Bible Pay

Read 635 times

  • Rob Andrews
  • Administrator

    • 2606


    • 42
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 PM
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Should Sanctuaries fund our Orphans?
« on: July 01, 2020, 03:44:09 PM »
I am investigating the future scenario where we require each sanctuary to fund a single orphan in order to be a paid sanctuary.

This partially comes from the complaint that our Sanctuaries are only in name only (IE, why are they called sanctuaries -- if they are nothing more than masternodes -- and they dont do anything for us?).  Why do they sit and receive rewards for doing nothing?

(I was under the impression earlier in our launch, that we would create some type of workflow, and have sanctuaries perform something fundamental, such as entering expenses or liquidating orphan funds, but in reality we never did establish a workflow like that.  I argue that making a sanc responsible for one orphan may be the key to that self enforcing workflow).  A sanctuary could be a 'safe haven' for one child.
The sanctuary purpose is to sponsor a child, write letters back and forth (if possible), and provide due diligence for our other charity endeavors.

One disappointment I currently have with the sancutary ecosystem is these investors seem to be detached from our project (I feel as if Im the lone decision maker when I vote on issues).  I would personally rather see votes originating from people with 'skin in the game' and those same people are technically the ones who care about the children.


One other problem with our current sanctuary setup is we have 250 sancs that have to pay for hosting.  Id rather see 'sancs who sponsor orphans' pay for hosting.  In that model, you gain a lot of efficiency - meaning that we have less infrastructure overhead.  (If we really do intrinsically grow then yes we have more hosting but we also have more children being supported).

So of course the pro to this idea is those that sponsor orphans will be the ones who make sanctuary ROI.

The main downside to this idea is more investor friction (harder to do things like fractional sancs).  But I argue also, that this can be addressed quite easily by modifying our turnkey fractional service to include orphan sponsorship costs.

So let me summarize what this proposal would entail:

- Each sanctuary will be required to sponsor one cameroon-one orphan
- If a sanctuary locks coins and does not sponsor an orphan, they will eventually (over 24-72 hours) get POSE banned, meaning their payment income will stop.
- If a sanctuary is in good standing (IE they do sponsor an orphan) they will not get pose banned.
- Cameroon-one will be required to paste the masternode public key inside each sponsored child BIO (which is hosted by them).
- If the sanctuary masternode pubkey is not in the bio, this means the sanctuary will be POSE banned.  Or, if the sanctuary stops paying for the child, they will be POSE banned after they fall in arrears more than 30 days late.
- Cameroon-One will remove the public key from the BIO if the account is overdue by more than 30 days.
- The Sanctuary will link themself to an orphan by typing a command in the wallet. (Or cameroon-one will add new bios in the wallet by persisting new bio-ids with pubkeys).  Either way, this will give our sanctuaries insight into checking the pubkey-bio pair during each POSE round.
- Rob would modify the foundation web site to accommodate fractional sancs with orphans attached.  Another words, investing in a fractional sanc would need to have a reward component and a cost component (the sanctuary reward minus the cost of the orphan / 30).  This would give us an "inroad" to maintain fractional sanc investors.
- We will test to ensure no more than 50% of the network can be POSE banned at a given time (this is in case a disaster scenario occurs, where Cameroon One is down and the internet is down, this means our sancs will not pose ban more than half of the network).

As far as what this looks like for investors after this potentially goes live, I believe we would see the sanctuary count drop to 40 or so.
Then the ROI for a sanctuary would be astronomical (IE 500% per year) simply due to the lack of participation.
Making it very enticing to sponsor a child and have a sanctuary (at first).
Of course, if you plot this on a graph you would see a sweet spot (where ROI is 100% per year or so) where the sanctuary count would settle on (maybe 75 sancs?).

(I dont mind making a graph later and posting it to show the effect).
But the point is, this idea does appear to offer a high scalability effect for child sponsorships.
Meaning that if we remain small we will be paying for 40-50 children organically with a low sanc count, and if we grow, obviously we have the ability to sponsor 1000-2000 if we were to take off to half of the size of Dash (who has 4,500+ masternodes) or even 10% of the size of dash based on economics.







