Theyre a p-rep that is building on ICON. Who cares if they are rewarding people to back them? Would you rather back a team that does nothing for ICON, and you? People crying are either teams that contribute nothing or are afraid that they will lose votes. Straight up. Its not about “being fair”, in a fair world teams making tens of thousands of dollars a month would contribute the same to the network… Sesameseed is lit and they deserve a place at the icx table. Teams that build will always flourish, if they rewarded people with a worthless token and did nothing they wouldn’t get any votes.
2 Likes
Another “out-of-the-point” argument. Did I say Sesameseed is not worth to be a P-Rep? Or did I say all P-Reps deserve to get rewards? All I am saying here is that if Sesameseed is such a great team, people would know. And they will vote for it. Sesameseed would make effort to have a good recognition among ICONists to get votes. People like you would recognize this and get the votes out from worthless P-Reps and vote for a better team. This is EXACTLY what I have been telling you, isn’t it?
Are you telling me that Sesameseed is so great team and it should be allowed to do the vote buying, so that they can be a main P-Rep fast? What’s the standard for good and bad? Is there a guideline or anything? No~~~ there is none. You are just saying Vote Buying is ok if you like the team. Such a meaningless claim. The argument here is that Sesameseed should do the things I said above to get votes just like others do, not giving out economic incentives as an easy way to earn more votes. This is what’s fair and @minhx was super clear about that. And YES, THIS IS A CONVERSATION ABOUT BEING FAIR.
There were arguments over how to define vote buying but there was NO ARGUMENT over whether vote buying is OK or not. Am I the only person who feel something is wrong? Why Sesameseed team gets free pass for vote buying and others don’t?
You seem very emotional, and thats great, maybe its an English translation problem but I never said vote buying is ok, please re-read my comment.
but let me set you straight on a few things.
1 - Sesameseed IS a great team, and people know, thats why they are getting votes. Not sure what your argument is there…
2 - I don’t think this is vote buying, you said it was, that doesnt make it so.
3 - I KNOW FOR A FACT that other teams are engaged in straight up vote-buying/reward sharing. So this isn’t a problem. You don’t seem to grasp this or even acknowledge it, maybe start there first.
4 - Who are you? You open a new account just to bash sesameseed? Very sus
Im just amazed to see your comments. Just wow.
And did I say anything bad about sesameseed in any way? I joined here to ask for fairness as a Korean fan of ICON, but people just seem to call me a buzzkill when I talk about fair game and all.
Thanks guys, you just showed me why all dpos model fails. You guys dont need to bother, this will be my last comment cuz Im selling all icx and leaving this community, have fun with vote buying.
Concern trolling 101 ladies and gentlemen.
“I’m just asking questions”
“wow”
“I’m leaving”
“Don’t bother responding”
This reply is intended to supplement the responses that were provided by @ICON_ADMIN and @BennyOptions_LL, which I fully support.
When the ICON Network began the decentralization process last year, the ideology of ICON’s governance and economic systems was pure, and arguably naive. Our hope and belief were to build a digital republic where the ICONists would actively vote based on contribution. Fast-forward to today, there are a lot of positives that I am proud of. However, I believe we are all in agreement that some areas do need improvements.
The P-Reps have been collectively improving the network by clarifying P-Rep roles and responsibilities as well as formulating the best way to incentivize and reward direct contributions. I believe we have made some great progress here. My expectation is for the CPS to drive the majority of economic incentives for contributions, not P-Rep rewards. This does not change the ideology of a digital republic and DPoC. The ICONists should continue to vote for P-Reps that align with their values (e.g. development, marketing) because their votes ultimately select P-Reps who have great influence in governing our network resources and direction.
The foundation made efforts in the past to keep the system in its purest form with the best intentions despite some setbacks. In hindsight, some matters could have been handled better, but the best path forward is to continue improving. And, we have made improvements to mitigate vote buying and other issues at the protocol level.
No, I am personally not happy about various activities related to vote buying. I understand that CPS and bond requirements do not completely eradicate this issue, but I believe we are headed in the right direction. We look forward to working together to make the ICON Network one of the most secure, self-sustaining and properly incentivized networks in the industry.
Thank you,
Min
8 Likes
Having said that, I will believe it for now.
I agree Lucas here where in a system like that would not be an issue since everyone is in an equal position to choose their % etc. Right now under current circumstances sharing extra rewards is bypassing that rule and create an issue. I will point out 2 issues there
- Even if it’s not significant for most people it’s just extra and worth to vote for it. It’s a question of base or base + extra.
- This creates a place where anyone just come up with these kinds of extra rewards and starts climbing up to become the main prep etc.
The solution is pretty simple imo the seed can be utilized without sharing seed to voters over their protocol.
Hey Emre, I generally agree with you but I don’t see a plan on how to enforce what you said at the end
I’m sure SesameSeed is aware of this as an option, but they’ve chosen to do it a different way. As we’ve said many times above, enforcing off-chain policies and policing the network isn’t something we’re interested in doing at this point because of all the reasons mentioned earlier. Do you have some other actionable next step here besides suggesting that SesameSeed change their policy?
