Here is why I think RAC based is a poor substitute for Mag based stake.
Consider where we are at right now, under the corrected coin emission schedule, the Superblock for PoDC should be roughly 1.4M BBP/day. Right now, to make 10% of that would require (in round terms) 200K RAC for a 100 Mag (based on a "current" Team RAC of about 2M). So 50K/ Mag (which along with 10K are leading the Mag voting) would mean 5M BBP to make 140K BBP per day, and 20 BBP/RAC (the clear cut RAC leader) would mean 4M BBP for the same reward. Now, flash forward to next year this time where we'll have (conservatively) 10M Team RAC. The daily reward will have dropped to about 1.1M BBP/day (with a properly working 7 minute timing block). So the same 200K user, will then have a Mag of 20 and need 100K to stake or the same amount (5M BBP) to stake under RAC to get 22K/day.
This means under RAC we're either overly generous to our current users or predatory to new ones in a year. Especially if the price can grow...
Mag will always remain the same cost overall, which is poor because it locks up fewer coins, but the alternative is to me, unacceptable, which is current users like myself get into the PoDC system for a very small percentage of the overall reward. The best system would be the most complex, and that would require staking equal to some multiple of the reward, like 100x or 150x.
616Westwarmoth, I read and consider your arguments carefully. You are heard by me. If we flash forward
we'll have (conservatively) 10M Team RAC. The daily reward will have dropped to about 1.1M BBP/day (with a properly working 7 minute timing block). So the same 200K user, will then have a Mag of 20 and need 100K to stake or the same amount (5M BBP) to stake under RAC to get 22K/day.
This means under RAC we're either overly generous to our current users or predatory to new ones in a year. Especially if the price can grow...
As we go on, a few things should go into consideration for the potential stakeholder: Does it make more sense for me to mine/crunch, does it make more sense for me to obtain a masternode and acquire biblepay that way, or does it make more sense for me to buy and hold biblepay for appreciation? In my opinion, your argument assumes the potential stakeholder is captive to mining/crunching. I believe Stake per RAC opens up the most suitable reasoning for pursuing alternative ways to acquire biblepay. (That is to say, it draws in traders and investors and not just miners.) I think either method, Stake per RAC or Stake per MAG rewards the earlier entrants. Stake per MAG lowers the staking requirement for legacy miners and crunchers. We can always lower the Stake requirement for staking per RAC which I expect us to do with higher prices and lower rewards. Again, having to lower stake requirements for staking per RAC because of higher prices and lower rewards is a good problem to have. And I believe staking per RAC is the most direct way for us to get higher prices, not staking per MAG.
It is my belief that if we went with stake per MAG, the future fractional users would actually not stake the entire amount to get a 100 utxo. For a fractional MAG they would stake none or a smaller amount and wait to save up the amount for a 100 utxo.
Rob is a visionary and we are ahead of the curve in considering incorporating staking with crunching/mining. Other POW coins are starting to attract large GPU mining farms. All pure POW coins are a "race to the bottom" with mining participants scaling up until they reach their breakevens:
https://www.reddit.com/r/groestlcoin/comments/838c8y/so_someones_siphoning_3550_of_all_grs_blocks/?st=jersv3bj&sh=2eaad96dSo someone's siphoning 35-50% of all GRS blocks... self.groestlcoin
Submitted 5 days ago * by crypto_franiac
While doing some research on what pool might be the best to mine GRS, I came accross these extraction stats:
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/grs/#!extraction
According to it, Suprnova and MPH each find less than 5% of the blocks on a 1000-blocks average. And the other pools are waaaay behind.
So who is this mysterious Fdi7YYeN7nmnjJPqQDGy8vudgQ26FVjNrk address suckering 1/3 and sometimes even 1/2 of all the GRS blocks?
A pool not listed here? A solo-miner with a big, a very big mining farm? NiceHash hashing power?
Edit1: Right now there's a top 3 extraction addresses that don't seem to be pool ones, accounting for 51.9% of the last 1000 blocks, and 71% for the last 100. Logically it means that these guyz (?) have roughly 70 GH/s hash power together.
