@sophoah Great proposal! I agree with the idea behind the thoughts outlined by @OgreAbroad i.e., especially how 3$ = 1000 ONE a couple years ago and how 3$ = 10 ONE now.
However, 10 is definitely low and while 100 is a good number, it is still arbitrary and I somehow think there needs to be a logical basis behind choosing a number, whatever that is.
If we make this change and since it will be the first time (correct me if I am wrong here) that such a change will happen to the network, it needs to be explainable and replicable in the future.
I have been reading up and found this concept called ānegative compoundingā, essentially the opposite of compounding, but we can use this in a positive way to draw out a logic. It is still blur in my head, so, please feel free to look into it as well and maybe you can come up with a logic.
I would then envision a future, where the minimum numbers that one needs to stake on our network would be programmed using this āfuturistic logicā and it changes constantly once every X (days/months/years) based on this logic, but does not ever go beyond 1000.
I LOVE the idea any which way! And I hope I made some sense. Iāll keep investigating.
Hello everyone,
I believe this is a great proposal, as to which one, 100 or 10, letās just say earning 10%anually on what is now 3usd seems overkill. We should propose a 100 and re-evaluate if neededā¦
100 seems like a good idea to me, but it would seem like a better idea that cryptocom and all exchanges will let them withdraw the ones, so that people come to delegate
I agree that 10 may be a bit too low for delegation. The lowest I would recommend is 100 because I feel that people experimenting and trying to stake for the first time would barely get rewards on 10. They may pull out in a couple of days and steer them away from staking. At least 100 there may be an opportunity to see a coin or 2 over a couple of days.
Iām trying to think of negative impacts this may have at all, has anyone come up with any?
Reward perspective: Letās say I bought a very small amount of ONE and want to stake them. ie: 500 Coins. My average rewards will be around 57 coins yearly, around 5 monthly. It doesnāt make that much sense unless ONE appreciates to a value far greater than it is today.
Governance perspective: As a delegator, having such a small amount also has no real weight in terms of participating in the governance of the blockchain.
I donāt see much value for this outside opening the opportunity for small time validators to gather low amount delegators here and there. Which is not a bad idea at all!
I donāt know what that means from a networking perspective, will it create more congestion? Will it generate more rewards from validating a bigger amount of transactions?
Dont understimate the power of the poor countries.
Low cost delegations multiplied by millions of ppl, are hundred of millions of Ones.
Some countries will enter the Harmony ecosystem, and all in all, it doesnt matter if a million of Ones are staked by a whale or by a ten thousand minnows.
I am very interested to see how African countries, like maybe Nigeria, or SA enter in Hmy.
I agree. This casts a bigger net. They wonāt be accumulating the amount as someone starting out at 1000 but they get experience and it gets more coins staked.
Is there a way to set it to a dollar value? I ask thinking into the future when Harmony hits $1, $5, or higher; there is a big difference in price and it might push out a lot of tiny delegates. $1 X 100 is way different than $5 X 100. Iām thinking this so that way we do not have to regularly, every 1 -3 years, revisit this senario.
Nice proposal here @sophoah , I would go for 50 - 100 range! I think there are still more and more smaller delegators will be added as the price of the ONE token will go further up!
It might be even better if we could have an auto-compound (automatic redelegate tokens every epoch) checkboxā¦ but thatās another story !
And I hope I made some sense. Iāll keep investigating.