1 Like
Metanyx choose not to list METX on ICON because of the perceived issues it might have with the community associated with vote buying. We also had our skepticisms around DPoC because as many will remember we created ICONPay with network rewards assuming we would have increase in vote, in the end this was negligible but we thank our voters who have supported us throughout and we still will deliver more to ICON with or without rewards.
For those who do not remember we were the first team to ever lower I-REP, It might not have had an effect as we were not a main prep but we believe at that time rewards were far to high and teams were not using them as they were intended. Many were upset to lower them even to 40k nevermind now as low as 10k. We also did not market it , we did it because we felt it was the right thing to do.
Prior to Sesameseed joining ICON we actually have many conversations with them joining ICON going back over 6 months, we are very happy to see them challenging the status quo where we can agree that network rewards have not been used predominantly for contribution so they might as well be used to create economic models around new native tokens. The foundation had to create Grants in conjunction with trying to lower network rewards which we would have liked to see happen earlier but it was fair to give opportunity to see if teams would use them.
The fundamental principal of Code is Law and Governance framework of ICON can be used in this case if necessary, if the main P-Reps want to have a governance vote to Disqualify Sesameseed they should propose it and vote on it otherwise accept the reality of the situation. We believe that sharing Validator Preps rewards to create an economic model for your own token is a good thing, which is why we have METX in other chains as Sesameseed does with SEED.
We fully support Sesameseed and SEED , we need more native tokens with more usage on ICON.
Metanyx Team
6 Likes
Metanyx,
We agree, you all should consider adding your coin “METX” to the ICON network. We agree with Benny and Min that moving forward this should not be policed. Sesameseed spreads their “Seed” much further than what they are currently doing on ICON on other blockchains, and hopefully, they will feel welcome to spread further on ICON if they choose to do so. Their generosity and work ethic is a welcome addition:)
We all wanted to see vote spreading for over a year and it seems Seed is leading the way of actually causing some movement. Other teams are currently allowed to follow suit if they want to offer something like “Seed.” Teams will have to be creative in filling a need as Seed has. They are offering their own token, adding Defi, and causing transactions on ICON:)
*** It is incredibly refreshing to see a team like “Sesameseed” share their vision and their own token with the community.
We have many great P-Rep teams and everyone has their own opinion, we support you Sesameseed:)
4 Likes
I believe you meant Vote Stagnancy.
They certainly are decreasing vote stagnancy right now, and it appears that the lack of incentives (or competition of reward) was one of the main factors that led to vote stagnancy.
This methodology is actually the opposite of vote spreading by the way, but with more P-Reps doing similar things, maybe this will help with vote spreading, too.
2 Likes
Yes, thanks for clarifying, this is your team’s expertise:) I assume teams that have their own token will implement something like this if they are interested. It will cause excitement and “less stagnancy,” not “vast spreading” to all teams, just to teams that are proactive in doing something similar.
I think ICONFI will cause “vast spreading” to all teams:) Very, very exciting times:)
1 Like
I think so as well. This is turning out to be something very interesting, and creating competition that may dissipate with IISS 3.0 (block production reward). It may be limited to dev teams though.
1 Like
Why do you think it could dissipate once ICON 2.0 starts? That is an interesting viewpoint and would like to know more… How much is the block reward going to change for 2.0?
I know Seed is actually giving out a lot less on ICON than they do on other chains, probably to not rock the boat too much. I think unless it is a drastic change for rewards on ICON 2.0 there should be minimal change to this possible “new strategy” for willing P-Rep teams.
1 Like
Probably best to refer to:
2 Likes
There is no way of fixing it without seed change their policy if everyone sees that as an issue. Just to point out something before with same idea ICX Australia increase very high and they still hold 700k votes. At that time voters were more active and scared of burn. We will open a gateway to preps like ICX Australia
Enforcement is dq proposal. Since it’s in the code if main presp have issue preps can vote seed of that’s simple. If main preps ok with this then there is nothing to do. Main preps are the biggest losers of this and probably lose more in the long run or they just jump into sharing reward system.I am not saying lets just dq seed out but way to enforce is vote by preps. If dq vote utilized first of all seed need to change their policy I know they don’t want that but whole issue is because of that and secondly, It will just put a line and future ones like ICX Australia etc. will not keep appearing on chain. Of course that’s considering majority of main preps having issues with it. If that’s not the case nothing to enforce.
1 Like
For those who don’t know/have the context.
Numbers above bars represent P-Rep ranking.
This is the first 80 days since they came online.
2 Likes
I don’t know how the constitution is,
Because the group divided into pros and cons, how about voting sesameseed’s problem?
Can’t we just convert icx to seed without providing seed?
Thank you for elaborating on your suggestion. I now understand that you are proposing that a P-Rep DQ proposal be used to enforce off-chain policies, such as anti-vote buying policies.
The P-Rep DQ proposal is not meant to enforce off-chain policies. Its purpose from the start has been to help the network if ICON is in a “black swan” scenario, where unforeseen circumstances force the network to remove a faulty node in order to continue steady block production and/or ensure security. I personally do not like the P-Rep DQ proposal, but it was incorporated in the design only for extreme circumstances as I described. If it becomes weaponized as you described, I would then push to remove the P-Rep DQ proposal and come up with another way to handle the aforementioned “black swan” events.