Review this
Created
Dec 25, 2022 4:24 PM
Tags
Featured on home page?
Hidden?
Published
Published?
URL
AI summary
AI summary 1
Done?
Hidden
Last edited time
Jan 4, 2023 2:37 AM
Price
Resource tags
Thumbnail image
super:Link
‘
Audio from helios and eos telegram dec 23
release video and so many messages etc dec 22
TheChosenOne, [Dec 27, 2022 at 1:53 PM]
the ESP will more split BPs down the middle those who are willing to return income as rewards, and those who promise not to. The biggest winner will the BPs in the second group that will lie tho.
Aaron Cox (jesta) — Greymass, [Dec 25, 2022 at 10:54 PM]
Thoughts so far:
- Paying inflation directly to any proxy: seems like a bad idea, and would require a lot of negotiation on both technicals and the politics of it. In the short term, feels impossible. Mid to long term may be possible but still unlikely.
- Paying 25% of individual BP rewards to a proxy: seems like a good deal, considering it’s normally ~80% of rewards.
- Stopping vote buying to get 25% rate: Unreasonable, at least until the point if/when this proxy reaches 100m+ in vote weight. Doing so before hand is like putting in your 2-week notice without a new job lined up. If you have responsibilities (e.g. running a company like Greymass) those needs must be met before making that leap.
- Requiring transparency and financial reports of BPs: Good in theory, lots of work in practice. It’ll have a cost associated for every BP to produce. The financials will open up possibilities of drama. This all is also a centralizing factor, since any added requirement to become a BP will eliminate some from the candidate pool.
- Eden as a proxy manager: Honestly, I’m not so sure if there were 100 BPs this method would be able to effectively elect 30 quality BPs. 99% of Eden members have no idea what it takes to run the network and they’d be the ones deciding.
- Expecting BPs to produce “value” beyond producing blocks: This is naive, especially in current market conditions. BP rewards barely cover infrastructure and human resource costs. In better times with a higher price maybe this is realistic, but even then it’d be better to have a variable rate with some sort of cap and expect value production to happen outside of the BP pool.
Mo Z. D.S., [Dec 26, 2022 at 5:17 AM]
Why is this questionable though? If it gets the votes it functions just as any other part of the DPOS structure. The question for the token holder will be:
Are the changes the ESPx is making beneficial to EOS or not:
- In the case that it is not, buy more tokens, increase voting power, and select other BPs
Or
- Sell and buy a token that better aligns with your beliefs
Or
- Fork the chain.
Sagarmatha (i block and report private messages immediately), [Dec 26, 2022 at 6:48 AM]
-agree. I doubt this gets through but its not impossible if dpos decides
-neutral
-wont stop votebuying but maybe mitigating it. There will be an equilibrium at some point where votebuying makes sense again outside the proxy
-obviously there are already bps in the proxy, did they agree to the transarency requirement @ChrisBarnes1? If yes, well there are some who doesnt find it impossible. more important than technical decentralization is political dezentalization. Look at btc. people dont trust the 3 miningpools having more than 50% votes combined but the voters (miners in that case) who change pool in case. Also with no inflation to the esp do you still see the technical decentralization problem? Alternativley you can set inflation to esp (in case) at a level where bps still can compete outside the esp.
-i think there are ways to organize this in the edengroup in a reasonable way. How does the brock proxy chose btw?
-best state would be that bps only focus on block production and maybe recover+ imo. so i agree with you here.
Aaron Cox (jesta) — Greymass, [Dec 26, 2022 at 10:46 AM]
This highlights the problem we have rather well at a system level. Voters don’t make these types of decisions for the most part, they are seeking a return on their investment and sacrifice their voting power for it. So in your first point, about increasing voting power, this proxy requests extra inflation be added and exclusively allocated to it to further increase its voting power.
If the requests are fulfilled, more inflation would be flowing through this proxy (1.05%) than BPs in total receive (0.75%). No other proxy could compete with this, so likely over time it’d make Eden the largest and leave it as the only form of affecting governance.
That’s what’s questionable. Is one proxy run by Eden the best move for the chain? Does this proxy deserve that sort of special power? Is Eden ready for this? Or… if the community feels this is the highest priority issue to address, should we just fix the underlying incentives that are all outta whack.
