Incentivisation With Inflatıon + Coin Burn [discussion]


#1

Hi guys, it’s me again. I want to share my idea and disscuss with community.
What we have ;

  • pre-mined 100 million waves without inflation
  • leasing that allow waves holder to get share from mining revenue
  • low return in this txs number,

What waves think;

  • In future there will be many txs on waves chain (exchange, smart contracts, data txs, simple txs…) to incentivise nodes and waves holder.

Why incentivising of nodes is important?

  • This is the first step of blockchain that every consensus algorithm created to select trusted block creator from nodes and give them a gift for verifying, keeping chain alive with their effort. Without incentivisation, there is no reason to run a node or holding coins with pos.

What is the options to incentivise?

  • inflation
  • deflation (not recommended)
  • distrubuting fee
  • sharing profit (not recommended for platforms)

My suggestion:

  • %0.5 inflation per year
  • burn coins that used for paying fee

Benefits:

  • predictible revenue
  • less inflation with burning waves
  • don’t have to struggle with describing fee in future (if waves price will increase the fee will increase as a usd. that will push us to decrease fee rate. means incentivising of nodes will decrease too)
  • if deflation will become more than inflation rate, we can save it with increasing inflation rate.

Limitation of the node generating balance by the percentage of own invested funds
#2

Not sure if it’s good to change conditions now, everybody who bought Waves before expected that there will be no inflation.


#3

Sure, it was just a brainstorming. When I back and rethink my ideas, I mostly find some overreacting :slight_smile:
E.g : I suggested increasing fee for creation token to block spammers don’t issiue many tokens. But when I rethink and compare 2 case, I see low fee much better than increasing token creation fee.
Why;

  • spam token issiuer make airdrops which help to see many txs on chain and increase node revenue
  • a token issiuer can test proccess easily and cheaper (create token, make airdrops), we can assume more tester will use our platform before run an ico (on mainnet)
  • this all can make more profits than 2.case (increasing token creation fee)

Token creation fee increased case:

  • we will see much less token created on dex
  • people, will not try to issiue a token and make airdrops for testing
  • most important things; let’s assume we increased token creation fee to the 50 waves and only 1 token created per week; what will happen?
    I didn’t analyze this case but probably this token creation txs will find by big nodes. When small nodes earning 0.01 waves per block, the big nodes will earn 50 waves from that block. People will start to lease their fund to this big nodes and cause centralization.

So, the best solution for now is filtering spam token in UI. Also educate people against spammers. Maybe in future, if we can see enough txs with SC, Dapps … we can increase token creation fee and allow nodes to compete for higher revenue.

The main idea, we need to look from different perspective for best solutions without overreacting. The key here is discussing ideas with each other that is the reason “why I kept push you with my suggestions to open a forum instead using telegram or slack”. I trust you, but you should be more open to the community about future ideas.

Let’s start with that; if you don’t want to create inflation what would be solution to incentivise nodes today, before seeing many txs in future? I can keep discuss with you about how important is incentivisation.


#4

I’m not a big fan of the inflation proposal but I’d like to see the token issuance costs increased (imo nothing more than 5 Waves).
Waves positioned itself as Blockchain for the people, and there are use cases not backed by companies/professionals. I think increasing the costs to 100s of $ will prevent people from using the token creation feature.


#5

As I said inflation can be eliminated by burning. I couldn’t see better option for now. If you have any idea about incentivisation, please share with us.

My idea based on assumption. I hope waves team already made an analyze to predict best option for ecosystem. There are many way to go, we can return my first idea which based on smart contracts vault option, increasing token creation fee then locking this fee and starting a voting with wct or mrt holder to eliminate spammers.


#6

No inflation, would be a huge turnoff for many except for those who like a quicker buck.

Increasing token costs, can be good, but however I don’t think it will stop scams, they earn up to a few hundred waves from some wallets.
So we will just see less tokens, so demand (token creation) will go lower but price go up, so we will have just less tokens I think. (that’s how economics work)


#7

Didn’t you read that :
this token creation txs will find by big nodes. When small nodes earning 0.01 waves per block, the big nodes will earn 50 waves from that block. People will start to lease their fund to this big nodes and cause centralization.

I am still trying to understand why they prefered to use Leasing in consensus :slight_smile: worst idea that I have ever seen in PoS :pensive:


#8

Leasing is what made me join waves


#9

:slight_smile: Why?
IMO, it is just make %51 attack chance cheap, decreasing revenue of nodes and drive us to have less nodes.

edit: https://www.crypto51.app/


#10

It isn’t. Because you need MANY people for 51%.
If everyone ran there own node they could also team up power to get 51%.
So no it doesn’t make it easier, you need the same amount of people and leases and potentially because there are way more waves leased, it’s even harder to get 51% from total leases.


#11

It wasn’t so hard for wavesgo months ago. You have to understand all this stuff have a math and based on theory. PoW coins can calculate from computing power way how much it will cost and PoS coins are basically can be calculate from coin prices. How to calculate possibility of Leasing? You can expect that people will not support an attacker but is that enough? Most of people even don’t know how to lease their token or cancel leasing. Most of this people don’t really know what is the blockchain. How to trust their choice and hold your money on their decision? In the basic of PoS system miners have to put coins on their wallet to start verify transcations and create blocks. So, you can’t attack a chain which work on PoS, without losing too much money! In Leasing miners don’t have to buy waves to run nodes. How we can be sure that first 5 miner not own by same man? http://dev.pywaves.org/generators/

Rethink your “Leasing love”.

