[bisq-network/proposals] Role owners should itemize compensation on a per-role basis in monthly compensation requests (#30)
notifications at github.com
Fri Jul 13 08:31:35 UTC 2018
@HarryMacfinned, re (1), the main problem right now is not having "more nodes". We don't need dozens of seednodes, and we don't need dozens of pricenodes or btcnodes either. What we do need is for the nodes we have to be better distributed amongst trustworthy contributors. Right now, a small number of people are running most of those nodes. Fundamentally what we need are more dedicated contributors to take on these trusted roles.
Re (2), it is not obvious to me that "the number should be the same for an exactly similar task". People have different hosting costs and different estimations of the value of their own time and effort. Over time, it is reasonable to expect that compensation for multiple contributors playing the same role should converge toward the same amount, but it may never be exactly the same. This is a feature, not a bug. If the amount must be the same, then there must be some authority for role owners to appeal to in order to change that fixed amount. There is no one doing such budgeting here. There are only stakeholders voting on whether the amount requested for a given unit of work is reasonable to them. In this way, the amount that a given role is compensated can change over time in a decentralized way, as a function of what stakeholders are willing to green-light with their votes, as opposed to changing based on central planning.
Re (3), I am fine to consider risk and safety, i.e. "hazard pay" as part of "soft costs". It just serves to underscore the point above, which is that different contributors will have different estimations of what running a trusted node is worth. We should continue to let contributors ask for what they see fit, and let things get sorted out on their own through the normal voting process. And with regard to your comment that "At the moment the mood seems to be that everything is fine under the blue sky", I disagree. A very large amount of effort is going into developing processes and technology that support a scalable decentralized future for Bisq funding, governance and network operations. Everything we're doing toward this end is in anticipation of a much more adversarial future. This is made clear in the Phase Zero document. Indeed, if anything, we are putting _too much_ effort toward decentralization right now, given that our primary constraint continues to be lack of developers.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bisq-github