Would it be possible to make the rewards % variable for miners, based on the amount of masternodes?
For example miners get anywhere between 10 and 40%, where 40% would be when the number of masternodes drops below X amount.
As more masternodes come online, there’s less need for miners to secure the network, so they get compensated less.
When the amount of masternodes drops, you want to lure the miners back by rewarding them more.
Cutting the rewards for miners from 50 to 10% at once, you might aswell go PoS from the beginning.
It is possible but a lot of work to develop code and managing the variability % or even just agreeing on the algorithm for determining this is more complex than it is worth.
The best way to increase the Firo price is to make it useful for people: find usecases, killerapp…
It is better to distribute rewards to someone who bought 1000 Firo for the collateral of his masternode than to someone who only bought graphics cards and electricity. A miner who just sells creates constant downward pressure on the Firo price. A masternode owner who only sells has started by applying upward pressure (purchase of 1000 Firo) and, only then, will participate in the amount of about 100 Firo per year in the selling pressure: it will take him 10 years to sell as many Firo as he bought for his masternode collateral.
A masternode at 1000 Firo is less easy to acquire than mining a few Firo with the graphics card of your gaming computer. The solution may be to create several masternodes types, for example at 200 Firo, at 1000 Firo and at 5000 Firo: each type having its own reward policy.
With the increase of the masternodes number, there will be a drop in the masternodes profitability, in Firo, because it will be necessary to wait for all the masternodes to be paid between 2 rewards of the same masternode : this drop should be compensated, in dollar or euro, by raising the Frio in FIAT.
Even with the current mining fee it takes ages to reach 1000 Firo! Why do you think miners can “easily” buy masternodes???
My rig makes around 49 Firo per month, but that doesn’t take into account power costs.
When mining fee becomes 20% or less it will not even nearly cover for power costs.
Another argument for increasing the master node reward is how it can create buying pressure. A node owner with 1500 Firo are likely to buy another 500 Firo to setup master node number 2. People that see the yearly profitably might invest in 1000 Firo to setup his first master node. The node owner with several nodes, will not sell at all, and simply wait until he can setup another node.
I agree with the poposal, not sure about the exact percentages.
I`m oldschool, so mining is still quite important in my opinion, cause it is the only connection to “real value” or to the “real world”. I get the point, that hosting a VPS goes in the same direction. It also cost electicity and effort.
In order to ensure the development of FIRO, i`m also in favour to increase the dev fund, also this is not topic of the original poposal:
50% MN
20% Miner
20% Dev
10% Community Matching Fund
I understand the idea of the Matching Fund, but dont understand it 100% in practice. The protocol is paying the rewards to an adress i guess. but then? is the FCFS connected to the code, so the payment according to the funding is done automaticly or is a real person in charge of this adress? Sounds a bit compicated to me but im not a coder
I don’t agree with reducing the miner’s income, although I am also a node holder. The essence of money is circulation. If everyone put money away and didn’t let the Firo circulate, the Firo would soon die. This is not a viable economic model. And the increase in node revenue actually gives the giant more numbers. It was not distributed to the new arrivals. Miners can first maintain network security and second increase the circulation of FIRO. What we should be thinking about is how to get more people to own and circulate Firo. Increase a larger group of coin holders. Again, the essence of money is circulation. It would be meaningless without circulation!
Many tokens online, lock up the annual income of 50%-80%. But what is the meaning of this, the drop of the currency price, no matter how high the annual return is also a loss. Economic models are about a balance. Only by circulating money. Let more people join in. Generate real demand. That’s the main thing.
I think changing current rewarding system to PoS would kill the project. PoW is the original of cryptocurrency economy “energy into digital tokens” if we are sad about the price now we should wait until Ethereum fully converted to PoS system and if our FIRO take a lot of hash rate
percentage it would pump the price because difficulty would increase and coins would distributed on more miners.
Running a master node cost monthly is very low compared to mining GPUs it cost only 5$ monthly per node if we converted FIRO totally to PoS it would mean reducing the cost of getting new coins I think it would drop price much lower than current situation. It is a dangerous decision to make and effect on coin future would make a damage that can not be healed after applying that choice. I do not believe in full PoS systems it is just like governments fiat current system. Although I’m holding master nodes but can not think any cryptocurrency would have a real value without mining. I believe taking the second place after Ethereum is a great situation and once Ethereum go to PoS FIRO will be number 1 on most famous GPUs mining AMD cards and so, its price would increase once that happen.
“The essence of money is circulation”
Are you sure ? Who said that and what is the explaination ?
Do you think Bitcoin is OK with that ?
“Increase a larger group of coin holders. Again, the essence of money is circulation”.
There is a big contradiction in what you wrote : holders is the opposite of circulation.
there is no contradiction, hodling is preventing circulation
hodl cults, are ponzi schemes that all collapse eventually
PoS is not how privacy crypto should work ever, rewarding MN is fine as they will eventually bare persecution risk form governments
“Holding is preventing circulation” : it is what I wrote.
There is a contradiction to write he want a more circulating money and in the same time more holders to increase the price.