I am saying again, Leasing worst idea that I have ever seen in PoS consensus.


#12

Guys, I agree with what @karmenali says, this makes sense, but leasing has its advantages as well. What will you say about an idea to require miner to have at least x% of his own funds? Let’s say 5%. To be able to accept 1m waves as leasing one should invest 50k waves himself first.


#13

So a node won’t be able to lease to himself anymore?
In the past a few nodes have been hacked. I wouldn’t run a node and place 50k waves on it while I would be able to lease safe to someone else.

Also what if there won’t be enough nodes? If only 10 nodes are running and they own together 200k waves, then they could only allow for 10m leases, won’t this put a lof of people outside the leasing system?
Also why would someone start a node when he will make a loss for sure? Why if you limit the corrent nodes will new nodes appear when they are losing money on it?

I would rather prefer that nodes get a dynamic limitation according to share spread then.
For example if your share is above 10% (or something based on number of nodes) if there are 20 nodes you can go 20-5 = 15 , 100%/15 = max share 6.6 % for each node, if you get the idea.
Because nodes limiting on initial capital will work counter productive I think in current environment for getting more nodes.
1k waves is atm 5k euro, that means to have a 10k node you would need a 5k euro capital.
To run a node with 100k you would already need a 50k euro capital (and I don’t think that most node owners have 50k capital laying around) at least not to invest in something that almost doesn’t give any returns…


#14

Smart contracts coming soon and Ilya says they will work on some cool stuff to provide more security. Like locking fund for a while time period. There are different solutions for security that can convince miners to put huge amount of coins in same wallet.

@alexkof I can see leasing advanteges, but they are not important than security. As I said we have many way to provide this advanteges from better and secure way. For security of nodes fund, you can lock the coins with second private key for a while ( I saw that feauture on Vostok when it was open for public) . If you want to involve people in governance, you can work on new voting mechanism …

No, I am suggesting to disable Leasing function from wavesplatform. Non of this limits can provide fully security. It is not diffucult to see that Leasing push the chain to become more centralized. What is disadvanteges of Leasing:

  • Decreasing Full Node revenue with taking share without working
  • That makes running a node unnecessary and most of people will select leasing instead of running node
  • All of things make waves chain centralized.
  • People can’t be sure that full nodes not own by same one (biggest problem that can hurt all ecosystem)
  • From the human beings, waves holders can’t be fully educated to vote for features.
  • In one simple click, they can change ecosystem destiny
  • Having leasing option will not help us to attract nodes to buy coins.
  • Ecosytem broken now, we don’t have speculation, we don’t have liquidty even no one need to buy big amount of waves from expensive price.
    • Every txs on waves are cheap even token creation + no need waves to run a node

Clearly Advanteges:

  • Involve people to be in governance
  • Protect funds for nodes

Clearly Disadvanteges:

  • Centralization
  • Less revenue for node
  • Less number of node running
  • %51 attack risk
  • Unsustainable economic model

#15

Nobody will start 1k nodes when they are running at a loss, so you will end with very few nodes, almost no leasing this weakening the ecosystem even more and make a 51% attack very cheap.
Currently the only nodes runnings are people that need it for businesses or love to do charity.

You will also kill current ecosystem where nodes use a token to share profits with (not my case) but there are quiet a lot that do this.


#16

Again, non of this can make %51 attack cheaper than leasing. It is a moment of time .

It will be more profitable for nodes without leasing share. Also you can combine it with inflation theory. Inflation + disabled leasing = huge revenue for nodes. == more competition , more nodes, more decentralized network, more demand for waves coin. Plus, more compatible network for new technologies like Sharding.

That’s why I am saying incentivasation is the key on blockchain. There is not certain guarentee in this example. We need competition between nodes for revenue and honesty to not lose fund that locked during mining. Basically eliminate human beings behaviour.

Exactly, here what we need to survive in future. Our economic model is not sustainable.


#17

So you wanna kill wnet and wgo and all nodes ecosystem?

You just can’t

We already agreed infllantion would be bad


#18

Isn’t clear enough ? => Our economic model is not sustainable.

Just with a simple question think about that : Why %51 attack in PoS much hard than PoW ?

I didn’t see any bad sign against my theory ! What was your opposite idea against inflation? Why would be bad?

Edit: I just want to be clear now:
As I said waves has %51 attack risk due to leasing function. @alexkof mentioned about putting a certain amount require for nodes to start their bussines. You can check his last event with kardanov from youtube.
I just suggest disable whole leasing function to be sure there will not be any attack.

Second: In my inflation theory there will be about 5 million coin created after 10 years. And burning coins from fee will decrease that number. So, after 10 year we can see only 1-2 million coins created not more.
The benefit of inflation above.


#19

You have ideas of centralizers, we have plenty of incentives to keep the blockchain waves :sunglasses:


#20

??
They already did this with Mrt :slight_smile: Instead inflation directly on waves they used Mrt with redistrubition + burn. So, my proposal already in charge, with different way but conclusion is same. I think it is better than direct influance on waves :slight_smile: Only missed think is Leasing, so the incentivisation still low for miners.