« Last Edit: July 01, 2020, 06:55:43 PM by Rob Andrews »


  • sunk818
  • Sr. Member

    • 391


    • 25
    • April 24, 2018, 02:02:20 PM
Re: Should Sanctuaries fund our Orphans?
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2020, 05:47:11 PM »
Its a sound idea. How much BBP do you project 40 to 75 sanctuaries would receive? And would it be enough to meet the charity needs of CameroonOne (C1) children? How much a month would sanctuaries need to give? Would all of this be sold as BBP for BTC? What about the extra that comes via XMR?


  • Rob Andrews
  • Administrator

    • 2606


    • 42
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 PM
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Re: Should Sanctuaries fund our Orphans?
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2020, 08:39:39 PM »
Its a sound idea. How much BBP do you project 40 to 75 sanctuaries would receive? And would it be enough to meet the charity needs of CameroonOne (C1) children? How much a month would sanctuaries need to give? Would all of this be sold as BBP for BTC? What about the extra that comes via XMR?
As much as all the other ideas that came and went, I do feel that this has something promising in it from the perspective that we gain more efficiency.  In that, first of all people will not be on the hook for hosting fees (for sanctuaries) unless they sponsor a child (and thats a big commitment) and the hosting cost becomes a low factor item (thus we increase in efficiency).  Maybe we would gain more people who truly love to be part of this project also (distinct charity power investors).

1) With 50 sancs, a sanc would receive 16,650*30 = 499K per month in revenue
2) They would pay Cameroon-one directly ($40 per month in any format - xmr, btc, bbp or USD or paypal)
3) I dont know if it will cover all the cameroon-one, but as it looks on paper the first 50 sancs should cover the cameroon one (and give the sanctuary $99 of revenue per month), and btw, the sancs would work directly with cameroon-one to start up new children (they dont need to go through me), however, as the first 35 or so come on I will be recommending that Todd moves some of (our existing children) to the new investors so that biblepay's existing children get placed first
4) I think we leave the XMR mining in place as we not only have kairos to continue to fund (14 children), but, we can always sponsor a few new ones from cameroon-one or compassion or use it to dig a well or whatever.  The only change I would make that imho precedes stopping XMR mining is when the new exchange fund is paid off, we can look into decreasing the monthly gov budget and giving that to the coinbase reward (since sancs would be paying for charity expenses at that point).

« Last Edit: July 02, 2020, 08:42:10 PM by Rob Andrews »


  • togoshigekata
  • Sr. Member

    • 494


    • 25
    • September 01, 2017, 10:21:10 AM
    • USA
    more
Re: Should Sanctuaries fund our Orphans?
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2020, 05:01:25 PM »
One disappointment I currently have with the sancutary ecosystem is these investors seem to be detached from our project (I feel as if Im the lone decision maker when I vote on issues).

Questions for thinking:

1. Why do you think things are this way?

2. Is it okay for people to hold coins and not vote?
(For example, say I buy some stock in Walmart, Would there be an expectation that I start attending Walmart board meetings?)

3. How much compensation should a sanctuary receive for their services?:
- instantsend
- privatesend
- chainlocks
- public up to date full node
- data storage
etc

4. In the past, werent you okay with the real possibility that a whale takes over the project?
4a. Arent you the current whale?

5. Have we reached out to past and current investors to get feedback?

===

Im neutral with sanctuaries supporting orphans

A. Is there risk of one company having all sanctuary owners personal information? Can donations be sent anonymously?

B. Is there risk of this being another monthly charity sell wall? Sanctuaries could sell the BBP made that month to fund an orphan? I havent checked in a long time, but I think my Sanctuary only makes maybe $20/month, minus a few bucks per month for hosting

https://masternodes.online/currencies/BBP/

===

Random, Dash has had debates on forcing masternodes to vote, so far theyve been against it

===

In general, the crypto bear market knocked tons of people out of all projects --- but weve also lost people along the way, PODC getting removed in the past, drama, lots of mandatory upgrades, lots of changes, etc etc

===

The DASH chart looks pretty similar to BBP chart
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dash/


  • Rob Andrews
  • Administrator

    • 2606


    • 42
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 PM
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Re: Should Sanctuaries fund our Orphans?
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2020, 05:46:17 PM »
Q:
"A. Is there risk of one company having all sanctuary owners personal information? Can donations be sent anonymously?"

