Post #32023

Signature verified

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

The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
FPoS – Federated Proof-of-Stake
[QUOTE="Colin Campbell, post: 29349, member: 22"]
Agree the way this is implemented will make all the difference, and we should use this deliberation time to better understand what the market wants before settling on a final spec.

Nah, it's bankrupt. You'll lose everything. Don't you read Coindesk? Or the comments on our own Twitter? Or Reddit? That's the first place i'd look when researching a new crypto investment.

It is not reality to expect a rush of investors wanting to stake FCT over other protocols. We need to build in some very compelling incentives to attract new investment, to counter the mistaken but [B]perceived [/B]risk of CH11.

We should be very open with investors. We have a great base here - but we need funds to push down our roadmap. It's going to take 3+ years before we see usage take over on the tokenomics.

3 years of reasonable funds will require ~$8m. After that, we should have enough usage to become self-sufficient under the burn and mint model.

What we need is a fundraising.
[QUOTE="Who, post: 29346, member: 192"]
There seems to be a lot of discussion around various staking strategies but I would like to see some data backing them up. Is there any market research to see what staking methods are the ones preferred by investors? Are there any crypto investors we can ask "what would it take for you to buy FCT?" and get some sort of idea of what would work and what wouldn't? Are there examples of protocols that changed to staking, how it impacted the token price, and how it turned out in the long run?

Also a note on this passage from the doc:

I've mentioned it before but part of what makes governance "work" is that ANOs have a "vote" in the consensus with their servers. The majority dictates what's written to the chain, so it's only possible to change/build on the blockchain if the majority agrees. A serverless ANO would not have the ability to impact this part of consensus at all and all their power comes only from governance with no way to "enforce" it (for lack of a better word). A minority of serverful ANOs could overrule a majority of serverless ANOs by implementing or refusing to implement particular code.

While it's certainly possible to have serverless payouts, incorporating them into governance might lead to some complications.

Unsure if this topic is still being openly discussed/considered, but in reviewing this thread there are many fantastic ideas and proposals that I hope will not go to waste. In regards to successful staking/governance protocols, I'm extremely fond of Edgeware's design and approach to delegated proof of stake, which integrates tremendously well with their governance structure. Perhaps we could take some notes from their success in this space and apply it to the FPoS proposed here.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.