Seesameseed's seed rewards question (vote purchase?)

Is seesameseed’s seed reward only given to those who voted for seesameseed? Or is it given to the whole?
Otherwise, will the seed reward be given as much as the profit of the voted seesameseed?

As a person who believes that iKON is a fundamental coin
I’m worried about p-rep’s vote purchase

1 Like

Yes you have to vote for sesameseed to get seed just like when you vote for any other P rep to get ICX

Personally I don’t see it as vote buying at all but as another option
From what I understood the seed token encompass value of different dpos network tokens (harmony, TRON and now ICX and later ethereum )
If you believe in ICX and want to have exposure to other dpos tokens its a great way of doing so by voting for sesameseed

As for the reward given when voting its a community first distribution model but as ICX is just being added it might be good to check with them directly on their telegram :

1 Like

No way. Giving rewards for votes? This is like the definition of vote buying. Neccesity is not relevant to define vote buying.

Actually, this is just the definition of staking.

You commit ICX, you earn rewards. It’s the same.

‘vote buying’ is a buzz word I’ve seen a lot amongst ICON community but not anywhere else. I think we need to take another look at these ideological commitments and see if they actually make sense, and then reassess whether this is actually bad for ICON or the ecosystem as people seem to assume it is, every time they reach for the words ‘vote buying’ without actually expanding on what that really means, and what’s bad about it.

1 Like

Most people will change their vote to sesameseed.
Wouldn’t the damage be great for p-reps who work hard? Then p-reps will be less motivated and less productive. Then other p-reps will want to get votes easily, such as by purchasing a vote. As a result, I think it is a major negative for the icon ecosystem.

Vote buying here can be referred to giving additional token as an incentive
For example here you vote for Sesameseed you get the initial amount of icx you would get from voting for any other P-Rep plus an amount of seed token coming from Sesameseed sharing a % of their comission with stakers

This problem is more pronounced on Icon as there is :

  1. A flat P rep commission rate meaning p reps cannot be competitive by adjusting their commissions rate
  2. No risk of slashing on Icon unlike most dpos meaning there is no brand recognition and Iconists take no risk in switching their votes to max their rewards as it is the case here with Sesameseed
  3. The narrative for iconist is to vote for the most contributing P reps but this introduction of economic incentives if it is generalized can jeopardize how iconists vote.

Personally I think that Sesameseed adds a lot of value to the Icon ecosystem but the problem here lies in Voters yield farming like behaviors elevating every P rep team that offer more incentive to the disadvantage of those that do not.
From P reps perspective competing by contributing was the only way in theory to get more votes until now.

Giving money for voting cannot be a competition in capitalism.
We vote for the money giver to get the money.
Then the icon will declin

I think the reality is showing anything but — Sesameseed are not soaking up all available votes and if you’ve looked at their $SEED token reward, it’s actually a flat rate of less than $150 per day amongst all stakers which actually means any additional incentive to vote for them quickly disappears as they climb the rankings.

Time may tell a different story, but so far, the only evidence available is that they are adding to the economy. “Major negative” is a dramatic overstatement of any perceived downside here.

I bought my first ever ICX because of UniFi’s involvement, and it’s because of them that I have any idea what ICON is or what it does. I intend to provide liquidity once it’s available.

For # of votes to really be a problem, there would need to be a contentious issue on which to vote. In the absence of any such context, vote buying is a sort of ‘academic problem’, in that it may potentially cause issues later if and only if there is a 50:50 issue that gets decided by someone with incentivised votes. Only then can I foresee it being a problem in any shape or form.

If my being here is a major negative in your eyes, then I’m offended. Blockchains are networks and they benefit from additional use and users. I’m not even staking my ICX — I am here for the other features that Sesameseed are bringing to the chain.

1 Like

No one is targeting you specifically @JW418 Icon wants everyone to join the network and participate in ecosystem growth
I think this is just a healthy debate around the ideology of what P reps represent, how we vote for them and how they compete within themselves
As this “economic incentive” was previously banned in the early stage of the network (more info in the governance topic).

Yes, I know that we’re all good really, I was just trying to emphasise that elevating the notion of vote buying into this unforgivable sin, hides a lot of the nuance and can hold a blockchain back from pursuing opportunity. Sesameseed’s model has been adapted specifically for the ICX community to the point where I don’t think they represent a threat of any sort. The taboo around ‘vote buying’ has led to many members of the Icon community (in Telegram) showing hostility to the SEED community members and to the Sesameseed p-rep itself, and I think they’d regret that if they took a step back and looked at it with fresh eyes.

If Sesameseed go to the #1 spot and vote us all into the gulags, I’ll feel really very silly, but until then, I’m happy to see this all work being done and these things being achieved.

1 Like