Mo Z. D.S., [Dec 26, 2022 at 11:54 AM]
You're right in that "voters don't make these types of decisions, they are seeking a return on their investment"
This however feels like a mistake on the token holder's part in not understanding the fundamentals of DPOS. This was never meant to be a passive investment or speculative vehicle, but a utility and a governance token to secure the network.
The above point led me and leads me to believe that the final end user was always meant to be enterprise, companies leveraging it on behalf of their users. That would align their interests in holding significant amounts of tokens with also making sure that the top 21 BPs were the best stewards of the chain.
Theoretically, if this happened as you're hypothesizing, I don't see a problem with governance flowing through a human layer before receiving BP rewards.
If the argument is that BPs would not be incentivized to be able to reach agreements or trade votes outside of the public eye with as much ease as they do now, I don't see this as a negative.
Is one proxy run by Eden(Eden consisting of people interested in EOS Governance) better than one proxy run by people we don't know, who's interests have been shown to be first and foremost their own until recently, when they coincidentally aligned with those of active community members, I'd like to believe so.
Whether the Eden Proxy deserves anything, is up to the token holders.
Is Eden ready for this? It's a Lite Paper currently building towards this, the idea is that once the responsibility falls on its shoulders, it should be ready.
I'd definitely say there are many issues currently of high priority, and we can walk and chew gum. I can appreciate how some BPs and entities are trying to do much more than walk and chew gum, and this just becomes one more thing to juggle that they don't really need or want right now.
All I can say is that I'm sorry, this is supposed to be a decentralized community where many different things can and should be worked on by different teams simultaneously. Greater cooperation/integration/inclusion would help us all row in the same relative direction if this is valued as of greater importance, otherwise we can't just be told:
"Do something...but not that, something else...I don't have time to tell you what to do, figure it out...but not that."
We all recognize that there are very few whales controlling enough tokens to make decisions, be they East Asian or B1. To act as if this handful of people shouldn't run it, this other handful is better, and paint this in the context of more or less centralization, and I believe you framed it on the call very well in describing centralization as a spectrum, this isn't really moving it that much farther one way or the other, it's just changing who's making the decisions.
If theres enough bandwidth at the ENF, I'd be for fixing the underlying incentives that are all out of whack and add Tokenomics to this too 🙏 🙏 🙏
Tim Weston | GenerEOS | Scarce, [Dec 26, 2022 at 4:22 PM]
Exactly correct. I don’t feel this is clearly explained in the smart proxy announcement. When the idea was floated to us before it became public our feedback was that we would support it if it were not exclusive to one proxy which will consolidate power. The underlying message that wasn’t transparently explained seems to be that Eden feels that it’s ready to take control of the chain but I am unsure if that is true yet. We are still only figuring out Dans previous experiment (DPoS) and Eden is a ways behind that.
People shit on “vote trading/buying” (shit term btw, it’s just staking rewards like used on many chains) but the thing is that it’s open for all to participate in. Go ahead and create a rewards proxy, we have, Eos nation have and so have many others. None of us are trying to change the inflation rate to send to one over the other though.
Aaron Cox (jesta) — Greymass, [Dec 26, 2022 at 11:26 PM]
I have so many points in here I want to respond to 😅
To try and TLDR it though, to me it sounds like all the proponents of this proposal are trying to replace one (perceived) party in control with another. I think the argument I was trying to make is that we shouldn't have just one party, unless that party consists of everyone.
This proposal doesn't achieve that. This proposal just seeks to create a better mouse trap to replace all parties with one non-inclusive party. That's what I don't agree with, especially if it requires adding/diverting inflation to achieve its end goal. It's just a proposal to capture the current flawed system we have today.
Aaron Cox (jesta) — Greymass, [Dec 26, 2022 at 11:55 PM]
To circle back to this and my original message and to try to be crystal clear based on the conversations so far... The TLDR was that the proxy seeks to replace the current parties (Binance, Tony, Genpool, EOS Nation, etc) with one party (Eden).
Chris Barnes | 🌱 Eden on EOS, [Dec 26, 2022 at 11:56 PM]
it does not. The proxy seeks to set a minimum standard for BP criteria, which includes not buying votes (keep your money), not having two BPs (bc thats just plainly wrong), and providing financial disclosure (bc every recipient of community funding, which inflation is, should be done in an open and transparent way...ALL recipients should be doing this).
