With the new GSC system that came as an exciting novelty in Biblepay Evolution codebase, the block reward breakdown was substantially changed to
GSC 40%
PoBH 20%
Masternodes 20%
(remaining 20% consists of Charity/IT/PR monthly superblock)
I believe that this breakdown strongly discourages MN owners and gives incentive to dismantle MNs and bet for the bigger ROI of GSC.
While we all will benefit from the inflow of new users that GSC brings, at this moment GSC is reported to be 10-12 times more profitable than MNs.
Also, Masternodes operation has associated costs and burdens, and in the near future MNs will have a key role in maintaining the network integrity with LLMQ.
Because of this I would like to propose a more balanced reward breakdown of:
GSC 30%
PoBH 20%
Masternodes 30%
This still leaves GSC room to grow, without eroding too much the original promise of 40% reward for MN owners.
PoBH remains untouched as I believe it's critical for the integrity and the added value of Biblepay chain.
1)
According to our current reward schedule we actually give 20% to charity, 30% to GSC, and then we split the remaining 50% among POBH/Sanc (So Sanc should be receiving 25% right now, and POBH/Heat mining 25% right now).
https://wiki.biblepay.org/Economics2) Although I agree that security is of the utmost importance, let us remember that since this change would require a mandatory, the very earliest it would be implemented is with or after ChainLocks goes into prod. ChainLocks technically means we will be immune to 51% attacks (and forks), because each block will be monitored by the Sanc Quorum, giving us more freedom to implement "cool" things without compromising security.
In light of that, I think we might possibly be able to take 5% percent from POBH (simply because it's mostly wasted heat) with the requirement that ChainLocks be in place first.
And take the remaining 5% from the GSC. This would change it to:
20% - Charity and Governance
25% - GSC
35% - Sanctuary budget
20% - POBH/Security
Do you agree with this, if so could you please edit the OP post for further clarity on what they would be voting on?
If not, please let us know that we should tweak again.
Thanks, this sounds pretty good overall, as what you said about "original plan" resonates with me. Although I will add that we did vote in GSC's for the extensibilty and flexibility of biblepays future.
Also, we should post this link on bitcointalk and publicize this once its ready.