If we want to limit these grouped masternodes sales, rather than penalizing masternode owners, we could reward them, for their fidelity. For example, by giving them a bonus after 1 month, 1 quarter, 1 semester, 1 year and every year after (based on the date of the 1,000 FIRO collateral transaction). If these bonuses are incentive, masternode owners will prefer to wait for the bonus than sell their collateral.
Now that you understand the general idea of what was proposed, I want to tell you why I am investing my time in this. I am a masternode hoster. I have over 40 nodes that are distributed across 7+ countries and do not use a centralized provider that’s at risk for being taken down. I ensure my uptime is stable and have been hosting these nodes for 4+ years at this point.
Now, I operate at a loss due to the firo price and have to pay for it out of my pocket each month, in hopes that one day firo will be high enough $ that I will be able to sell off my rewards or a few firo masternodes to recoup the costs and then make a little extra $.
Hopefully by now you can see why I believe a bonus for uptime and/or collateral duration is a very attractive proposal for me. It incentivizes me by helping me recoup the costs of being decentralized and managing my own infra, without someone like allnodes hosting me (who could go down at any moment), and creating better firo security overall.
Anyways, what does the community think?
UPDATE: I originally made the poll with “collateral lock” but realize that this is confusing. When I say collateral lock, I ONLY mean the sending of 1000 firo to the collateral address (which to me is a lock). I cannot change the poll after it is created, so keep this in mind when voting.
Provide a bonus for Firo uptime stability (no POSE_BANNED in X amount of time)
Provide a bonus for Firo collateral lock duration (locked for X amount of time, like when it reaches 1 year)
Provide a bonus for both Firo collateral lock duration and also uptime
Thank you #norsegaud for this community consultation.
According to my idea, what is fairest is to reward the collateral blocking and not the “pause_banned” absence. The problem with “pause_banned” is it is not the masternode’ owner responsibilty, but that of the host (masternode or VPS), so it would be unfair to penalize the owner.
Implementing this bonus would take a little coding time, but I think it is a real incentive for collaterals/masternodes fifelity, and therefore Firo price increase, which is the priority (and probably more than feature developments abandoned after a few years, for some of it).
I spoke to our team and one way to do this without too much work or changing the emission schedule is to have those who agree to lock their collateral for a fixed period to receive their rewards more often as compared to those who don’t lock their collateral. Meaning there is an incentive to lockup.
Those who don’t lockup, will still earn rewards like normal but obviously since the pool of FIRO available to masternodes remain unchanged, the more people lock up, the less those who don’t lock up will receive effectively.
This means lockup is an opt-in thing and there are strong incentives to do so but remains a choice.
I don’t think we should mix the two. This discussion/feature is completely separate from a lockup + cooldown discussion. I for one voted against the proposed lockup + cooldown.
The problem with “pause_banned” is it is not the masternode’ owner responsibilty, but that of the host (masternode or VPS), so it would be unfair to penalize the owner.
I sort of disagree. If your host keeps causing you issues, leave them and find someone else. It’s a great motivator/incentive to switch hosts.
Yes, it makes sense, in theory.
In practice, all the VPS or masternode hosts that I have used (including AllNodes.com) experience “Pose Score” at one time or another, therefore a risk of “Pause_banned”, therefore changing host is not a guarantee of protection against a “Pause_banned”.
As a reminder, the basic idea was to prevent masternode holders from selling their collateral when Firo price increases. The collateral age bonus completely fulfills this role.
Rewarding the absence of “Pause_banned” is like rewarding the active state of the masternode over a long period of time, which is different and is like rewarding the number of active masternodes. According to @Reuben, we could do with half masternodes we have yet (2,000 vs 4,000), so this particular bonus doesn’t seem like a priority to me.
I’m super curious how often you get banned on these hosts. Shouldn’t there be an incentive for them to try and prevent their customers from getting banned? I’m certainly not talking about guarantees, more of motivating hosts to do a better job.
I’ve been running masternodes for years, since they started, so my memory is shaky, but I think I was banned both by my VPS provider and AllNodes (not the same time).
Each time, they had very convincing technical explanations and they apologized, but that doesn’t change the ban.
What you’re suggesting is lockup which kinda works the same…unless I’m missing something? It means you cannot unlock unless fixed period of time elapses and you get more rewards for it.
Don’t we already lock our 1000 firo though to a collateral address? Sorry for the confusion, I am not proposing a lockup/cooldown, just a reward for the existing storage of the 1000 at the collateral and the duration of that.
I’ve updated the original post, title, etc. I can’t edit the poll, but I’ve put a note above it. Sorry about the confusion.
Today, with 4000 masternodes and a 2.5 minutes block time, the reward falls approximately every week.
You have to remember that it was not always like this, and that at one time, the reward fell once every 3 or 4 weeks: when you pay your host and you are deprived of reward for the whole month , it is annoying.
I believe that uptime rewards for maintaining masternodes would expose the project to additional costs. Personally, I would not burden the project’s budget in such a manner. A potential time-locked collateral system, which comes with lower costs, is worth considering. However, the idea of rewarding only for time-locked masternodes, rather than uptime, might significantly discourage people from investing. The proposal where those who do not wish to lock their masternodes risk missing out on rewards is, in my opinion, inappropriate. Therefore, I am against this solution!
Are we seriously talking about this? Ruben, you were called by the biggest market manipulator who told you that he can’t manipulate the markets with these masternodes because they have the freedom to sell whenever they want?