?
Fair enough. In that case I won't bother suggesting anymore ideas on this point since it seems there already is a perfect system in place.
You should go browse the home page, talk to the authors, and talk to the community about the website. The home page has TMI, if anything - a LONG shot from very basic info.
This is how a webpage works though. Do you envision collecting all the information on everything to do with GRC on one page? How would we navigate it? We could split it up into sections, and then we have the same thing we have now.
Regarding promotional work, I would 100% not want the community writing about my work. I see no benefit in someone copying the content from my hypothetical project feed and trying to run social media for it... The Gridcoin Twitter does a good enough job as it is for overall news, and if people want project news they go to the project page.
They should spend time to do exactly all of that! People should be expected to make an informed, educated decision on projects by doing their research. If that weeds out 99% of suggesters, great! It means that the inclusion polls posed will be quality selections. Bundling everything is both impossible to keep up to date, and makes it easy for false information to be spread on a project. Decentralised, remember?
Thanks for this reply, it's good to have you around to weigh in on posts like this