[POLL] Should we have a vote for a potential supply curve change?

As long as we don’t know the date of voting (if any?) - I dont think its right to set a cutoff date.
By cutting off, say, 15 march means all newcomers aren’t allowed to have their opinion accounted for. What if the voting will be held in 1st june? Should we alienate all newcomers from march to june?

Those who hold a lot of nim should iheritantly be interested for the project to go in a sustainable and healthy way, otherwise their holding value is put at risk. Is it a bad thing?

Also, it was asked earlier - does voting have to be on-chain? If yes, does it have to be on NIM chain?

1 Like

Also, a quick note. If the supply change would be done before POS rollout that means the reward/emission will affect miners. Since emission drops while costs (electricity) is same, potentially many miners might opt out, making a big hashrate drop & netowrk much less secure.

In my opinion, both early adopters and newcomers truly interested in supporting the project long-term should be holding the coin, which renders unnecessary the need to take into consideration account longevity, also if account longevity and balance were to be taken into account, also price should be considered. Let’s say a newcomer buys at once the same amount of coins than an early adopter, that not necessarily means that one of them is more interested in the project success than the other, and the price at which they cold have bought could have been different too. We don’t have to go down the rabbit hole since the price evolution and the market makes that the current balance reflects the level of commitment that a person has for the project. Also making any other kind of distinction favoring one group over those holding the coin defeats the purpose of supporting longterm the project by holding the coin. …I hope all that makes sense :wink:

Good point on the cutoff date. We could do something relative to the vote date, but that would still allow for some people to create accounts early.

I’ve never agreed with the opinion that the more NIM one holds the more interested in the project having a healthy life they are. If anything given current crypto antics, some of the people with big bags are specifically waiting to make some big gain and then dump. Or worse, they’re using their big bags to trade the ups and downs which only makes the price more inconsistent.

Even if we assume all big holders are good actors, it still doesn’t mean they care more about the project’s future than a smaller holder. It heavily favors those with more NIM, which boils down to favoring the wealthy. So imo it’s a bad thing due to the fact that they don’t inherently have best interests in mind and the fact that they don’t inherently care more than smaller holders.

1 Like

But your whole post is built on the fact that “balance reflects level of commitment” which I think is fundamentally wrong. As I described above, not all big holders have best interests in mind and even if they do, they aren’t inherently more committed / want a sustainable future than a small holder.

Also, I like you bringing back up the question of whether to vote on chain or not. And even then, which chain to use.

I still think using an ETH contract to store signed votes would make a lot of sense to tally votes, regardless of how they’re weighed. I would consider making such a system if it was wanted for this voting.

But with that said, imo there’s still the question of whether there will even be a vote.
Sounds to me like it’ll be AMA followed by Team Nimiq making some decision.

1 Like

I see your point, but for that to happen the price would need to go up first, and that might be a mesure of success of the project. Account longevity doesn’t necessarily tell us either whether the account’s owner is waiting to make a big gain to then quit supporting the project.

Agreed that price would need to go up first for them to ditch their bags, but the fact that some might be waiting to do that means that they’re not inherently more interested in the projects success than those with less holdings.

And yes, account longevity doesn’t tell us whether they’re waiting to dump or not, but that’s not what were trying to find out. That was just an example of one of the many reasons “holding more” doesn’t inherently make you a bigger supporter than someone “holding less”.

What account longevity does is give us an idea of how long the voter has participated in the Nimiq ecosystem, regardless of how much they have. Now Rob’s idea of people loaning / renting their older accounts out would be a big issue, but all systems have flaws and imo multiplying account age by balance would reduce the incentive to buy an old account (not completely but it’d help manage the issue a bit and let balance still be a factor).

I think trying to use some parameters other than the current balance to draw a line between those voters that support the project and those that not is pointless without something like KYC, to avoid people voting multiple times, and long term HTLCs, which obviously reflects the long term commitment to the project, but I’m not sure whether supporters would want to go trough all that. The other option is just to asume that the current balance, given the market evolution, reflects the level of commitment to the project :crossed_fingers:

I see nothing wrong with a smidge of KYC. We could mess with signing message containing an account name (TG, Discord, Reddit, whatever) to prevent people voting multiple times. Maybe vote weight by number of accounts related to your address and some way to filter out fake accounts.

I’m confused by your last sentence. You’re saying to vote with price as it reflects commitment? Or are you saying stick to balance as it reflects commitment?

Either way I think it’s less about commitment and more about preventing manipulation. Some system that could accomplish this would be neat, but again I think we should discuss the fact that no vote may even be held the way things are looking.

@Chugwig, I meant balance instead of price, thanks. Just edited my comment to fix it.

If we do HTLCs for voting, maybe that would be enough, and some form of KYC won’t be needed. Maybe the longer the time of the HTLC the more weight the vote could have. Although it would be a race to see who can lock up the most balance :thinking:

I think Chugwig’s idea of combining balance-weighted voting with a multiplier for account age solves the problem of fairness for both newcomers and long-term supporters.

A vote based only on account age has the flaw of excluding new community members if there is a cut-off date, or opening the door to vote manipulation if there is not a cut-off date. A second flaw is that if someone wants maximum voting power, they will have to combine NIM balances into their oldest account. This could leave an on-chain trail linking many financial transactions to one person. Lastly, a vote based on account age opens the door to old accounts being offered for sale, although the incredible amount of risk involved in sending NIM to an unsecure account will probably deter most people from doing this.

A vote based only on account balance has the flaw of valuing wealthier community members over others. A second flaw is that it disproportionally favors newcomers. Consider that the amount of NIM someone can buy for $500 right now would have cost them $50,000 three years ago. A person who only heard of Nimiq yesterday will be given 100x the voting power of some of the project’s early investors/supporters/developers.

A vote that combines account age and balance is inclusive of both sides of the equation. New community members will have an opportunity to vote, long-term community members won’t be at a disadvantage because of NIM’s currently low price. To me this seems like the best option so far.

1 Like

We’ll also have to set all those parameters that need to be considered, like the cut-off date and multiplier, and there is no way to agree on those than voting. Eventually even there could be multiple forks of Nimiq 2.0, with only those with the most amount of balance locked by the validators surviving the initial stage, all that could be solved by voting with HTLCs.

I’m a bit confused on how this HTLC voting process would work. When you create an HTLC can you include any more data, I was under the impression most of the extra data of the tx is used to specify contract creation information. So how would that HTLC be associated with a vote?

I’m also not following your point on forks. They could arise no matter how we vote (or not) and there’s nothing inherently wrong with a fork.

The vote would be cast with a different transaction than the one with the HTLC. The point for locking all those NIM in HTLCs, is that there will be no way to sell from one fork to buy into another one or to cash out, in short the alternative with the most amount of NIM locked in HTLCs would survive the transition to Nimiq 2.0. But maybe is just me being paranoid, with the pandemia and all that stuff, lol.