Catalyst: P-Rep Governance Meetings Proposal

#62

The general response and discussion about the first topic

is exactly following the description given in our proposal paper:

1. Introduction

The current Stake and reward distribution model need to be revisited as it relates more to the traditional Proof of Stake (POS) or Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) rather than the intended Delegated Proof of Contribution (DPoC) governance model. For the various reasons that will be addressed later in the paper, the Proof of Contribution is showing characteristics of a rather restrictive model where reward/return rates are favoring the “lazy” nodes.

There is a positive initiative from the community to address the staking distribution problem. While there are some truly interesting approaches, we believe none of these solutions are strong enough to tackle a complex problem like this. One of the reasons lies in the fact that almost all isolated initiatives start and end in the telegram channels or forum talks. For the same reason, we propose that the problem is addressed in a more professional and a permanent form.

In this proposal, we declare our intention to write a whitepaper that proposes a DeFiCON — a solution(s) to the current Delegated Proof of Contribution (DPoC) reward distribution model.

A measurable Proof of Contribution needs to engineered - it needs to combine several parameters (monthly budget, money spent, value-added, transparency, KPI achieved, reputation, history…) into a unique indicator.

While we respect all the suggestions out there we strongly believe a more serious engagement is needed. We are ready to try to engage and solve this problem.

Please support our proposal as after all this talk, some work needs to be done. Let’s build first and then a more constructive discussion can be held once a visible solution is presented.

#63

“Regarding I-REP, the foundation actually set I-Rep initially at 50,000 with an estimated ICX price of 0.40. This was listed in the introduction and instructions for becoming a P-Rep. We are at 0.40 and I-Rep is lower than 50,000 - so it is appropriate for what was signed up for. We have discussed potentially lowering I-Rep, but there is much to consider. If the original plan was to have 50,000 IREP for a price of 0.40, then is there a good reason to lower it?”

I just really feel the need to clarify while I have the chance, although I’m almost certain it will come up again. The numbers provided in the intro deck/instructions/materials were illustrative examples. AGAIN, these were only EXAMPLES. We needed to pick a number to show the calculation. That number was 50,000. We needed to reference the $$ price so we could show the $$ price of the calculation. That’s it. The number was initially set at 50,000 simply because that is the average of the maximum (90k) and minimum (10k). There is no other hidden underlying meaning to the 50k. So please, everybody and anybody, stop using those example numbers and the starting value of i_rep as a justification for keeping i_rep around 50,000.

Here is the definition of i_rep from the yellow paper “[i_rep] is a variable that determines the reward amount for contribution by Representatives. This variable represents the monthly amount of ICX that is assumed to be required for the operation of the Representative node . It is determined by the Representatives via a stake-weighted average of their submissions.”

By keeping i_rep at 50,000, Ubik is saying that ~200k ICX per month is required for the operation of the Representative node. Obviously that is not the case. Hopefully my clarification and this quote from the yellow paper help you understand. I realize that you lowering i_rep affects everybody, but that’s why it’s an average. Everybody is supposed to just input what they think is necessary to operate the node at a profit, so that we can arrive at the average cost of a node.

No hard feelings, I’ve just seen this come up several times and want to stomp it out if I can. Perhaps we should be more careful with the examples we use going forward.

Looking forward to the meeting and I’m sure we will discuss this topic.

3 Likes
#64

Thanks for this post. We tried saying the same thing above but your clarification deserves an A plus!!! We actually had PREPS using the original IREP as an example in our last post, about PREPS using that reason but deleted because we did not want to seem negative and only want what is best for Icon.

Moving forward we need to think about what is best for Icon and $Icx.

Just follow ICX Station in lowering IREP.

We love Icon and are so happy to be apart of this team!

We realize we are supporting cutting our teams monthly $ICX but that is what is best for Icon.

2 Likes
#65

Can you elaborate more on why lowering your ICX per month is best for ICON? Are you just referring to inflation? Because that really is a mute argument. We dropped 99% since ATH with 0 inflation and 400% recently with inflation.

We have teams lower irep when price goes down and when price goes up with really no explanation.

I’d also like to point out that ICON is not a DPoS blockchain where simply running a node is all that’s required. It was designed with contributing rewards in mind. Running a rep node in my opinion goes beyond paying server cost.

4 Likes
#66

P-REP MEETING TIMES CHANGE

Please note, there was an ongoing miscommunication regarding P-Rep weekly meeting times.

The chair had suggested Sunday’s, and at time zones that were reasonable for everyone.

It wasn’t clarified for me until just now that Sunday only applied to JST where the chair is located, and all other times actually fell on a Saturday.

Therefore this puts the meetings on Saturday for everyone else:

SATURDAY:

3:00p PST
6:00p EST
11:00p UTC

SUNDAY:

8:00 JST

I’m kind of scrambling to get this information out as it’s definitely a big change last minute. So please let everyone on various teams know through the grapevine.

1 Like
#67

We at Everstake created ICON Calendar - calendar with all ICON events and added P-Rep Meetings as well

Take a look - http://bit.ly/ICON_Events

if someone needs full access to all events, meetups or meetings in the calendar then write to Bohdan via Telegram (@bo_opryshko)

1 Like
#68

Sure we would love to elaborate!

Notice how the community, Icon, and ICX Station agree with our viewpoints but none of the other top 22 PREPS do-

PREP’S role is to support and improve Icon’s leadership. Icon and ICX Station are the coach and assistant coach and PREPS need to contribute to their leadership.

1 Like
#69

Please don’t state your opinion as fact @Icon4Education, just because you are making a lot of noise does not make you correct.

