Proposal to replace Quadratic Rewards with Linear Rewards like it was the past few weeks and how it was on testnet. We keep Quadratic Voting for the DAO purpose, but I can’t find a single argument why Quadratic Rewards should stay.
It will, and always will be, a reason for people to try to game the system for easy money.
If possible - this proposal should be effective immediately to not reward the sybil attacker with 2 free weeks of B3TR Rewards.
Under QR approach, the rewards a user receives will be determined by the square root of their VOT3 token holdings. This method ensures that while users with more tokens still receive higher rewards, the rate of increase in rewards does not grow linearly with the number of tokens held. Instead, it rises at a decreasing rate, promoting a fairer distribution of rewards and helping to close the wealth gap within our community.
I find this a valid argument.
But I hear you as well there will be much lower rewards paid out with increasing amount of voting power compared to the linear model.
I like the idea behind it, but there is two big issues:
The above was commented on my X post and I think it really shows the essence.
I think this is very short term thinking. Linear in weekly distribution setting creates eco-chamber. Rich get richer passively. Early joiners accumulate too much power. Plus, it does not align with VeBetter DAO mission of inclusivity.
Remember, weekly voting rewards are extra incentive for active engagement in apps and dao allocation decision making and not a investment vehicle, so i really don’t buy retail investor arguments.
As mentioned in WP, DAO Treasury will launch products for long term holder incentives such as GM and staking at a later time.
We should rather focus our efforts on finding appropriate VePassport parameters that strengthen the ecosystem. This is the intent behind building passport system so we can fine-tune the approach.
Especially on 2 fronts:
Appropriate threshold/passport score settings. security scores for apps, minimum action threshold to qualify etc.
Also agreeing on a operational mechanism of potentially weekly blacklist criteria. monitoring, detection and reporting tools can be used to arrive a balance approach here. But the criteria will need to be a consensus among community first.
I think such ideas are being discussed in other thread.
Yes I would support such a proposal and was also thinking along these lines. We all know what attracts attention in crypto is when token price rises. Attention is what we need right now to attract users. To get institutions on board they will want to know how many people are using it. Linear rewards offers more incentive to invest in B3TR which will drive the price up.
The sybil attack issue is also really bad publicity, to people who dont know what a sybil attack is, if they see this language associated with vechain they may just jump to a conclusion that vechain and vebetterdao is not safe therefore deemed high risk.
Another idea could also be to cap the rewards at a certain limit, for example the highest reward you can get for voting is 2000 B3TR no matter how much you own (or whatever value is deemed appropriate) but up to that point it’s linear.
Although I don’t know how that limit would be agreed and I suppose as more and more users sign up the limit becomes more and more irrelevant as it’s unobtainable
The core issue remains largely the same if rewards are capped at a maximum of 2000 B3TR; in this case, users would split their wallets once they approach this threshold. Human nature tends toward greed. Therefore, the quadratic formula should not be hastily discarded simply because a few individuals seek to exploit it.
In my view, the VePass offers many potential avenues, including the possibility of a blacklist, as outlined in the documentation. Additionally, a scoring system could be implemented that evaluates specific interactions. For example, a user who utilizes the VBD or Vedelegate portal could earn positive points, as could those who claim rewards and vote through the portal. Conversely, actions executed through a script would incur negative points.
New wallets could automatically receive a point deduction, as could transfers of VOT3/B3TR from other wallets. Any withdrawal, regardless of the amount, could result in a significant negative score. In this way, the collection of rewards could be regulated, indirectly affecting market prices if these assets are sold.
An honest user, in my opinion, would never face issues under this system, whereas farmers, to achieve the required score, would have to perform numerous actions, involving either significant financial outlay or a considerable time investment.