Hi Luke, good considerations and it's great that you are seeking an open discussion. I wouldnt see the airdrop as vote buying since their is no direct relation between individual voting and payouts, like you and a few others have pointed out already.
But what in my view could be an issue, is that eosdac will likely need to provide monetary rewards to the core team as well as all the - i say- non-operating token holders, and this could turn into overall higher payouts needed for eosdac than with a privately owned bp and thus being potentially less efficient than other bps and only stay on top because a majority of holders benefit and continue to vote you in despite the weaker efficiency (think that's about what @ashe-oro and you discussed earlier). What eosdac would need to demonstrate is that this is not the case. just as i stumbled over @eos-socal transparency Dashboard (which i think is great, not affiliated with them):
https://busy.org/@eos-socal/introducing-the-block-producer-transparency-and-accountability-dashboard-eos-socal
For example taking their expense class pie chart, eosdac could show, how e.g the tech and administrative expenses are not lower than of other bp, but lower campaigning and community projects make up for payouts. this way you could increase transparency and demonstrate how you use rewards differently but not necessarily less efficiently or maybe better.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Everything we do will be completely transparent. Just paying more for servers doesn't guarantee a BP is more qualified than others. In some cases, it could demonstrate the opposite if they are wasting money on the wrong thing at the wrong time.
I look forward to figuring out exactly where everything shakes out as far as the BP rewards, the "real-world" server costs, the future price of EOS, and our costs as a team. From there, we'll see what eosDAC means to people. It's going to be a fun ride.