‘The community’ very much supports many different viewpoints, and generalising to suit your agenda is quite transparent. I’ve had plenty of discussions with different ICONists who do not align with your ideas.

A P-Reps role is not to SOLELY support ICON. That’s what centralisation is. We must go beyond that.

Working side by side with ICON on tech optimisation, growth, development and marketing is something that we want, and is something a lot of top P-Reps are doing, but we must do so much more than that for the health and growth of our network.

Collectively P-Reps need to be growing the size of our network and increasing decentralisation. We need to be building dapps, making development tools, providing QA, providing customer/ICONist technical support, hosting meetups, making B2B + B2C connections ourselves, and more. We should all be thinking outside the box. We score very low on the sensorship resistance scale atm. Through P-Rep contributions we’re building an ICON Republic that can survive if South Korea suddenly had a natural disaster and failed to exist.

On the topic of inflation/P-Rep income there are a lot of ICONists who are happy to see TRUSTED P-Reps building development and marketing repositories for launching real world products. Investment leads to growth, austerity leads the opposite way. The fear mongering around rewards being too high has little to no basis whatsoever. Rhizome above covered it perfectly. I do agree that a team like Velic, who doesn’t communicate, or contribute much should have their worth called into question, but targeting other teams who are doing extensive work to grow and secure our ecosystem is disingenuous. Velic too could have some fantastic plans for the network, it’s not fair of me just to presume they are only interested in personal financial gain.

Please don’t take this personally, but you need to take a chill pill. ICON has been working side by side with a lot of the top P-Reps for years. My team as an example talks with ICONLOOP and ICON Foundation staff on a daily/weekly basis. There is not an US vs them problem here. P-Reps do not have the voting power to overrule ICON.

#70

Anyway, I hope the meeting is going well and I look forward to watching it in the morning. Sadly I couldn’t get my evening family plans finished in time to attend. With a bit more notice I can attend the next one, even if it’s again held in the early hours of Saturday morning.

Looking forward to the second meeting today.

#71

We are not stressed at all here. Currently in the PREP meeting, are you here?

#72

Please stop trolling. My points above still stand.

The meeting is scheduled to start in the middle of the night/early morning for me. I rushed to make it but sadly fell 30m short of attending.

As Min Kim said: 'He can’t meet on weekends because family comes first". Last night was valentines day and I had plans with family. Would you like to have a dig at Min too while you are at it?

I’m not sure what your agenda is but you again are stating absolute nonsense. I wrote yesterday that I’m in favour of completely resetting my teams vote total ie gutting my current funding level.

I’ve saved the ICON Foundation tens of thousands of dollars by maintaining social media channels and directing technical support for ICONists for free. I’ve added countless value to our network at the expense of mine and my families time. I’ve been volunteering for years in our community.

Your assumption that greed is my motivator is extremely disrespectful and not appreciated at all.

#73

Icon4Education wants what is best for Icon.

#74

@Icon4Education

This is an open space for discussions, your team should able to receive criticism without feeling like your being silenced or like a victim.

If we want to improve we should leave personals feelings aside and just focus on what is best for the ICON Ecosystem.

2 Likes
#75

Good point, we just want what is best for Icon and truly believe in lowering inflation (IREP) is what is best.

Thanks for the feedback.

1 Like
#76

As do we all. I respect that you feel lowering block rewards would be best for the long term health of our network. I’m glad for every single P-Rep and that we have so many different views/opinions to consider. That makes us stronger :fist:Onwards and upwards!

Looking forward to our P-Rep meeting later today.

#77

Sounds good, our team will only be attending the Icon led PREP meetings but enjoy and thanks for respecting our viewpoint on lowering inflation. I think your team will have a different viewpoint after watching the PREP meeting on a recording as I believe many more PREPS are on board with lowering IREP. I’m just happy our team was able to be a part of it and politely listened to our views for less prep rewards (low inflation). We were respected as if we were a top 22 team and have so much respect for how the way Min ran the meeting.

We will stop posting as much about lowering IREP as we are confident it will happen (not every team at once but a trickling effect) after this meeting.

Ubik has now lowered irep and now this… progress:))))

#78

I was really pleased to hear from Russell and a few others that lower ranked P-Reps are comfortable with I_Rep lowering. This was always my number 1 concern (crippling their budgets), and now that’s not an issue we too are discussing lowering it and by how much. I voted yes to lower it myself in our interteam discussions (don’t feel it’s right to share any other comments from my team mates until they are decided).

For us the difference is just a little less funding into our future development & marketing repositories, no headache at all.

I still don’t think the level of inflation we have now is a concern. I believe the funds generated create more value for the ecosystem than they take out. Staking returns in terms of real yield (returns minus inflation) is almost at 10% so all of us staking are coming out far ahead of inflation.

Having said that our ethos at ICONation is to take into consideration what all 5 of us think as well as the community, and we weigh the community vote stronger than our individual votes. :fist:

1 Like
#79

I think it was actually just Icon4Education and Reliant that explicitly supported it (from lower ranked P-Reps).

1 Like
#80

Awesome! That is very nice to hear:)

#81

I don’t think there was anything wrong with the example Scott, twas a fine illustration. Teams all had to have some point to base their budgeting plans off though, thus naturally that was used. It would have factored into how many staff they thought they could support, what their asperations would be etc (you obviously get this, I’m just writing that for other readers).

I’m glad we all finally got together to meet and could clarify that lowering I_rep was comfortable for the mid-lower P-Rep teams. Prior to that everything felt rather unknown and uncertain.

1 Like