Mandatory Staking for Tribunal Elections

Service: Narrative

In my Community Advisory Group report, I communicated the need for staking. I believe it's the surest way to stabilize the NRVE economy. Staking can be required for a number of things, and should. I had initially conflated staking for Tribunal elections with staking for The Electorate, which is in the spec. I think there should be required staking for Tribunal members. It's a small measure, but anyone who wants to be on the Tribunal should show their commitment to the NRVE economy by proving they respect the economy enough to maintain a minimum amount of reward points in their accounts. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Original Post

Activity Stream

Every little bit counts @Garden Gnome Publications.  We won't solve the economy's problems with one big measure: it will take many smaller ones.  I think this one is a worthy arrow in our quiver.

To sequester 500,000 NRVE via this measure, each of the 15 Tribunal members would have to have 33,000 NRVE on their accounts.  That's the equivalent of two good months of earning.  Perhaps that sets the bar too high, but then again, do we want Tribunal members who have not been putting several months of effort into the platform?  Tribunal members need to understand Narrative in order to be of service, and you understand Narrative by using it...

Anyway, my aim isn't to say we should choose 33K as the threshold: it is just an example to help the conversation move along.  Perhaps it should be lower, or higher.  What do you all think?

BTW, to give this sort of measure even more legs, we could set a staking requirement for moderation too.  If we have 200 moderators, all staking 10K each, that's 2 million NRVE sequestered.  That's almost 5% of the supply in circulation.  With the Tribunal staking added, we'd be well over 5% of the supply in circulation.  Not bad at all.

@Colleen Ryer, that 25,000 is a multiplier for rewards and has nothing to do with requirements for leadership in the community governance sector. No one is required to stake at all, currently. They're simply rewarded when they do, and that hasn't been implemented yet. It's also available to all members, if I remember correctly.

I think it's a good idea to expect Tribunal members to show their faith and commitment to the community by requiring them to stake as a qualification for nomination. And I agree with @Malkazoid and @Serroc on the same qualification for moderators. I think 10,000 NRVE is a good number for moderators. I think 30,000 NRVE is a good number, minimum, for Tribunal members. Maybe that should be raised for each year they serve on the Tribunal. Add another 10,000 NRVE for each year they serve. That way, the stakes get higher for their continued service, and it contributes to the strength of the economy.   

 

Garden Gnome Publications posted:

@Colleen Ryer, that 25,000 is a multiplier for rewards and has nothing to do with requirements for leadership in the community governance sector. No one is required to stake at all, currently. They're simply rewarded when they do, and that hasn't been implemented yet. It's also available to all members, if I remember correctly.

I think it's a good idea to expect Tribunal members to show their faith and commitment to the community by requiring them to stake as a qualification for nomination. And I agree with @Malkazoid and @Serroc on the same qualification for moderators. I think 10,000 NRVE is a good number for moderators. I think 30,000 NRVE is a good number, minimum, for Tribunal members. Maybe that should be raised for each year they serve on the Tribunal. Add another 10,000 NRVE for each year they serve. That way, the stakes get higher for their continued service, and it contributes to the strength of the economy.   

 

Yes, I understand the the planned staking, not implemented yet,  isn't mandatory and isn't related to governance, You're suggesting a separate staking scheme just for potential tribunal members, and maybe moderators, then? 

10 terms is the limit for serving on the Tribunal - I suppose that's a long way to be thinking ahead on cash outs for anyone no longer interested in serving ...

Agree on staking for Tribunal candidates, with a progressive threshold.

Actually, I remember that something was already there, but I don't see it in the specs, so it seems that I'm wrong.

My only observation is that if such a requirement has to be there, it should be declared well in advance. Even if I kept all of my NRVE, part of them are now in my wallet, and I guess they can't find their way back to Narrative...

Vico Biscotti posted:

Agree on staking for Tribunal candidates, with a progressive threshold.

Actually, I remember that something was already there, but I don't see it in the specs, so it seems that I'm wrong.

My only observation is that if such a requirement has to be there, it should be declared well in advance. Even if I kept all of my NRVE, part of them are now in my wallet, and I guess they can't find their way back to Narrative...

I agree @Vico Biscotti - with the elections in about 5 months, it would be best to announce this sort of measure sometime between now and the end of the year so people can build up their balances if they need to.

Vico Biscotti posted:

 Even if I kept all of my NRVE, part of them are now in my wallet, and I guess they can't find their way back to Narrative...

I think this idea is very important. But Narrative can easily create an individual deposit address for each member where one can send the required amount of NRVE to fulfill the staking criteria. This should be no problem at all.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×