The validator pool expiring in 2 years definitely needs to be addressed....
To me, it seems very obvious that any validator network NEEDS a permanent reward pool to incentivize the stability of the network.
However, validators usually pay in their own token - so I'm not sure why vouchers are needed instead of just "right-sizing" the SPS reward pool for validators going forward?
I DO agree with Cryptoeater that the current use-cases of vouchers are essentially just a reduction of DEC demand, while simultaneously complicating the experience for players that just want to buy things.
Going from Fiat -> Credits -> Buy Cards -> Sell/Burn Cards -> DEC -> TribalDex -> Vouchers is a frustrating experience...
(While there are other methods for experienced users, that is a typical flow for getting fiat into our tokens - and it's pretty bad for NPE.)
Your concern about Trust in the project and tokens is important. But Trust is a strange beast, when the very existence of a DAO that, on a supermajority SPS vote, can change ANY aspect of it's own white paper and any token of the related game, - this means that we must be prepared to accept some flexibility on what we are putting that Trust in.
(And I do feel your concern - I can sense that this type of change would shake the trust of validator owners in much the same way that the changes to ranked leagues shook the trust of players that committed resources in expectation of no fundamental changes to the Ranked status quo.)
What I'm finally coming to realize is that ultimately the real Trust we should realistically expect is that:
- the DAO should seek to maximize SPS value over the long-run (instead of short run), and
- the SPL team will operate in alignment with the above goal, while respecting their own obligation to their business.
I look forward to having a new DAO structure and trust your ability to steward it.
Correct me if I'm wrong BUT
I didn't see anything in the proposal regarding "Validators"- just lessening payouts to License holders. Wouldn't nodes/validators continue to be paid in the same way that they have always been?
Hey axrho - I think we are talking the same thing - I see they are called "Validator Node Licenses" on the shop page but all those names get used pretty interchangeably
Yes, they do get used interchangeably and it's very frustrating.
When Licenses originally came out- they were a way to allow people to run Validator Nodes, which would be a way to earn Tokens.
Now, if I understand correctly, License holders get Distributions- whether or not they run a Node. Which is, of course, NOT the way it was supposed to be and totally not fair to those who run Nodes.
IF I understand the economics of running Nodes correctly- they should be paid in relation to the amount of traffic they handle?
No Node= No Traffic= No Payment
Validator Nodes should, IMHO, be paid in this manner and there should be some mechanism built to provide for Node operators- whether through LPs, tolls, fees, SPL, DAO, or some other mechanism.
I totally agree with you: Validator Nodes need some ongoing funding mechanism- the 'pool' paying out to all License holders is inherently wrong and destructive. How can it be 'decent' when a central authority determines your earnings?
This point is easily fixable and not something we have had control of. But I'm positive there are solutions to solve this issue that don't require getting rid of vouchers. (see linked Alternative Proposal below for an example)
So I really dislike this argument: "we have to get rid of vouchers because the team elects to use them as a DEC replacement vehicle". I'm perfectly fine with getting rid of any case where vouchers replace DEC, but that doesn't mean there aren't other ways to provide value to the people that stake their SPS or own Nodes.
Regarding the trust point, I agree that every decision can be passed by a super majority, thus everything in theory is subject to change/elimination. And for this reason I find it super important that we consider the implications of removing an asset entirely.
For me, I understand it is possible to do so, but it will cause me concern about what else could happen in the future. For instance, I have over 100m grain, will that get nerfed one day - is the meta play to sell it before it loses all value and utility in the future? How about research, I am in the top 10, will that be subject to removal if we decide in the future that it took us so long to make a usecase for it and thus it became overproduced? These are concerns that will continue to grow with each decision to remove/alter assets.
In my opinion, we should ALWAYS go out of our way to NOT remove or alter assets if it is at all possible. And if we must do so, then I think it should be done in a way that mitigates the damage in a thoughtful and reasonable manner.
In this case, there are alternative solutions that are far less negative and still achieve the objective stated (to remove the Vouchers replacing DEC). Here's an example of one from @bjangles that has also been floating around: Alternative Proposal
There are many different possibilities to solving the objectives in this prop (ie...stopping the Vouchers from replacing DEC), but I feel that removing/changing an asset should be a last resort. We can and should do better in my opinion, otherwise we are destroying an asset on a whim and that to me will be a breach of trust for all future decisions because how can we tell what will be next to get destroyed. I know I won't be able to figure it out, and that makes me very nervous when it comes to making decisions.
Thanks Dave for the reply.
Agree that alternatives exist - and bjangle's alternative proposal to discontinue voucher discounts could also achieve a similar end through creating voucher-specific sales.
But I guess the next question is:
If each voucher was valued at a mere fraction of an SPS, instead of multiple SPS, I expect there would be less resistance to sunsetting.
I guess the challenge is balancing the incentive to make "desirable assets" that would give vouchers the value you are seeking to preserve. Perhaps it's possible. But a reasonable plan to sunsetting would take away some "mental overhead" for the team in trying to give value to a token that was an interesting idea (proof of time staked) but ultimately hasn't worked out. How long should the team anchor to a concept if it's not successful?
To me it's prudent to offer an exchange to consolidate two underused tokens (vouchers and DEC-B)
I'm more onboard with the @bjangles Proposal and I think it could be a good idea to reduce the emission of VOUCHERs. During the early days VOUCHERs acted as a way to guarantee yourself a spot in Presale events because VOUCHERs were very scarce. That should be the utility for VOUCHERs. It was almost like a decentralized version of a whitelist. We need to go back to that and reducing emissions and having exclusive use cases is the best way forward IMHO.