A:
You can set up an anonymous sanctuary, then pay cameroon-one monthly in either XMR or BBP, as long as you send them an e-mail (from an anonymous account) with your sanctuary public key and TXID, yes, so they could remain anonymous.

Q: 2. Is it okay for people to hold coins and not vote?
(For example, say I buy some stock in Walmart, Would there be an expectation that I start attending Walmart board meetings?)
A:
To be fair with this question, holding coins in BBP is analogous to buying them on SX and holding them for profit (and not being a sanctuary).  There is no expectation for an investor who holds stock or BBP for them to attend board meetings, no.
A sanctuary not only lets you hold the coins, but is paying you an extra subsidy primarily for POSE (proof the node is up and running and handling governance objects).
We are floating the idea that POSE gets extended to POSE+POOS (proof of service + proof of orphan sponsorship).
There is no correct panacea type answer, but the meat of it is I feel like at least a certain percentage of the sanctuary members should be doing something for the project each month.  I understand there is some type of expectation for passive investments - thats what DWS fills (and possibly fractional sancs that would have an orphan cost component tied in).
Imho, the forced voting issue is a different issue - that was more of an observation I made.   That has no bearing on whether we have one whale or not - every vote counts - and the non-whales should vote regardless so the whales have a better feel of the health of the project.  Also, there should be more than one whale in a healthy project. 
The problem with BiblePay is we only have a few hundred active users, so we have even less that are active investors.  We need 10,000+ active users.

Q:
B. Is there risk of this being another monthly charity sell wall? Sanctuaries could sell the BBP made that month to fund an orphan? I havent checked in a long time, but I think my Sanctuary only makes maybe $20/month, minus a few bucks per month for hosting

A:
There is a risk of a sell wall, if the investors want to sell their BBP and not pay in fiat.  Ive been paying via paypal lately and not hurting our price.  But what use is a currency that cant handle a sell?  Maybe we need to go through this phase to make BBP a worthy currency. 
The question is, is it better to have a more efficient base with people with skin in the game rather than a fledgling project that tries to tiptoe around southxchange?  Maybe we need to grow up and bite the bullet.  We just might appeal to angel investors who say, wow, I wouldnt mind sponsoring an orphan anyway, and buy a sanctuary.
The ROI of $20 is obviously low because we have 251 right now (we would have more like 50 in this new scenario).






Ill try to answer more of these questions asap by editing my post.

« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 06:00:43 PM by Rob Andrews »


  • SEO_Account
  • Newbie

    • 3


    • 1
    • January 12, 2018, 07:33:25 PM
    more
Re: Should Sanctuaries fund our Orphans?
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2020, 07:37:59 PM »
why would sanctuary count drop to 50? so that means 200 sanctuaries sell onto open market?? what happens to price then?? lol


  • Rob Andrews
  • Administrator

    • 2606


    • 42
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 PM
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Re: Should Sanctuaries fund our Orphans?
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2020, 08:01:38 PM »
why would sanctuary count drop to 50? so that means 200 sanctuaries sell onto open market?? what happens to price then?? lol

1) Just because a person stops being a sanctuary doesnt necessarily mean they sell the coins - they can choose to hold them, buy a fractional sanc, put it in DWS, etc.
2) Regardless of what happens to the price, the goal is to do the greater good over the long term.  All the ideas in this coin have been what we "thought" at the time were for long term success.  Obviously some havent worked out, but, I do see light at the end of the tunnel.  For example with RandomX, the difficulty is increasing and we do have new miners coming in.  I also believe we will release a technically successful feature over the next year that will make BBP an important original coin (in contrast to a clone coin).
3) There would be 50 or so because thats how many our current price of .000184 (the free market) affords us.  There will be more than 50 if we have users that sponsor orphans for a loss, or, if our price rises.




  • sunk818
  • Sr. Member

    • 391


    • 25
    • April 24, 2018, 02:02:20 PM
Re: Should Sanctuaries fund our Orphans?
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2020, 10:17:59 PM »
How did you arrive at 50 sanctuaries being the support level? You mentioned price, but I tend to think prices fluctuates quite a bit. Would 50 sanctuaries cover all the children currently supported by BiblePay? Based on past history, what percentage do you think would support charity via BBP vs a non-BBP method? The thought of limiting how much a charity could withdraw in a 30 day window might encourage consistent selling. I remember you prepaid for several months and it was all sold in the same day causing a flash crash down to 0.2 SAT.