Jackie is aware. It is in fact a private pool (GPU farm). They asked Jackie personally whether it was OK to use his pool to mine GRS (not that he needs permission!). Since all other hash rate is so low he is getting alot of the blocks.
Now that person only earning 2.75 GRS per block is strange, maybe /u/jackielove4u can explain?
[–]jackielove4uDevelopment Team 3 points 4 days ago
The pool listed on chainz are the ones that were tagged by me from 2014 till 2016. I stopped tagging them since 2017. The pool is not listed there, it is a huge mining farm. (thousands of gpu's).
The thing that cures the race to the bottom in instances like this is requiring every hardware addition to the farm or network to also require an addition to staking an amount of cryptocurrency. Stake per RAC does this. Cryptocurrency becomes worth something. It is what you need to hold or obtain in order to obtain more for rewards for your hashing/crunching.
The way to manage stake per RAC is to decrease the stake requirement as rewards decrease, and as price increase by a substantial amount. I think it is reasonable to assume around a 15-20 sat increase for every 200M and keeping at or over 50-60% of available supply locked up. Hopefully we quickly get to 90% of total supply locked up. The best example we can see of a 55% lockup working is with masternodes. We have 169 masternodes which locks up 261,950,169 bbp out of a supply of 467,454,405 bbp which is roughly 55% of supply locked up. Our price has been higher with more masternodes. I think if we get to 90% locked up the price is higher by a good bit and we can therefore support more orphans. We'll move up in marketcap ranking and get the attention of traders and investors. I think it is a big win for everyone.
Everyone says the reason they like cryptos is because of their ultimate limited supply. So we have the current investment thesis: "cryptos are good because they will be limited in supply, but fiat is bad because it is potentially unlimited in supply."
My counter to this argument would be: (hang in there with me through is, it isn't FUD)
1. Cryptos are not limited in supply because there is a constant increase in the supply of the launch of new coins. As long as there is an increasing population of crypto investors and money flow growing faster than the amount of new coins, then this is ok. This does actually help one coin though, and that is bitcoin. Because all coins trade with bitcoin pairs, the introduction of more and more coins actually helps bitcoin because people have to buy bitcoin in order to buy the new coins. The velocity of bitcoin transfer may be high- a buy, transfer and then sale, but on the scale of millions, this is helpful to support the price of bitcoin.
2. Individual stocks can actually DECREASE in supply from the buyback of stock. Companies use their corporate treasury to buy back shares, decreasing the number of shares outstanding. This is one reason why shares of common stock have traditionally had a role as a monetary fiat based inflation hedge. (Not so much a hedge against wage based inflation, because that is usually accompanied by higher interest rates. Higher interest rates are unfriendly to stock appreciation.) Crypto has a much greater potential for greater appreciation then average stock, however. Stocks become overpriced relative to their earnings multiple.
3. Cryptos are not in limited supply until the mining has finished. Until the time mining is finished, the supply of cryptos is increasing on a daily basis, even if at a slowly decreasing rate (a deflationary rate of increase.)
4. All POW coins are a race to the bottom, as can be witnessed through our problems with the botnet, and can be seen as an example through Groestlecoin experiencing a large GPU mining farm. In POW coins, miners and investors are at odds. Miners seek to mine coin and sell it on the market above their breakevens, while hoping investors will continue to tolerate the increasing supply.
When is the last time a pure POW miner did anything to actually support the price of the coin? Never. Miners don't support the coin, they are just looking for opportunities to offload it to people who do support the coin, the buyers. How to solve these issues? Incorporate staking based on the amount of hardware added to the network. As you add hardware you must also add crypto at stake. Now the interests of the miner and the buyer are aligned and both wish to see the coin appreciate. Investors/buyers are encouraged by the growth of the network because that means that the stake of coins in lockup is growing. This should hopefully help with all the 50%-80% or more declines in price and we can then experience an asset that more consistently appreciates instead of "pumps" and crashes. I think everyone would like consistent gains over pump and dumps. If nothing else the price plateaus should be consistently higher and not crash so bad. With greater lockups and better appreciation hopefully without the crashes, cryptos still will never have earning risks. Then investment in cryptos will be a much more appealing alternative to stocks. Eventually cryptos can even siphon off money from the equity markets.