Project incentives, open idea and open discussion
Hi all
The following is losely based upon the article from @dutch and the short exchange of thoughts that we had in the aftermath.
And i did some research and stumbled upon some topics that already have been discussed in the Gridcoin community, like Magnitude multipliers and different approaches to the Project Whitelist
The following is just an idea, no more no less, i wanted to share with you.
Gridcoin is as far as i see it an incentivation for running the BOINC software and helping the scientific world with your computational power. In return you get Gridcoins. So far so easy.
Currently we are having a project whitelist and only for those projects on this list you are getting rewarded with Gridcoins. Distribution between those projects is equal that means that all get the same amount of Gridcoins to distribute between the crunchers.
Now on the other hand side we are having the projects, quite a heterogeneous mass, reaching from Physics over Biology to decoding World War II messages to German submarines. Some of them have a target where mankind as a whole could benefit a lot, some of them are just to satisfy curiousity, some of them could even be saving thousands from dying.
Should we take this into account when we do the incentivation ? Should we maybe categorise the projects into lets say 3 Groups?
Group 1 : Project is aimed to help the society as a whole, for instance in seeking new methods to fight aids, helps stop a disease or something similar
Group 2 : Project is aimed at a deeper understanding of the world that surrounds us, like astrophysics or Mathmatics.
Group 3 : Project aim is more informational character, like decoding messages out of World War II
If we would do that and would distribute the Gridcoins in like say 50% to Group 1 30% to Group 2 and 20% to Group 3 we would directly have an influence on how many computational power is moved to which project.
I know that there are a lot of problems connected with this idea, but i really think that the projects are not equal and maybe we should take this into account.
What do you think about that ?
Please forgive me if i unintenionally stepped on anyones toes :)
GO GRIDCOIN !
Content credit:
Gridcoin Header, @joshoeah
"I know that there are a lot of problems connected with this idea" Why not share them with us immediately?
I like the idea but what about the flaws it introduces?
Things I think of:
Suppose only one project falls in Group 1 and 50 in the other groups. That would mean a significant change from today. It would mean gridcoin basically choose to favour that one project a lot. This is a situation that might occur unintentionally. Say you start with 10 projects in Group 1 but later on 9 get removed.
Some projects might be on the edge. What for example with SETI? I'm just joking a bit but what if SETI found aliens are going to threaten us? What's the category?
I'm not too fond of the groups idea. Not saying I have a better solution. Maybe more of giving projects a weight?
There is also another point to think of when setting up such ideas. Not all projects reward in the same way. At the moment I'm thinking of ways to get a prediction of the current rewards for each project. Hopefully I can present some results in the near future.
Hi @jefpatat Well mostly I wanted to present the ideas not the problems with it. But the main one you have already found the grouping thing does not react very well to changing projects and it also would be very strange to have let's say maybe just one project in group 1 which would mean that 50% of all gridcoins would be moved there ..
The bigger problem is only indirectly also in your statement. How to come to that grouping ? Seti maybe for me purely informational but for others a clear candidate for group 1.
Nevertheless I never said this idea is perfect or we should directly head that way. I just wanted to start discussions
Please, don't view my comment as offensive or a way to make your idea look as ridiculous. I only want to add to the discussion.
I'm also interested in looking for ideas to improve the system but I learned one thing so far. The current system is not good but finding something better that doesn't have other flaws is not easy.
I'm very willing to discuss and share my opinion. If you please feel free to contact me on slack.
Overall I think this is an interesting idea and one which could be used to address the apparent dichotomy between crunching popular projects with an obvious benefit to humanity and those which are more lucrative through being less popular, but are also less beneficial. There are a couple of points which I think would need to be addressed however.
First, as @jefpatat pointed out, using a simple grouping system could easily lead to unfairly biased rewards for a small group of, or even one, project. Personally I would therefore favour some sort of per-project weighting system instead.
There is also the problem that the benefits of any given piece of research are not always obvious until after the fact, sometimes decades and occasionally centuries later. This is a potential pitfall for any weighting method, and whilst it isn't an argument against doing it at all, it is an argument against penalising projects too severely purely on the basis that their societal benefits are not currently apparent.
That said, this is absolutely something that would benefit further consideration!
Kind time of the day, (H) take a little time🙏. I want to tell you about the new ATB coins, it is very, very promising based on its parameters. It will revolutionize the world of crypto-currency. Its launch is scheduled for September 1, 2017. You can buy it today at an affordable price of 1.5💲 beforehand to buy it before the start of trading on the stock exchange. Where the price will naturally be higher than the purchase price plus a purchase bonus. In general, you decide. More information on the official site https://atbcoin.com?ref=ByHAtrSrb or here https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@marduk777/atb-coins-new-crypto-currency-of-the-future In general you decide https : //atbcoin.com/? ref = ByHAtrSrb
nice post i upvoted you keep it up the good work check out my blog i hope u like it
Kind time of the day, (H) take a little time🙏. I want to tell you about the new ATB coins, it is very, very promising based on its parameters. It will revolutionize the world of crypto-currency. Its launch is scheduled for September 1, 2017. You can buy it today at an affordable price of 1.5💲 beforehand to buy it before the start of trading on the stock exchange. Where the price will naturally be higher than the purchase price plus a purchase bonus. In general, you decide. More information on the official site https://atbcoin.com?ref=ByHAtrSrb or here https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@marduk777/atb-coins-new-crypto-currency-of-the-future In general you decide https : //atbcoin.com/? ref = ByHAtrSrb
Congratulations @jedigeiss! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCongratulations @jedigeiss! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPIn my opinion the problem is not, if some projects are “worth” more than others, but that there are projects with fewer users than the more popular/older projects. As we do not know which discovery might bring the most benefits to human mankind in the future, I am convinced that we shall maintain the liberty to choose the projects to the personal liking/motivation of each of us.
But I do suggest that GRIDCOIN does not distribute the coins evenly between each whitelisted project. I propose that GRIDCOIN distributes the coins according to the active user-base of every project each superblock. This might be done in two ways:
The first-third of the most popular projects (most users) gets one third more coins than the second-third, which gets the same amount of coins as an equal distribution between the projects. The least popular projects (last-third) gets one-third less coins allocated. (At the moment is is roughly 1 – 1500 users last-third, between 1500 – 3000 users middle-third, 3000 – 4500 users first third)
Or
I am pretty sure; each solution can be implemented by the devs.
I see a great advantage of such a solution: Each project has to compete for computer power by convincing each user that their research brings the greatest benefit to humanity or solves the greatest mystery of the world, without debating and voting endlessly about subjective values we might never agree on.
Dude. Quit spamming people's posts with this crap. This is the third one that I've seen today.
Just went and flagged him a bunch. I have also seen enough. He will be at zero rep soon and all his posts will be hidden automatically.