Aaron Cox (jesta) — Greymass, [Dec 27, 2022 at 12:06 AM]
Global inclusion, multiple language speaking communities, an unlimited capacity for members, more organization, distribution of knowledge to allow members to make informed votes. I'm sure I could keep going on, but Eden has none of this yet - and thus isn't ready to make these sorts of decisions.
Aaron Cox (jesta) — Greymass, [Dec 27, 2022 at 12:07 AM]
As an example - if this all went through and the proxy was successful today, the BPs of EOS would be selected by a group of no more than 10,000 english speaking members who are available in NA/SA centric time zones.
Chris Barnes | 🌱 Eden on EOS, [Dec 27, 2022 at 12:09 AM]
ahh yes exactly!! thats what we need to do! You've nailed it. Lets get that up and running asap so this complete vision can be attained!
Aaron Cox (jesta) — Greymass, [Dec 27, 2022 at 1:58 AM]
The whitelisting service can add bad actors and members can vote for bad actors. Those bad actors just need to:
1. Be transparent about their use of funds.
2. Not run more than one BP.
3. Not buy votes.
You can obey these rules and still be a bad actor.
As for the attack, literally anything is possible. Depending on your perspective of what a bad actor might do, they could either "unlocking frozen tokens" or "print tokens".
thenewlegend, [Dec 27, 2022 at 1:58 AM]
I don't deny the vote buying is not a good practice but atleast we are sure of that.
If similar practice is happening under the pretense of decentralised and democratic selection then it is just whitewashed.
Is it 100% certain that BP in ESP will not involve in vote buying in secret ?
It might be true as ESP if implemented will eventually wipe out other proxies.
Or for example consider Defibox vault. As per ESP Defibox can then redirect more bp rewards to the vault protocol etc. Will that be considered as vote buying ?
Many more discussions at this time in eos chat - Chris Barnes | 🌱 Eden on EOS, [Dec 27, 2022 at 1:59 AM]
The whitelisting service will be incredibly transparent, so the auditing aspect is actually going to be performed by the community, not just those facilitating the collection and presentation of data. Also once the whitelisting service providers are provided by the various language Edens, they would each need to be captured to ultimately capture the service...which is still 100% transparent and public
Aaron Cox (jesta) — Greymass, [Dec 27, 2022 at 2:09 AM]
Not in the same way as I was describing, though that may have been a poor word choice. You used "captured" first and then I just followed along 😅
The whole point was that this opens up new attack vectors that don't require the same level of financial investment. It's like if you run Windows, you're vulnerable to X attacks. If you run Windows alongside an app that has its own vulnerabilities, now you're vulnerable to X+Y.
Chris Barnes | 🌱 Eden on EOS, [Dec 27, 2022 at 2:14 AM]
DPoS still rules this game. There is no change to that. The financial investment remains to make this happen. It only happens if token holders deem it so. Just like the 68M EOS right?
thenewlegend, [Dec 27, 2022 at 2:15 AM]
In all essence ESP is only as good as the one's who is enforcing the whitelist.
There is no reliable method to know if a BP is fulfilling their promises. Is there any requirement like a BP on whitelist should be involved with a project creating value on EOS ?
If not then all the financial records can be faked and ESP has no legal authority to deal with it. They can only ask and possibly note some anomalies, if any.
Ideally speaking it sounds like a good idea but realistically approaching it is not very appealing.
Aaron Cox (jesta) — Greymass, [Dec 27, 2022 at 2:16 AM]
Should the proxy achieve its goals, DPOS isn't the rule anymore. You can't fall back on that. The incentives are aligned to enable potential attacks, which could undermine DPOS.
You literally just disproved your own point by mentioning the 68m tokens.
Chris Barnes | 🌱 Eden on EOS, [Dec 27, 2022 at 2:19 AM]
the whitelisting service is key yes absolutely!! Its why it will be done with extreme transparency, and by an appointed member from each participating Eden (once we get there of course :)
Faking of financial records is something that is possible, however once we start to compare BPs against each other, which will happen, and likely be of great service to the entire community and BPs themselves, it will get easier to spot outliers that will indicate false reporting.
