One error in my typing / calc and I didn't want to edit it, was the 2nd example down to 20 Mag would still need 1M BBP to stake.
The reason I am hesitant to say "we'll change it down the road" is why? Why not get it right or as close to right now? That's why I think RAC is a slippery slope and Mag is not. The only way to make RAC stake holding work to me is to adjust it down the line as the value of RAC drops and the hopefully the value of BBP increases. Whereas with Mag, if you do it right now it becomes self correcting. 10% is basically 10% all the live long day, so in the above example, the 200K RAC at 2M could increase their RAC to 1M at 10M and remain at 10%, have the same staking requirements and receive the same percentile reward (although a smaller reward numerically in terms of BBP). And it doesn't matter which way the price goes, 100 MAG would cost the same in raw numbers of BBP and have a generally similar return in price values (minus of course the depreciating emissions) regardless of if BBP drops back to 7/100th of a cent or jumps to 7 cents. Whereas staking by RAC only succeeds in locking up more coins (a good thing at this point in the life of the coin, less valuable as time goes on) which is already being handily performed by the Sanctuaries and will continue to do so until probably we reach (my math) 400 or so (the Dev seems to think 200 is more realistic). The boon of stake is the reduction in turnover of users. Right now, a Gridcoin user is going to RAC for BBP if it is more cost effective the Gridcoin, and then immediately revert back based solely on the market and not his or her belief in the power of BBP. Whereas adding a staking component, keeps the RAC more stable and less likely to shift, giving investors more dependable predictions in returns and likely keeping more BBP in the hands of those who believe in the coin (as I'm of the opinion a person collecting BBP because they think this is a unique coin that does good, will retain it longer than someone collecting BBP because it returns more $$ today than Gridcoin).
And none of that is a knock on Gridcoin users, some of which may come to us because of the reduction in their coin's influence at Rosetta@Home and find out they appreciate our mission and become ardent supporters. Nor is it truly a knock on profit motivated miners.
For now, we're starting to really make waves in the ranking of teams at R@h, we just exceeded the overall work of Team Atheist (
http://stats.free-dc.org/stats.php?page=team&proj=rah&team=2426), we're number 125 all time over all, and will likely be in the top 100 by the weekend and likely the top 50 of ALL TIME by Easter. We are at almost 6M daily credits, which over time would mean a RAC of 6M. We had the most daily credits of any team on R@H and did nearly 15% of all the work on R@H! This is an incredible marketing tool to be utilized.
Whereas with Mag, if you do it right now it becomes self correcting. 10% is basically 10% all the live long day, so in the above example, the 200K RAC at 2M could increase their RAC to 1M at 10M and remain at 10%, have the same staking requirements and receive the same percentile reward (although a smaller reward numerically in terms of BBP).
I see what you are saying, but my argument against this is that the miner is doing nothing to help the price of biblepay in the process. In this case, the miner increased their hardware to stay at the same MAG but has the same level of biblepay at stake. This means that maintaining the same stake level, the miner did nothing to push the price of biblepay up because even as he increased machinery to stay at the same MAG, it doesn't influence the price, ergo the race to the bottom is still in. But if the miner staked based on RAC, at first 20*200K is 4M bbp increased to 20M bbp. The idea is that the increasing stake amount directly leads to higher prices (or at least maintains prices), and ideally it leads to more profit.
Look at it this way:
We know from history, pre- masternodes we traded 10-20 sat.
We now have 169 masternodes which locks up 261,950169 bbp. Our Total Supply today is 467,630,665. So the percent of available supply locked up is 55%. Our current lockup stats have got us trading higher at say 35 sat, consistently.
I understand right now the PODC rewards are higher than they will be, but just to simplify the calculations and get to my point, lets assume daily superblock rewards of 3,000,000. So right now I have 80K RAC, I get about 100K reward, 17 servers with a team RAC of 2,400,000. So 80K RAC/2.4M TEAM RAC=33.3 MAG. 1000 Total MAG/33.3 personal MAG=30, 30*100K bbp = 3M daily superblock for simplification.
I think a realistic scenario is that 1 year from now Team RAC is 24,000,000. It is an open question how quickly Team RAC will continue to grow, and how much people would put at stake.
