Governance Incentives Changes

We’d all like to see more pillars voting, engaging in discussions and so on. I had a couple of ideas I’d like to share to incentivise this. A big thing is coming from hypercore pertaining to pillars running their own polls and having paper votes to see the sentiment of their delegators on-chain

Someone being paid by the hour becomes lazy and ineffective. But someone earning commission will be motivated to try harder, as greater effort means higher income. This is why salesmen are paid commission, so they put in 110% effort to make the sale happen and happen at a good price.

Pillars should mint ZNN in proportion to their socially assigned value; the best metric for that being their total weight. But really, the equation should be that pillar operators receive ZNN for themselves as profit in proportion to how valuable they are considered to the network.

What about 2 changes:

  1. Scrap the top 30 system. Have a linear system, so every single pillar is motivated to try and climb the weight rankings somehow.
  2. Max share possible capped at 50% M/ 100% D … this way, increasing your weight can only be a good thing, because a portion of your income cannot be shared and more weight means more probability of receiving a momentum. Otherwise people stop trying to gain weight as they’re just giving it away as higher reward sharing %. Capping the M share % means you can bribe your way to a higher weight but that only gets you so far, and it also means the pillar with the highest paycheck would/should be the number 1 spot

We want to always reward more weight seeking, as that means higher social value ie. better behaved pillars on the network/they’re doing more good things.

Alternatively, what about:
3) Top 10 pillars, pillars ranked 20-30, pillars 30-60; what if they have a probability multiplier of 2.0, 1.5, 1.25? Of probability to receive momentums.

  1. Why is it that staking continues to earn rewards after the 12 month lock? The person is being rewarded in qsr, but they are not contributing anything to security as their funds are very liquid at that point. Or does this qualify them as a hodlr, so they’re now trusted to not sell?

I also don’t know how merge mining will affect all of this, just thinking out loud. I’d like to hear what people think. I might be overlooking something good about the top 30 system.

I strongly advocate against this - and not only because obviously I don’t have weight - because it will lead to a top 8 pillars having all the voice over time. The biggest holders will delegate to themselves and run the entire direction of the project. Your axioms opposing hourly rate VS paid per objective is also not scientifically verified, this is just a weird belief. You’d be opening the gates of cartels and cliques creation and there’s noway to measure the effectiveness on decision making quality of this kind of engagement objectively : is this what we want? Lobbying votes?

Another way to incentive participation could be to rewards pillars voting with a % VS pillars not voting at all. A job of a pillar operator is to run infra and stay up to date with proposals, not to build a brand.

Also your comment on staking is ideologically biased : why is “holdr” have to do with tokenomics ? I personally don’t care in rewarding hodlr or trader, out of this your takes on staking is interesting. People could have decreasing rewards over 12 months and need to relock to keep their 100% rewards.

Commission vs per hr pay effecting motivation is basic human psychology I wont argue that if you don’t get that.

So being in the top 30 increases your rewards, and it nerfs the potential for a super pillar slurping everything. Or does it? That person could spread their coins around and slurp everywhere. It’s a PoS network. They already delegate to themselves, look at the ones sharing 0/0 and are still in the top 30.

This is not about voting powr/system, hypercore already has great ideas for that. This is about, pillars need to be motivated to always climb the rankings; otherwise they get into top 30 and get comfy. Stay in bottom 60 and get comfy. That’s a pay per hour mindset. VS Commission where even one extra ranking means higher chance of momentums, so they try harder

It’s like the pillar ranked 31-33 are trying very hard to get into top 30. This could apply to everyone if all you need is to increase your rank by 1 to get paid more. So you’d see them more active and engaged trying to increase their popularity ie. their socialy assigned value

Imo only pillar holders or major contributors should have a say in core protocol changes, especially if they potentially mess up the entire incentives and economics.

You want more pillar participation? Then set up a pillar or two.

So delegators don’t matter? Open discussions aren’t important? This was just about discussing the way the system was designed, as we didn’t have any say in it, and haven’t had any of the rationale explained. All decisions were made behind closed doors, antithetical to what we’re supposed to be about.

“Then set up a pillar or two” very shitty response, but that’s to be expected from you I guess.

These topics have been discussed multiple times in the past, always with the same results.

Afaik it’s usually delegators complaining about pillars even though pillar participation literally never was an issue in the past.

We have almost half the pillars participating in bridge orchestration. They are the ones with skin in the game. They are the ones doing the heavy lifting.

Delegators are the only ones just profiting from protocol rewards with basically zero risk vs pillars, sentinels, stakers. They should be the last in line making any demands when it comes to incentive modeling.

Stop trying to tinker with emission and consensus economics to solve problems that don’t exist. Not understanding the rationale behind design decisions does not make them wrong.

Having a say in this community requires skin in the game.

As recently as within the last week we’ve had prominent members complaining about pillar participation, so it is at the least something that can be improved and at most a serious problem.

This hasn’t been discussed anywhere on a forum which is easily accessible. Link me if I’m wrong. I’d love to see people explaining the pros and cons of the top 30 system.

“Having a say requires skin in the game” no, pushing through a decision requires skin in the game. Just discussing and talking can be done by anyone, and good ideas will be adopted by those with skin in the game.

“Commission vs per hr pay effecting motivation is basic human psychology I wont argue that if you don’t get that.”

The scientific community isn’t going your way. A few exemples of that could well be the tremendous amount of people under xanax. I let you do research or bring studies supporting your views. An idea without proof can be waved away without proofs. You brought only beliefs on the table. This isn’t a cult, or is it?

Beside it is not only about the amount of vote, it’s also about the quality of the vote. Those are two different things and you’re mixing it up. A lot of silent pillars do their own research and don’t need to go and waste time talking for hours. They might already have good opinions, maybe due to their background, maybe due to their own activity. Is that good? I have no idea. It is their job to put on a show everywhere and seduce people with non sense so they get weight? No. Would this improve the quality of their participation? No.

At the end of the day, if rewards incentive weight chasing, then they will vote for whatever please everyone and not for what they came to think is good for the protocol. While sometimes the crawd is very accurate, sometimes they have their own incentives and those are not the protocol’s ones.

Also, double post, let continue here: PROPOSAL: Apply Decay Multiplier for Pillars who do NOT vote - #17 by ChadassCapital

Yeah, but you’re fat.

Ser I’m rolling