EOSCommunity.org Forums

Proposal for Eden to consider: A more broad distribution of BP pay to include standby BPs

EdenOnEOS
#1

On behalf of Brandon Lovejoy’s (@lovejoy ) first mention on a recent Cryptowriter Podcast…

The following Proposal is for Eden government to consider when it goes live:

The Problem: The parameters have been set so that BP pay drops off so suddenly after the top 21, and thus standby BP get very little funding to stay strong and build for the network.

The Proposal: I propose a more broad distribution of standby BP pay.

Notes:

  1. Keeping standby BPs around is a way that the community could fund talented teams that will develop and contribute to the community.
  2. We’ve already lost a lot of good talent, and now is the time to turn it around.

Please feel free to comment/reply so we can get something out quick when Eden goes live.

@ChrisBarnes @lukestokes

4 Likes
EOS Projects in Need of Funding
#2

I’d like to see backups provably demonstrating their infrastructure works and is ready to participate in the mainnet at any moment. I really like how Hive rotates in all the backups based on their position as a backup. I’ve been told from the beginning that EOS is too high performant for that to work, but I still think it’s important. Even if it was just one round a day or every couple days, it’s important to know if the backups being paid are ready to do their job. The days of needing BP pay to do anything useful for the community will hopefully be behind us once we have a functioning WPS system which was supposed to be part of the original EOS design with 4% inflation to benefit community projects.

6 Likes
#3

I agree, if backup BPs receive more inflation then they should also be able to demonstrate they are running real hardware. If B1 and other large stakeholders would help with voting then we could cultivate many BPs/Standbys that run good infra. The rotation of BPs could slow down performance but I think it’s a good tradeoff to make in this circumstance.

2 Likes
#4

After hearing the same about the drop in performance if a backup BP is not ready, I kept thinking is there is a way to check if they are ready producing some kind of “shadow block”, they produce the block in parallel to the active BP, but that block is only used for be checked by the other BPs and not added to the chain.

#5

Yes it’s possible for them to produce blocks that are not accepted by consensus. There is no built in mechanism to automatically verify or grade those blocks that I know of.

2 Likes
#6

I agree.

In addition, I hope there’s a mechanism that all active and standby BPs would have a responsibility to announce their infrastructures. And tell the public why it logically works.

We cannot just assume they will be better just because give them more. They may just get the money and do nothing.

1 Like
#7

I have some more thoughts about this.

The active and standby BPs are different roles in the system. The infrastructures of the active BPs must much better than the always standby BPs.

So, just give a more broad distribution cannot solve the problems. I think defining a half-active BPs rank would be better.

Assuming the top 19 to 24 are the half-active BPs. They have an income the same as the active BPs. But, they have a 1/2 possibility be selected as producing BPs per period. (Top 1 - 18 would always be the producing BPs)

There are still 21 BPs that produce blocks, but 24 BPs proved themselves can produce blocks. We don’t need all of the standby BPs to improve their infrastructure.

1 Like