Hi everyone,
I just want to do a quick poll from the community to gauge sentiment. In my last post, I discussed briefly the idea of burning unclaimed exchange Blurt where they have not honoured the airdrop.
Since then @jacobgadikian and I have been engaged in the ION community over at Cosmos, they are discussing burning unclaimed user airdrops which account for a really high value of their total supply, this is a good move for them, their community is not a social one and is unlikely to have much public drama for such a move.
Graphene communities are very vocal and some proponents may leverage a smear campaign to discredit Blurt in some of these decisions so I would pose it to the community to decide together what is best.
Please note that the intention is to remint any burned tokens on Cosmos, part for liquidity provision on the Osmosis Dex, some to the validator set and to those users who attested their Cosmos account on Blurt as per my pinned post:
https://blurt.blog/blurt/@megadrive/cosmosdrop-attestation
The idea to lessen the impact of minting new supply on Cosmos or even Binance Smart Chain (BSC) if we go that route as well.
Please vote in the three comments below in @bitsports stake-weighted style which option you think is right for you and for the community.
Option 1: Burn unclaimed exchange stake
A napkin maths estimate tells me approx 1/5th of the Blurt total supply comprises of unclaimed exchange funds, which are essentially not contributing to the economy, trade volume nor the security of the chain as none of that stake is currently involved in governance voting.
In this option, the exchanges will be given 30 days notice to still honour the airdrop before the funds are burned and re-issued on Cosmos, BSC or other Dex.
As per recent HF, the Blurt rewards pool is responsive to the staked Blurt ratio, the exchange funds are liquid, therefore the burning thereof will cause the rewards pool to increase for curators and authors alike.
Option 2: Burn both unclaimed exchange and user stake
This option includes option 1 but also includes the burning of stake of user accounts that have not transacted even once on Blurt, in the form of votes, posts, comments, witness votes, transfers etc.
We would announce this with 30 days notice via pinned Blurt post, on our official Twitter and urge inactive users to make some sort of action on their Blurt account. We would also post on Steem and Hive and attempt to send memo's to each affected account on their corresponding Hive, Steem and Blurt accounts.
As with option 1, this would mean the rewards pool would respond positively and output more rewards, even more so than option 1.
There are some risks that users of competing blockchains will cause drama over this and paint a negative picture of Blurt.
You may have noticed recent posts from Jacob on this matter:
https://blurt.blog/blurt/@jacobgadikian/my-position-on-inactive-blurt
https://blurt.blog/blurt/@jacobgadikian/the-plan-for-inactive-blurt
Option 3: Do Nothing
This option leaves all Blurt balances unchanged, any mint on Cosmos or other platforms would increase the overall global Blurt supply. Total supply expansion or contraction however doesn't always correlate with prevailing market price, circulating supply more directly affects price, even an increase in circulating supply is not necessarily a bad thing and could stimulate much-needed trade volume.
My personal view is that none of these are a wrong choice, all have their merits and benefits. I also view the airdrop as a gift, not a right, we chose to craft the airdrop on Steem accounts and could have been selective at the start on active users or other criteria should we have wished to.
Think of the real-life analogy, a coin maker smelts a whole bunch of coins and drops them outside the homes of the people in his rural town, over a year later some people picked them up and started using them to trade and formed an economy.
Some people had left the town, died or snubbed the new currency and as such the coins were left piled outside a lot of doorsteps blocking driveways and making the town look generally untidy, what do you do? Do you leave the coins there forever or remove them?
Looking forward to your input.
Sincerely,
Ricardo Ferreira
@megadrive
Blurt Co-Founder
I need to think about this a bit more, but there are 3 issues here that need to be treated as separate - linking them can create false choices when there are also other options that may achieve the same things.
The 3 issues are the exchange accounts that have refused to airdrop to their users, other unused accounts and the new cosmos-based chain and how that affects the totality of BLURT coins.
The first issue is the easiest, in that an exchange holds coins on behalf of their clients so, if they have not honoured their distribution then those coins certainly do not belong to the exchanges. I would verify for each affected exchange their own terms and obligations regarding such airdrops from forks. As a first step, assuming no positive response, to ring-fence those tokens so that they would be transferred to a holding account. After some set period, they can either honour the distribution or such tokens will then be null and void. The issue that they may, or may not, be used on Cosmos clouds the process as no such direct transfer can actually take place - it is just a mathematical calculation to make the two chains run in almost parallel.
