BOB redesign for fair token launch

General
1

I’d like to hear some thoughts on how $BOB could be modified to make it a better tool for fair token distribution. The problem with traditional proof-of-work is that it always favors large miners with deep pockets, and extracts value from small miners.

But if we set the block time to automatically adjust as the total number of miners grows, we allow everyone to get at least a small reward on a regular basis. For example, if we use the configuration below:

Block time (sec) = 86400 / TotalMiners

Block Reward ($BOB) = FixedDailyReward / TotalMiners

*** NOTE: 86400 is the number of seconds in a day.

Then every miner could expect to mine a block each day or so, but the reward would decrease as more miners joined the network. This gives everyone a reason to mine, while also allowing whales to load up on miners to earn a bigger return.

This approach incentivizes everyone to mine, and to get in as early as possible. At each halving, the “Fixed Daily Reward” would be cut in half, and the tokenomics of PoW would be preserved.

What are your thoughts?

1 Like
2

bob.fun is a non-open source project, and you can contact authors to provide feedback on your ideas, but the community cannot force authors to make changes

1 Like
3

I agree, I’m not asking for the community to force any changes on the BOB project, and I know that the project is closed source. However, BOB is a pertinent topic since it has a large impact on cycle burn, and can influence the reputation of the ICP blockchain. It would also be great to hear from BOB project members themselves here on the DFinity forum.

So to clarify, fair token launches are a topic that is pertinent to many future ICP projects, and I’m simply asking anyone interested in this topic to share their thoughts on what might make a BOB-type token launch more fair and engaging to its community.

3 Likes
4

What is the incentive to put in a bunch of capital if it has no advantage to do so? Are you wanting folks to just get something even if it is proportional to what they take in? I think that is basically what @senior.joinu and MSQ are doing with burn.msq.tech

3 Likes
5

I think a bob-style distribution mechanic can definitely be pretty good for a fair launch.
Though I think a short block time (like 30 seconds or so), capped miner hashrate, and flatter emission curve while still keeping standard PoW style payouts would be the best. Every miner has the same chance of hitting a block, whale can just spin up more miners.
As opposed to bob where people who were early and knew how to use ICP were increasing their hashrate long before anyone else was able to and where the reward selection mechanism is arbitrary at best and rigged at worst.

2 Likes
6

Great questions, and thanks for posing the analogy to MSQ. I think you hit the nail in the head, I am thinking primarily of fair token distribution; which is admittedly different from PoW mining. If the goal is to release a token in an interactive way to the broadest audience possible, then ensuring everyone gets something in proportion to their investment is important. But it does take away from the winner-take-all dynamics of PoW; which may disincentivize whales from investing. But that could also be beneficial because it can attract larger numbers of individuals.

1 Like
7

I see, so you support the classic PoW mechanics as long as everyone competes on the same playing field. I understand why this is effective for securing a blockchain like Bitcoin, but I worry that as a fair token distribution mechanism it favors large miners, and extracts value from small miners. Eventually small miners will leave (though they could move to purchasing the token on an exchange).

8

The way we burn cycles seems to be key here. We’ve already burned cycles by utilizing computation resources (with BOB.fun). This probably resulted in some bugs being fixed and optimizations applied to make the IC compute faster.
How about burning cycles by loading the messaging system? or the storage system? or DeFi. Anything that looks like a bottleneck.
The messaging system needs to get as fast as possible IMO, and should be a priority.
In a way, these token launches focus on optimizing the IC and contribute to improving something specific (the thing that burns the cycles), while getting a token in return. This incentivizes people to burn because they aren’t just throwing cycles away, they are improving the IC.

1 Like
9

I dont think there’s a way to not favor large miners. The MSQ burn token is pretty good for small miners since the payouts are guaranteed, but even it heavily favors burning significant amounts of ICP to mine. Which is how it should work, the more you put in the more you should get.

As a matter of token distribution, as long as the emission curve is flat enough so that early miners dont get a huge head-start, any distribution mechanism is better than the previous paradigm of fair launches (that being to just burn tokens into the liquidity pool) imo.

In response to @infu, I agree that burning ICP through useful computation is far more ideal. Devs should target parts of the IC that need more resources and build a token that is rewarded to people that provide said resources. It will burn less cycles but will provide utility and if enough of those projects exist then the burnrate will still grow.

2 Likes
10

That’s a very challenging task, @EpicICP considering the inequality that exists. How everyone can benefit of a fair share of the new tech innovations enabled by IC dfinity team regardless of their wealth, status or geography!

I’m thinking how to unify the IC ecosystem (not create divisions, or canibalism) and at the same time join you in the cause for a fair distribution of new value-driven tokens.

While the devs need resources, the available funds don’t necessarily go towards the best innovations that push the boundaries towards IC vision of being the world computer offering useful and efficient service to humanity.

How can the devs needs be met on timely manner based on the evidence strength that their value proposition to the market is unmatchable, desirable and guided by the IC vision and values?!

If they don’t pass the validity test by community, they should be let go and not further waste scarce funds that are easily to fly to other projects with higher value proposition.

Certain projects have up to 4 year locks in staking periods while they are still in exploration mode!! Many new investors, including myself, without experience in VC funding in rounds process, simply trusting dfinity quality brand and team, lock funds in those projects, and sooner or later they get disappointed and can’t even get out of them. Here are the needed funds locked. I’m new too in this arena and keep learning every day, especially from my burns/setbacks :).

Agree about your point that IC reputation/credibility is on line when new projects enter the ecosystem without transparency and proper guidelines on risk-taking.

In terms of fair token launch, at the moment while read the thread, first I thought about a donation- based distribution system based on the needs of the ecosystem for growth funding!!

Each donnor gets rewarded proportionally new tokens based on their donations. However, then the question is how the new token offers a better value to hold for a longer term in addition to being rewarded for doing good!

Since the investors/community members seem to favor burning to donation, how can we design and build a system that “burns” ICP and issues new value-driven tokens and/or dynamic programmable nfts that grow and mature in value as the ecosystem keeps growing! How can we also make the investor/community member connection with the dev teams more direct, so each side can more appreciate each-other’s experiences, needs and aspirations, and why not to look for forging long term-relationships!

Humbly and honestly, as a small investor myself,
I believe the resilient dfinity team (unstoppable from unfairly treatment of the market and media) is also learning from the experiences and finding better ways for creating conditions for all dev teams to enjoy and thrive within IC ecosystem as well as provide the best value for the communities globally.

I believe faireness is better perceived when one has a bigger picture of how the ecosystem works and where value is created or lost!

How can we offer better visibility, transparency, accessibility to all projects and teams in the ecosystem and explain the risk and the value in their language? All in one-stop shop experience!

This is part of strengthening the IC brand first and building trust. (I’ve to do more reasearch on IC vision and values)

Grateful to have joined the ICP journey for the long term.

PS: I don’t have the whole picture and my perceptions might not be correct. Happy to learn more from you all in the forum, and contribute in the discussion.

Very best!

2 Likes