Here is what I believe is a realistic scenario:
| | | -------------------------------------------------------- | | | Current Statistics | | | 1 year from now | | |
| | | -------------------------------------------------------- | | | ---------------------- | | | 50%MN growth | | |
| | | Total Supply | | | 467,630,665 | | | 1,453,130,665 | | |
| | | Masternodes | | | 169 | | | 254 | | |
| | | Masternode lockup | | | 261,950,169 | | | 392,925,254 | | |
| | | MN lockup % Total Supply | | | 0.56 | | | 0.27 <--1 year masternode lockup % of total supply drops to 27%! | | |
| | | Team RAC | | | 2,400,000 | | | 24,000,000 | | |
| | | Personal RAC | | | 80,000 | | | 160,000 | | |
| | | Personal MAG | | | 33.333 | | | 6.667 | | |
| | | Reward | | | 100,000 | | | 16,000 | | |
| | | Servers | | | 17 | | | 34 | | |
| | | Cost to Run Servers | | | 8.16 | | | 16.32 | | |
| | | Breakeven $ | | | 0.00008160 | | | 0.00102000 | | |
| | | Amnt Stake per RAC (20) | | | 1,600,000 | | | 3,200,000 | | |
| | | Amnt Stake per MAG (10,000) | | | 333,333.33 | | | 66,666.67 | | |
| | | Team RAC Stake | | | 48,000,000 | | | 480,000,000 | | |
| | | Team MAG Stake | | | 10,000,000 | | | 10,000,000 | | |
| | | Total MAG | | | 1,000 | | | 1,000 | | |
| | | Annualized Reward Run Rate (Daily Rewardx365) | | | 36,500,000 | | | 5,840,000 | | |
| | | %Return on Stake of Annualized Run Rate (Run Rate/Stake Amnt) | | | 2281% | | | 183% | | |
| | | Total lockup SPR* and MN | | | 309,950,169 | | | 872,925,254 | | |
| | | Total Supply Free SPR and MN | | | 157,680,496 | | | 580,205,412 <-3.68 times current free supply amount. Blessed | | |
| | | %Lockup of Total Supply SPR and MN | | | 0.66 | | | 0.60 to maintain sat price with 20 bbp stake per RAC | | |
| | | | | | | | | We keep %Lockup of Total supply stable at .6 | | |
| | | Total lockup SPM* and MN | | | 271,950,169 | | | 402,925,254 | | |
| | | Total Supply Free SPM and MN | | | 195,680,496 | | | 1,050,205,412 <-5.37 times the current free supply amount. | | |
| | | %Lockup of Total Supply SPM and MN | | | 0.58 | | | 0.28 Maintain current sat price and avoid round trip to 10 sat? | | |
| | | Profit at 10 sat (BTC=10000) | | | 91.84 | | | -0.32 | | |
| | | Profit at 20 sat | | | 191.84 | | | 15.68 | | |
| | | Profit at 30 sat | | | 291.84 | | | 31.68 | | |
| | | Profit at 40 sat | | | 391.84 | | | 47.68 | | |
| | | Profit at 50 sat | | | 491.84 | | | 63.68 | | |
*SPR: Stake per RAC
*SPM: Stake per MAG
It really does come down to keeping the % Total Lockup stable to try to ensure price stability. Not staking per RAC may have the % Total Lockup as low as 28% in a year.
Even with lower rewards a year from now, the run rate of the daily rewards is a very respectable return relative to the amount at stake. Being rewarded (16k*365)/3.2M is 183% on an annualized basis.
I like the idea of being flexible and growing the aggregate stake amount. There is no guarantee that stake based on MAG will grow fast enough to increase the total amount locked up. (For MAG to grow the aggregate stake, the network has to grow in fractional MAG users that stake meaningful amounts.) I believe we need to increase lockup from ~55% to 90% or better while our effusion is still at a high rate. The biggest problem I have with stake based on MAG is that I don't like that the amount needed to stake for larger miners goes down as their MAG goes down--older, larger miners have a decrease in their stake. I could see a scenario where lager miners lose MAG over time, their stake amount decreases, but fractional MAG entrants don't stake to get UTXO 100-- they aren't profit driven like the larger miners. I like that larger miners are profit driven, and as part of that drive for profit they must hold or acquire more biblepay as they add more hardware.
616Westwarmoth, please let me know your thoughts on this.
