Rethinking block producer pay in light of Dan’s recent article
Recently, Dan proposed creating a market for CPU (and NET). Dan’s proposal ensures that there will always be CPU available to be rented. Then again, if I already own eos, do I really want to have to pay in order to be able to transact on the network? Dan assures that paying won’t be a problem as long as I stake because
> The EOS paid to lease the CPU time would be distributed to staked EOS tokens (e.g. the REX pool)
I thought about this for a while, and I have some issues with it. I think there’s a better way forward...
Consider the following 5 step plan.
Step 1. Pay 1% inflation to eos holders who stake their eos.
Step 2. Eos holders spend the “free” eos that they receive to rent CPU/NET.
Step 3. All of the eos that is spent by the community on resources is paid to block producers.
Step 4. Stop paying block producers 1% inflation
Step 5. Pay block producers a bonus equal to amount-spent-by-community-on-resources multiplied by some yet-to-be-determined-factor (say, 30%)
This way, eos holders get guaranteed “free” CPU/NET that is proportional to the amount of eos that they own. Furthermore, this would tie block producer pay to actual resource usage, incentivizing block producers to provide a usable network. The more the network is actually used, the more block producers get paid.
We’re launching the crypto community’s first-ever Stability Fund to cover losses in case of a black swan market event. Here’s what you need to know: https://t.co/BfBHpsiCVm#EOS #EOSDT #stablecoins #De...
Bancor has sharpened its focus on composability to drive front-end implementations. Like most protocols, it doesn’t need a central UI to be successful.3rd-party apps & services drive usage, more l...