Consolidation of Sanctuaries

[MIP]

I am for some sort of consolidation.

I guess that people for it will vote in only 1 of the 3 proposals (the one they prefer), but owners against it will vote down all 3 proposals.

So I would propose to apply a majority of the sum of all yes votes in 3 proposals against the biggest "no" count in one of the three (will probably be the same number in the 3 proposals)

For example
3MM: 40 yes/200 no
4.5MM: 50 yes/200 no
7MM: 20 yes/200 no
40+50+20=110 yes, 200 no = no wins

3MM: 40 yes/100 no
4.5MM: 50 yes/100 no
7MM: 20 yes/100 no
40+50+20=110 yes, 100 no = yes wins and 4.5MM option wins

I think it's fairer.

[Rob Andrews]

No ... This is not "Fairer", as someone who is happy with any of the options could vote 3 times, and have their vote counted 3x.


What I worry this seems like an attempt to consolidate power,  I currently have more than one MN,  and one of the options would exclude me outright . 

I do see value in less for hosting fees, but I do not agree we should be excluding more folks from the voting process.

A more "Fair" way to approach that would be to start with a single poll, "Should we raise the cost of a sanctuary"  get a yes/no on that before trying to figure out which level to raise it to.

Each individual poll does have the individual ability to win or lose though, and everyone with sanc voting rights can vote on an individual poll currently.
So I wouldnt go as far as saying its "unfair", I would say, this needs to be a strategic decision certainly.

I'm for instance holding back and watching the public opinion on this as I dont want to weigh in and hurt the small guys by forcefully voting for the highest for example.  If people seem to gravitate towards the 4.5 then Ill probably weigh in on that.

I do want to exclaim loudly, that I am very very merciful and compassionate for the small investor!  I am not against voting for a reduction in 18 months if our price is 20* higher then.  At the same time, I obviously am against constant changes!  --  Im just saying that I wouldnt want BiblePay to cost $100,000 per sanctuary like Stratis for instance .

As far as consolidation of power, we are cheap right now, I think its a fair argument to say that a $1,200 slice of BiblePay - will still give One slice of voting power.  Its not true to say that I for example am becoming more powerful.  The remainder of a fractional straggling sanc is what is at stake - and yes a fractional sanc share is what we would be expecting that person to buy on the open market.   (I made my transparent case that we would also on the flip side not really want to let a whale dump extra bbp because they cant manage the day to day activities of running their sancs.  I fit in that category - I  prioritize release punchlist points every day over rebooting sancs in new start required state).

[MIP]

No ... This is not "Fairer", as someone who is happy with any of the options could vote 3 times, and have their vote counted 3x.
...
The way to approach that would be to start with a single poll, "Should we raise the cost of a sanctuary"  get a yes/no on that before trying to figure out which level to raise it to.

Yes, that would definitely be more precise. Because I am for 1 of the 3 options and I wouldn't vote up any of the other 3, but neither would I vote them down.

[Rob Andrews]

Yes, that would definitely be more precise. Because I am for 1 of the 3 options and I wouldn't vote up any of the other 3, but neither would I vote them down.

No, but putting in a poll to raise or not is equal to the responsible sancs voting all 3 options down.  We dont need one to see if people will raise first.

I don't think an error was made here.

[sunk818]

Exactly because of this, I'd argue it's best to vote "abstain" on the other two options, because that makes it transparent that you didn't vote "yes" on those too, but that you are participating in the vote for one of the three.

You vote based on the merits of the individual proposal irrespective of what surrounds it. The proposals aren't dependent on each other. They just happen to all be posted in the same monthly superblock, but I'm voting as if each proposal was added on separate superblocks. How could you vote otherwise since there was no prior discussion?

[oncoapop]

I wonder if the consolidation can be achieved in an alternative way (as maybe others have suggested in other forums) that is to allow for multiple masternodes on a single host? That would mean allowing each sanc to use a different port. I don't know if that is worth considering or even technically possible.

[sunk818]

I wonder if the consolidation can be achieved in an alternative way (as maybe others have suggested in other forums) that is to allow for multiple masternodes on a single host? That would mean allowing each sanc to use a different port. I don't know if that is worth considering or even technically possible.

It is something I've been trying to do recently, but have had difficulty compiling from source. Evo 1.4 is different enough from 1.2 that I've hit a few stumbling blocks. I know one coin where the user has 32 masternodes on one IP utilizing different ports.

[sunk818]

I see 25 masternodes got made in the last 24 hours And voted yes by one person. More than saving hosting fees, the priority seems to be a desire to maintain control and power. You raise MN cost to 4.5M and that makes it 3x as difficult for newcomers to buy enough bbp for a MN.

Vps cost less than $1/mo.

If you want diversity and the ability to voice an opinion, make the MN cost 750k bbp instead.