In my very humble opinion, 50,000 EOSDAC at the current value seems a little too less. I would expect min. 100,000 EOSDAC to be staked to be a Custodian. On the other hand, staking them for 6 months does sound like a lifetime!
The concern with requiring too high of a staking amount is that it essentially says that only people with money can become custodians. Some in the community feel this will lead to a plutocracy and not accurately represent all the views of the whole community.
50,000 tokens could be significant to one person while being insignificant to another. You're trying to avoid influence being weighted by wealth but that's the fundamental model you have proposed. You can't have your cake and eat it.
We're talking about a minimum staking amount. Others can stake more, if they like. What you describe as "weighted by wealth" could also be described as secured by stake holders with skin in the game. If you're prefer no skin in the game, I recommend reading Nassim Taleb's book mentioned in my post. If you disagree with his fundamental analysis, that would be a fascinating discussion indeed. If you agree with it, what suggestions do you have to find a balance? We're looking to find a sensible starting point, not a forever consensus. Once the DAC launches, members could vote in custodians who will change these values.
If you have a better approach than staked-weighted voting (also used by DPoS which includes Steem, BitShares, and EOS), what is it?
You're right that the people making decisions need to have their intrests aligned with the success of the DAC. Wealth is a metric to use but perhaps it's not the be all and end all. I think the following stats could be useful as part of an equation to determin how much 'skin' a member has in the game.
Members activity score
Give members an involvment/activity score calculated by how active they are with voting, proposals, giving suggestions ect ect
Members peer rating
Allow members to endorse each other in some way.
Thats all ive got for now, ill keep thinking onit.
Nice ideas. I do think reputation and identity are critical for a well-functioning voluntary system, but I also think we have to protect privacy. Finding that balance is going to be interesting. Also, whenever we create a formula for how we score reputation, it will be gamed. That's the tricky part.
Yeah i have'nt been able to get round people gaming it. Tbh this is why i've been putting energy into creating games, manga and other art that contains a moral story. I feel like teaching people from a young age about societal injustices through these mediums negates the need to enforce fairness in the first place. But thats another conversation alltogether. Keep up the good fight!
Given that it's a minimum being discussed here, what about having it lower and letting anyone who thinks it should be higher use a higher amount as part of their candidacy platform? If it's too high (50k is $1,326 at today's prices), then those who may do a fantastic job as custodian (intelligent with plenty of time but maybe not so much money) would be excluded.
I'd say a low cap, but a long staking period. Long time commitment seems much more valuable than money invested.
The 'skin in the game' argument doesn't seem to work all that great here on Steem. Maybe we should recognize that both time and money are investments. I would value a time investment over a money investment for a custodian, but only when the commitment is long-term.
6 months is short imo. Yes, things can change rapidly in crypto-land, but we don't want custodians chasing hypes. We want structural progress towards DACs that someday will be massively adopted.
Ah, interesting. Some think 3 months is too long. Finding consensus is fun. :)
Right now, we have it set to 3 months as we're discussing it. Some think it should only be 1 month. Maybe something like 4.5 months would be a good compromise?
Six months is a long time but those having the means to 50k-100k don't want to be tie up for six months. Those that commitment tend to grew roots, a by product of good people.
I agree that real commitments should (in theory) attract people who are serious about being involved to improve the DAC for everyone. That said, I don't want to exclude good candidates either because the amount is too high or because the stake lock up time is too long.
In my very humble opinion, 50,000 EOSDAC at the current value seems a little too less. I would expect min. 100,000 EOSDAC to be staked to be a Custodian. On the other hand, staking them for 6 months does sound like a lifetime!
Thanks for your input!
The concern with requiring too high of a staking amount is that it essentially says that only people with money can become custodians. Some in the community feel this will lead to a plutocracy and not accurately represent all the views of the whole community.
50,000 tokens could be significant to one person while being insignificant to another. You're trying to avoid influence being weighted by wealth but that's the fundamental model you have proposed. You can't have your cake and eat it.
We're talking about a minimum staking amount. Others can stake more, if they like. What you describe as "weighted by wealth" could also be described as secured by stake holders with skin in the game. If you're prefer no skin in the game, I recommend reading Nassim Taleb's book mentioned in my post. If you disagree with his fundamental analysis, that would be a fascinating discussion indeed. If you agree with it, what suggestions do you have to find a balance? We're looking to find a sensible starting point, not a forever consensus. Once the DAC launches, members could vote in custodians who will change these values.
If you have a better approach than staked-weighted voting (also used by DPoS which includes Steem, BitShares, and EOS), what is it?
You're right that the people making decisions need to have their intrests aligned with the success of the DAC. Wealth is a metric to use but perhaps it's not the be all and end all. I think the following stats could be useful as part of an equation to determin how much 'skin' a member has in the game.
Members activity score
Give members an involvment/activity score calculated by how active they are with voting, proposals, giving suggestions ect ect
Members peer rating
Allow members to endorse each other in some way.
Thats all ive got for now, ill keep thinking onit.
Nice ideas. I do think reputation and identity are critical for a well-functioning voluntary system, but I also think we have to protect privacy. Finding that balance is going to be interesting. Also, whenever we create a formula for how we score reputation, it will be gamed. That's the tricky part.
Yeah i have'nt been able to get round people gaming it. Tbh this is why i've been putting energy into creating games, manga and other art that contains a moral story. I feel like teaching people from a young age about societal injustices through these mediums negates the need to enforce fairness in the first place. But thats another conversation alltogether. Keep up the good fight!
50 000 - 100 000 EOSDAC, for me personally, looks like a golden mean) Good article, Luke. Thank you!
Given that it's a minimum being discussed here, what about having it lower and letting anyone who thinks it should be higher use a higher amount as part of their candidacy platform? If it's too high (50k is $1,326 at today's prices), then those who may do a fantastic job as custodian (intelligent with plenty of time but maybe not so much money) would be excluded.
I'd say a low cap, but a long staking period. Long time commitment seems much more valuable than money invested.
The 'skin in the game' argument doesn't seem to work all that great here on Steem. Maybe we should recognize that both time and money are investments. I would value a time investment over a money investment for a custodian, but only when the commitment is long-term.
6 months is short imo. Yes, things can change rapidly in crypto-land, but we don't want custodians chasing hypes. We want structural progress towards DACs that someday will be massively adopted.
Ah, interesting. Some think 3 months is too long. Finding consensus is fun. :)
Right now, we have it set to 3 months as we're discussing it. Some think it should only be 1 month. Maybe something like 4.5 months would be a good compromise?
Six months is a long time but those having the means to 50k-100k don't want to be tie up for six months. Those that commitment tend to grew roots, a by product of good people.
I agree that real commitments should (in theory) attract people who are serious about being involved to improve the DAC for everyone. That said, I don't want to exclude good candidates either because the amount is too high or because the stake lock up time is too long.
I'm watching and learning. My thoughts are skin in the game for at least 6 months. I don't know how much skin would be appropriate.
My reasoning who would hire someone for less than 6 months? Especially for a young project.