You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Locking stake for 100% passive income, improving content, helping apps
It would only be 50% of current self voting if 2x the amount of stake started participating though. 25% if 4x did, and so on.. If you end up with 10x as much stake jumping in the pool as is currently voting, then pretty much everyone is getting 10% of the current rewards pool, and 90% is going to passive stake.
Don’t get me wrong.. I am not arguing against an investor class proposal, or even this one. I’m just saying it needs to be more thought out and calculated if it is going to have any chance of going anywhere.
Key word there is current self voting. Current values don't matter then any more. Nobody has a right to a certain ROI.
Lower ceiling for passive investors ROI (only those @mattclarke talked about) would obviously be the inflation less witness rewards (less a possible cut) .
And if only 10% of investors want to participate in PoB, that's what it is. At least for those the term PoB would be valid again.
I'm not buying it. There may be some investors who want to participate via passive staking, and others who still want to 'participate' in PoB while distorting and circumventing it. Offering another choice does not guarantee that the choice will be used the way you intend or hope.
It could work, but I don't agree with your suggestion here that PoB necessarily would be valid again.
Yes, I got carried away a bit there. Most certainly there would still be issues, and the idea of having the "best" content getting the highest rewards might never be achievable. Thanks for chiming in!