Idea about redistributing the rewards

General
22

Agree. The rewards structure should be updated to take into account the validator nodes, and cost.

5 Likes
23

What @ParadiseDBTR said

The team would not be excited about Constellation obtaining the USAF as an official customer without having thought of this

4 Likes
24

I agree with proposal, validators are top priority.

3 Likes
25

The rewards structure should be addressed. I agree. I also want to know the logic of the current allocation as there was no background information on how these numbers were logically proposed.

2 Likes
26

Im in full agreement

2 Likes
27

Iā€™m in agreement. Letā€™s get this thing in motion.

2 Likes
28

Voicing my support for the redistribution of rewards. Validator (and Testnet) nodes are the backbone of the project at the moment and that should be reflected. Network sustainability is also a vital piece of puzzle. Thanks @Serg for being swift in bringing this up!

7 Likes
29

I support Serg in drafting a proposal for redistributing the DAG rewards. :pray:

NODES > DTMS (Metagraphs) > Soft Nodes

3 Likes
30

I agree with Serg. Iā€™m also surprised this is not garnering more support. Thank you @andrewseer for posting on Twitter.

3 Likes
31

Agreed, nodes should at least break even regarding the running costs. I would prefer to completely cancel the soft nodes and if this is not enough other pools can be redud, taxes cut ie lattice) etc.

3 Likes
32

Dear all,

Thanks a lot for your warm support.

I have a proposal which I am checking with some community members to get some initial feedback.

I will publish the HIP today or tomorrow.

This community is amazing.

6 Likes
33

Sounds reasonable! Thank you for voicing your idea

1 Like
34

Dropping a comment in support. Fully agree.

1 Like
35

As a mainnet node operator itā€™s already becoming pretty untenable to continue - the halving (which I am all for) will make this even worse.

Over the course of running my node I could have received more DAG by spending my server fees buying DAG instead of using those fees to run a node.

IMO soft node rewards need to be stopped and DTM rewards cut. Iā€™m sure DTM rewards are high to appease the organisation that made the large DTM purchase but its really not fair to the node operators who are the backbone of the network.

Cheers

6 Likes
36

I know Iā€™m a bit late to the party but I am just dropping a quick message to give my support to this.

1 Like
37

It seems I am the only one against this.

The current distribution model is only a couple months old, and this proposal is only created because the token price has dropped.
If a change is implemented now, will you go back to the current distribution model if the price rises to profitable level again? Iā€™m guessing not. It was created like this for a reason.

Node owners had good rewards for years but now that it will drop slightly below profitable levels they start complaining even before itā€™s actually happening, tapping each other on the shoulders.

There are thousands of soft node owners waiting to switch to main nodes when the time comes. Believing that the price will rise again there would be plenty of them to take over a spot from those who want to give up their main node.

2 Likes
38

I think for now itā€™s safe to say that itā€™s vital that node operators are kept happy as they are the foundation of the network. Soft nodes and DTMs arenā€™t doing much right nowā€¦but thatā€™ll change with time. We should take some short term pain in order to guarantee the success of the network.

2 Likes
39

The only thing DTM, s bring to the table is a cash input for the company. Certainly not valuable data lol. Scrap the remaining unsold DTMs and redeploy the rewards they would have received to wherever.

4 Likes
40

Highly important topic and fully agree that those who are the network should not be coming out of pocket for the protocol to be operating. Appreciate this suggestion and support it in full

2 Likes
41

I am in cautious agreement wit this proposal.

Of course, mainnet node operators should be rewarded for running their node. If I were one of them (I had the chance but reclined because of workload at the time) I would not like it if it would cost me money.

Still, I think two things need be taken in consideration:

  1. what with the ā€œdouble dippingā€ of node holders also staking?

  2. what happens with maiinet node allocation if halvening causes price appreciation?