I am in support of this proposal.
Reading your message above I have one concern and I would like you to comment it.
The message implies that token price will drop almost to zero if validators receive large amounts of tokens.
I kind of see two problems here.
First, history tells us it’s not true. There was only one precedent when validators received large payouts - that’s when Depool contest ended. It was in October. During that period token price went from 40 cents to above 1 dollar and stayed there for a long time.
So if we can blame someone for dumping and bringing the price down later in December, it’s not 400 validators for sure.
In fact, many validators were buying when price went below 40 cents, so they actually helped to support token price at a certain level.
Besides, token price does not depend on payouts / sell-offs only. It also depends on adoption and people believing in this project. So with all this in mind, I don’t see how we can suspect validators in dumping and devaluing the token.
Second, if TON labs really want to decrease pressure on the token price, why don’t we do a better job investigating why it went down in December and find a real reason? Total amount of token distribution to the validators was much lower compared to October, so one can analyze what else was distributed and therefore who was selling like a big fat whale.
Also, on a side note.
Validators have been waiting for almost half a year to get their rewards and they got nothing to date. I understand there must be lessons learned from paying too much too quickly to the projects that weren’t completed. But when it comes to validators, they followed the rules, they didn’t cheat, they helped testing network and finding bugs. Why don’t we pay them what they were promised and leave it to their discretion to decide whether to sell or not?
And from what I can see, most of them won’t sell because more than anybody they want this project to fly.
Please comment and thank you.
Да, 23 сентября были начисления за конкурс
Можно проверить адреса победителей на предмет продажи)
А вообще, никаких обязательств по этим токенам не было, у кого-то эти токены пошли на оплату оборудования…
Роман, а в чем проблема, что народ скидывал свои токены после конкурса? Мы о свободном рынке говорим или о регулируемом курсе? Эти идеи вообще как-то слабо вяжутся с децентрализацией, которая наше всё. Ещё раз, токены от конкурсов были проданы на свободном рынке, они же остались в экосистеме, кто-то их выкупил для своих целей и, как я понимаю, либо для дальнейшего участия в проекте, либо для спекулятивных целей. Но при этом, как первая, так и вторая цель тех людей, кто выкупил токены не противоречит развитию Фритона. Поэтому я не понимаю этих искусственных ограничений и изменения правил задним числом, чтобы повысить ценность экосистемы. Ценность любой устойчивой системы в её саморегуляции. Так, может прекратим постоянно изменять правила задним числом по проведенному конкурсу валидаторов и дадим системе найти свой внутренний консенсус без искусственного сдерживания курса?
У каждого участника могут быть свои цели участия в проекте и свои горизонты планирования. Уже было одно изменение условий выплат. Кто гарантирует, что нынешнее будет последним, что, так и будем ворошить мертвую старушку?
Для ДЦ еще рано. Чтобы она была, надо сначала вовлечь очень много людей и раздать им токены.
It is easy to manipulate with weak validator and hard with strong. Rich = strong. In every uneven situation look for beneficiary.
Против! вот таких вот принятий решений на ходу, валидаторы меньше всего заинтересованы в сливе монет, так как у большинства планы на гораздо больше чем просто слить и забыть.
Unequivocally, don’t change the rules
This proposal do not have my support!
Fully agree with that. And I don’t agree with Mitja, when he says, if you sell your crystals - you quit the community. That would mean, that if you buy crystals, you join the community. But that’s incorrect! There is no black and white here. Somebody sells it to pay for hardware, somebody pays for translations done for FreeTON in fiat… you may need fiat to be connected to the off-chain economy, which is still dominant. And playing the market also means participating in the economy. As long as they cannot buy bread for crystals but invest full time effort in that, that is absolutely legitim to sell it to finance their life, including professional part of it.
So if it was not part of the original agreement, then it just undermines trust (which is already tarnished).
Hello. The only thing that can be said for sure. Support.
- The most important is the stability of the network and its efficiency, reliability.
- Additional motivation to launch nodes from other community members. New people will appear and look at others and launch their own nodes.
- People will support the depules with their crystals.
- Reducing the number of crystals in free circulation (less supply)
I do support this proposal.
Validators must be unable to harm the network in any way, neither technical nor economical. They are too important to be allowed to break.
Right, so let’s chain them up like galley slaves.
The proposal is logical, but I will receive my crystals one year later, which means I will stake them in my depool later, which means that as a result of this change I will get less. So I like it but I’m against it.
It’s hard for me to make the right choice.
On the one hand, this gives more opportunities in the future, but it increases the risks and costs. But this is a more useful option for the network.
We can have a SMV voting. But I’m not sure if all hodlers have the right to decide what to do with the rewards for Magister Ludi.
One could hedge that risk by buying out cheap tokens from the market now to stake and selling part of the vesting tokens later for hopefully bigger price.
Magister Ludi Game Schedule Alignment Proposal II
In consideration of community feedback
Background and issue
Recently this proposal was made in the interest of aligning lock stakes with vesting periods for the benefit of keeping the Free TON network stable and profitable for everyone.
As can be witnessed from community feedback in the thread to that very proposal, the response heavily argues that this alignment would only be justifiable if the initial members also agreed to similar terms (please see thread in the link provided above).
Resolution and compromise
New validator lock stakes will be 2 years.
New validator vesting period will be 18 months (1.5 years) as of their original commitments.
Remaining Initial member vesting periods will be stretched and tempered respectively on a monthly basis for an additional 6 months as of the acceptance of this proposal beyond May, 2021, to November, 2021, making theirs also 18 months (1.5 years) long.
This places everyone on an even vesting period playing field (first and new validators), showing a commitment from all members of the community, new and old, to keep the network whole and profitable for a length of time that will inevitably ensure a sustainable value for the native token and profits to those who have laid their heart, soul and money into validating.
A compromise then? Good! I support this moving forward. In the end, we all want value for our tokens. We should reward sensible behavior, not dumping at the very first opportunity.
ничего не поменялось
нет разницы для валидаторов, ждать 2 года или 1,5 выплаты полной суммы вестинга
с ноября уже почти 3 месяца прошло
I don’t agree.
nothing has changed.
it makes no difference for validators whether to wait 2 years or 1.5 years for the full amount of the vesting
It’s been almost 3 months since November.
I support this proposal. In a young economy it is helpful to create certain crutches until such time when the economy grows up enough to withstand any attacks on its currency.
100% support. This would help Free TON stay healthy, stable, and profitable. Fair proposal for everyone.