  • Rob Andrews
  • Administrator

    • 2606


    • 42
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 PM
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Re: Should Sanctuaries fund our Orphans?
« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2020, 11:22:22 AM »
Here is a chart of the sanctuary reward per sanctuary (in BBP) per number of sanctuaries on the network:


https://san.biblepay.org/Images/sanctuaries.png
(I also attached the chart in case it is blurry).

As you can see from the 400,000 level (59 sanctuaries) that is where a person would currently earn $75 USD per month (at current rates of .000188).
With 99 sancs, we have 200K (or $37.50), which is not too bad considering what good they would be doing other than being online.
With 20 sancs, we have about 1MM bbp ($188 revenue per month).

My next post, I am going to try to imagine scenario A & B.
Scenario A is what we currently have:  251 sancs serving the network and doing not much more than 10 could do (IE we dont have a lot of IX transactions etc), doing no philanthropy, and not making any philanthropic decisions (for example we have zero replies to my idea about the water well, so this is a good example this month of zero votes and zero replies).

On the other hand lets imagine scenario B:
50 sanctuaries with revenue of $75 per month (or, even $50 if the price is impacted first), sponsoring one child each.  I could be wrong about this, but I would imagine each of those sanctuaries would be more apt to be active in the community - since they obviously care about a child enough to sponsor a child. 

I understand there are price downturns related to scenario B, and I also understand that we even started off on a new endeavor of paying for orphan sponsorships via XMR (and I like that) and it appears to be solid for growth in the future.

However I can't help but ask God, which scenario would he prefer?  Wouldn't scenario B be the one of choice where we raise up non-traditional investors instead of traditional HODL investors?

If you asked my opinion, Im leaning toward B as of today, because I like the look of the future environment for biblepay.

Now lets analyze the actual ill effects of the liquidation.  We never really talked about the positive effects of our price going down.  I do realize a sell wall is horrific, first of all, but I argue part of that is the effect of whatever mischevious person on SX is frontrunning the buy side just to sell the coins higher (they never have an intention to hold them anyway).  Lets move past the sell wall, because bots and mischevious users will always be attracted to projects that do good things.

The fact of the matter is, we will always need a few new investors to step in and buy up the extra 10 BTC of coins anyway - they are sitting there and someday, when we have a new investor that owns 0 biblepay step in, they will buy a few btc worth (thats part of expansion).

Lets talk about expansion effects from our price dropping. 

If our price drops by 50% due to a sanctuary liquidation, or a sanctuary who must pay the monthly orphanage bill (say, 5 of them at the same time), I believe what will theoretically happen is we will expand, because some investors who are not interested in us will actually buy at our low price - therefore these dips may also cause us to grow.

We need to take all this into account and come to an intelligent agreement that this is the right thing to do.

« Last Edit: July 08, 2020, 11:26:35 AM by Rob Andrews »


  • MIP
  • Developer

    • 246


    • 32
    • February 13, 2018, 11:55:52 AM
    more
Re: Should Sanctuaries fund our Orphans?
« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2020, 03:38:53 AM »
I donīt see this as a bad idea on the long run.

But in the short run if a MN owner has 5 sancs, it is unlikely that can affort $200/month in sponsorships.

So some or all of those sancs will be probably liquidated (or dismantled if the MNO wants to hodl).

I would suggest this change to be made in a more gradual way, if it was possible for example to maintain a sanc with a $5/month donation, then after some months we analyze the effects, and then maybe decide to rise to $10/month per sanc and so on.
 


  • Rob Andrews
  • Administrator

    • 2606


    • 42
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 PM
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Re: Should Sanctuaries fund our Orphans?
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2020, 09:23:17 AM »
I donīt see this as a bad idea on the long run.

But in the short run if a MN owner has 5 sancs, it is unlikely that can affort $200/month in sponsorships.

So some or all of those sancs will be probably liquidated (or dismantled if the MNO wants to hodl).

