FPoS – Federated Proof-of-Stake

Should we create workgroup to work through FPoS model both from technical and gov sides?


Have not voted

Authority Nodes DBGrow DBGrow Factom Inc Factom Inc Innovative Secured Connection (ISC) Luciap Luciap

  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
That is still not decided, only being considered. Like FPoS ;) Also it does not address the point that with the incentive to stake many holders will do so. Which in turn leads to a diminishing dividend.
 
Also it does not address the point that with the incentive to stake many holders will do so. Which in turn leads to a diminishing dividend.
I don't think this is a problem. It is the same in any blockchain system that supplies incentives. Bitcoin miners also get diminishing returns with a higher hashrate. The system constantly rebalances as incentives increase or decrease.

Many holders taking part sounds like a positive thing to me.
 
I don't think this is a problem. It is the same in any blockchain system that supplies incentives. Bitcoin miners also get diminishing returns with a higher hashrate. The system constantly rebalances as incentives increase or decrease.

Many holders taking part sounds like a positive thing to me.
Having many holders to participate can good from a governance perspective.

If you want to attract new money then having a larger incentive - a larger return on investment for the same risk - would be better. So having many holders participating in staking will work against attracting new buyers, as it diminishes the dividend.
 
Piggybacking off of What Colin said, what substantial progress has the working group made-that can be shared. We all understand how intricate all this can be but any sort of basic update would be greatly appreciated.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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 perceived 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.
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.
 
Top