Post #30171

206ad4b2d009244e702811a82bd47f4c1ae87310af69611c748279fa2cdb1d2d
3721ed16d4ecd62521fb250bb1312403ebaf289fc50addf7969e26a60326ba77
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

The signature from the blockchain entry has been verified against an identity on this server.

{"entry_date":1599511345,"post_data":{"edit_count":1,"last_edit_date":1599511345,"last_edit_user_id":11,"message_sha512":"faecbf69dca75cbf06cfe095ba6c948488be106a9b82d5c354b8636ebbe842b6dbca829b0e08b26f00f2b741766c4995ee129d405d7da3c8770aa8ebe15816aa","node_id":2,"post_date":1599510777,"thread_id":5232,"user_id":11},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/fpos-%E2%80%93-federated-proof-of-stake.5232\/post-30171"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
FPoS – Federated Proof-of-Stake
Honestly, limited progress has been made. The community has one group working independently on governance and another working independently on FPoS. I don't believe we can effectively just bolt FPoS onto the protocol. It needs to make sense within the context of our broader strategy, but we have no real mandate to make those types of changes and there is already a group mandated to bring their own governance vision to the protocol. We have one of our hands tied behind our back.

I believe FPoS is feasible but it needs to be part of the broader vision; staking needs to provide a function within governance and/or consensus. With that said, it is my opinion that we should commit to it in the long term, but changes in the immediate future are unlikely.

There is broad agreement within the group (or at least no vocal dissent) that a supply cap may be a more realistic and immediate change to our tokenomics. Anton's recent post reflects that thinking.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top