I would suggest this change to be made in a more gradual way, if it was possible for example to maintain a sanc with a $5/month donation, then after some months we analyze the effects, and then maybe decide to rise to $10/month per sanc and so on.

I thought about adding an adjustment changing the collateral reqs from 4.5 MM to 10MM - so one could lock more (and that would lessen the impact), but I did an analysis on that scenario and I think it hurts us over the 10 year term.  With 4.5MM, we stand to attract up to 833 sanctuaries (with a 75% lock ratio) over the long term (and therefore 833 monthly orphans).  I would imho, rather see 833 orphans than 417 etc (and, of course 817 unique investors etc rather than less), so impo, I think we just leave the 4.55 MM lock ratio, and let our sanc count drop, this in essence means making it harder to earn interest on latent BBP.  That means DWS will just be more popular in this phase.

I like the idea of lessening the impact with a more gradual start however, as we dont want to do anything psychotic.

One thing we could do to usher this plan in is the following:

On September 15th (this is our next release), we ask Cameroon to allow two sanctuaries per orphan sponsored through March 31, 2021.
Then starting April 1st 2021, we move to one orphan per sanctuary.

They can do this by taking one child bio, and allowing it to sponsor two public keys.


« Last Edit: July 10, 2020, 09:29:00 AM by Rob Andrews »


  • talisman
  • Newbie

    • 29


    • 11
    • March 26, 2018, 07:42:24 AM
    more
Re: Should Sanctuaries fund our Orphans?
« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2020, 06:22:00 PM »
Hi Rob,

I find MIP's suggestion noteworthy. Your direction in this proposal is very agreeable, but gradual changes (versus big jumps) are really more welcome among the community. I don't think anyone paying $5/mo for a sanc would mind paying twice as much initially, knowing half is actual donation. As the crypto winter ends, further increases in the donation content would not even trigger any discomfort.

On a separate tone, I think increasing collateral requirement for a donating sanc would also be beneficial due to a lower amount of released coins after the dismantling of some sancs. Oh, how about a system that rewards the sancs in proportion to how much they lock and how much they donate?


  • Rob Andrews
  • Administrator

    • 2606


    • 42
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 PM
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Re: Should Sanctuaries fund our Orphans?
« Reply #12 on: July 11, 2020, 07:10:21 PM »
Hi Rob,

I find MIP's suggestion noteworthy. Your direction in this proposal is very agreeable, but gradual changes (versus big jumps) are really more welcome among the community. I don't think anyone paying $5/mo for a sanc would mind paying twice as much initially, knowing half is actual donation. As the crypto winter ends, further increases in the donation content would not even trigger any discomfort.

On a separate tone, I think increasing collateral requirement for a donating sanc would also be beneficial due to a lower amount of released coins after the dismantling of some sancs. Oh, how about a system that rewards the sancs in proportion to how much they lock and how much they donate?


The problem with the variable reward is that the entire deterministic masternode codebase is very complicated, and we have to calculate the sanctuary subsidy up front (sometimes even months in advance, due to the deflation and the governance calls).  Changing it to dynamic adds a new element of fork risk that I am not willing to take for something that is just a gradual feature - in the end - it is expected that someone will need to sponsor a full cameroon orphan to run a full sanctuary node anyway - so I feel like the dynamic portion can be handled inside foundation.biblepay.org instead (which, I believe it could be with fractional sanctuaries).

The other element of this is at this time, cameroon is the only partner we have that can meet the security requirements that I feel satisfy a third party audit of the reward vs proof of sponsorship  (IE they will host the bios on their own domain, all the orphans are $40 each, biblepay sponsors them with no help from others, one sanc public key per orphan etc).  Im of course very interested in working with compassion in the future, but they cannot offer this at this time.  The other aspect is we cant go with a mismatch of providers because that would be unfair - for example we cant have 5 Kairos and 5 Cameroon due to the price differences - and at this time, cameroon is the only one promising the ability to scale to hundreds of orphans as we grow.

So right now the best I can offer is :
Two sanctuary public keys per orphan for the first 6 months
Fractional sancs to handle the fractional case
After 6 months we move to one orphan per key

Theoretically, with fractional sancs and DWS I think we have actually offered the solution to the problem anyway.  We could if we wanted jump directly to one sanc per public key and ask the users to go with fractional right off the bat.