Zenip for changing the distribution of rewards

[nikvladan]

Suggests a change in way of how new zen coins are distributed after halving event.

[SpencerWhetstone-Horizen]

Trololino,
Thought provoking. What do you anticipate happening to network hash rate under your proposal?
Spencer

[MarklJenkins]

I am not in favor of this proposal, here are the reasons.

The motivation for this change in rewards structure makes assumptions about the effects of the upcoming halving for which there is not enough evidence to verify.

There is no proof that all node hosting will become unprofitable and there is no mandate that profits for node owners should be prioritized.
There is also no proof that ASIC miners have caused a decrease in the price of ZEN, there are many other market factors involved.

Secure and Super nodes are only "incentivized" by the rewards, there is no implied guarantee of profit for the node owners.
Currently there are more than enough nodes of each type to support the needs of the network, which is all that the project should care about.
Priority should be placed on the stability and security of the network and growing new features, not on protecting the financial interests of a particular segment of users.
It is perfectly reasonable to assume the number of nodes will fluctuate within a range based on the needs of the network and the rewards provided.
It is my opinion that any change to rewards structure should only occur if the stability and security of the network is threatened.
We should wait and see what happens after the halving.

It may turn out that restructuring the block rewards is necessary, but the decision should be made based on long term assessments of overall usability, not simply market price.
The market price is an arbitrary measure of value determined by many outside factors that are not in direct control of the project.
The Horizen project is rightly concentrating on building and enhancing the functions of the product as well as enhancing the user experience and growing the user base.

I applaud Trololino for making this proposal and for their participation in the community and dialog.
I hope you do not take this opinion on your proposal as a negative attack, it is meant as an invitation to keep the conversation going as we all desire the success of this project.

I agree that user adoption and involvement is important and sometimes it seems like the team is focused more on future sidechain functionality, which is a calculated business risk.
I would be in favor of finding a way to distribute ZEN such as enhancing the faucet with higher rewards, however I appreciate the difficulty of finding a fair way to do this so the system cannot be gamed by the few.

[nikvladan]

Trololino,
Thought provoking. What do you anticipate happening to network hash rate under your proposal?
Spencer

Network could be upheld by 10 ASICS, same as with 1000 ASICS. As for security, I would recommend also adding chainlocks additionally to current method of protection against 51% attacks.

[nikvladan]

As for response to MarkIjenkins:
"The motivation for this change in rewards structure makes assumptions about the effects of the upcoming halving for which there is not enough evidence to verify. There is no proof that all node hosting will become unprofitable and there is no mandate that profits for node owners should be prioritized."

Not having evidence but having been able to make assumptions based on facts we have now and facts on reduced rewards after halving. You can do the calculations yourself. Only way that nodes do make profit after halving is assuming that the price goes up, but then you are making baseless assumptions about the price.

"There is also no proof that ASIC miners have caused a decrease in the price of ZEN, there are many other market factors involved."

With so many ZEN locked up in nodes, explain sell pressure over last 2 years. ASIC miners are not interested in holding, you can probably find an exception or two but its highly centralized in China, and no one can deny it based on data from pools.

"Secure and Super nodes are only "incentivized" by the rewards, there is no implied guarantee of profit for the node owners.
Currently there are more than enough nodes of each type to support the needs of the network, which is all that the project should care about."

I agree there are more than enough nodes, therefore increasing requirement to 82/1000 zen per secure/supernode will reduce number of nodes and increase rewards. Tell me what happens when people can buy more zen by buying it directly rather than staking it by paying VPS and having your funds locked?

"Priority should be placed on the stability and security of the network and growing new features, not on protecting the financial interests of a particular segment of users.
It is perfectly reasonable to assume the number of nodes will fluctuate within a range based on the needs of the network and the rewards provided.
It is my opinion that any change to rewards structure should only occur if the stability and security of the network is threatened.
We should wait and see what happens after the halving."

Changes I proposed would directly influence price upwards, and give more funding to the team by raising price of ZEN coins. What happens after halving is that team rewards are halved as well, and so is funding. If ZEN price gets reduced further or even stays at this level, some cuts will be made on developer side, risking those new features completion. I don't like wait and see tactics, we've seen it in action for the past 2 years.

[PeaStew]

Accusing people of making baseless assumptions about price and then doing it yourself without a hint of irony = classy.

[anonfccr7]

โทรโลลิโน ชวน
คิด คุณคาดหวังอะไรกับอัตราแฮชของเครือข่ายภายใต้ข้อเสนอของคุณ
สเปนเซอร์