I have had to deal with ghost investors on some of my own tokens on steem/hive exchanges. It is annoying as they are gaining benefits, but I have also had such users reappear, sometimes many months later, to tell me they are so pleased to see their tokens still earning! So, never assume anything, even when it seems obvious.
In both situations, we at Blurt have no terms and conditions that justify these actions. Hence, I would create the terms first, inform all parties and then implement whatever those terms say and within the time frames established. Exchanges themselves can be brutal and uncaring - that doesn't mean we have to tit-for-tat - but their brutal and uncaring attitude is backed up by their terms. Few people bother reading them till it's too late. In our case, we need to write them first.
One last thing; the fork was from Steem, not Hive, hence if users are to be informed they should be on Steem ;-) They will see it, eventually. This is a Paying Attention Economy :-)
Hey @rycharde, I love the ringfencing idea, so 30 days notice would be given that funds will be ringfenced for a further 60 days pending burn unless they contact us by making a memo to the ringfence account requesting funds back. I suggest the ringfenced account have nulled keys and amounts only adjusted via hard fork.
I do feel we would cover our bases by sending memos on Hive as well, some people left Steem and consider Hive as their change of address, so couldn't hurt to message them there too, althought more toxic people may see it.
How many accounts are we talking about? The nulled keys idea means we could be looking at many small HFs all in a row. I can see the reasons, I just wonder about the down-sides.
We would do what hive did, accumulate the accounts that need to be restored and perform an HF for all a few months later, remember our witnesses can do an HF quick and moving balances is not a huge dev task.
Vote for option 2 - Burn both unclaimed exchange and user stake
I am in favor of this option because I do not see any difference between user and exchange in this case. Anyone who has not shown interest in the platform until now (more than a year) has forfeited his right for the airdrop distributed at that time. Of course, there is then again complaining on the other platforms, but there would already be if it would only affect the exchanges, because one thing should be clear, complaining is always.
Yes true "complaining is always" I agree :)
it's 100% right decision, everyone should vote for this. very soon we will see, we are on the moon. WE ARE BLURT.
Sometimes it is fun to think about those rags to riches stories of people who discover stocks after a lengthy time and make good on shares their grandparents purchased. I don’t think that is the point of crypto (or society) in general though. To me we are building something new that can hopefully help many people. It is the daily interactions and transactions that are making the most value for the system imho. I don’t think of it exactly like a business but our group efforts are building something for everyone. As such I don’t think these efforts should benefit so much those parties who are not directly involved any longer.
I think having large inactive exchange accounts is a liability on a new Cosmos system which could be focused more on decentralized trading. Having inactive user accounts also prevents the system from being used as well as it could be for distributing funds to active users. I don’t think we have really seen how well these types of systems could work because all the present versions of Graphene based chains seem to suffer from some degree of this. (Inactive accounts and ninja mined stake, come to mind.)
I think it is a good move to burn both unclaimed exchange and user stake although it might not be popular with some people. This is a new situation and does not fit so well with the old ways of thinking. (It seems sort of like a move from a corporation type structure that pays mostly inactive shareholders to a user owned business type structure that pays mostly active employees.)
I’m confused by this statement:
Are you intending to burn tokens from inactive user accounts on Blurt and remint those burned tokens on Cosmos? Under who’s control would these remint tokens go? Wouldn’t that debase that chain and cause a similar issue to what we are experiencing in Blurt now?
I would tend to think that leaving Blurt operating exactly as is now but only giving active user accounts new tokens on Cosmos could also work. Perhaps an option to burn tokens on Blurt by sending them to @null and getting new tokens issued on Cosmos could also be setup.
Whatever is done should be made clear enough so that everyone knows where, when and how funds are being altered.
Yes correct whatever is going to be burned on Blurt will be sent to null or simply wiped to zero, devs will advise how that will work in practice in the HF.
Those funds that were nulled will then be reissued on Cosmos as liquidity pool incentives, airdrop to users that attested their Cosmos account (see my previous posts) and to the validators of the Cosmos chain as a startup stake which will be required to launch the chain.
Cosmos Blurt will exist in parallell to Graphene Blurt, but for a while will not have a rewards pool, it will be for the purposes of Dex liquidity, think of it as a Cosmos wrapped Blurt equivalant, but on Cosmos there are no tokens only interconnected chains, so it will be a native Cosmos chain.
Thank you for the reply that makes things a lot clearer for me.
I'm actually warming up to this one, my vote was initially for option 1 but after some thought, it feels like a fresh reboot of the Blurt blockchain, improves the reward pool output, keeps total supply down as we mint new Blurt on other platforms and also gives the flexibility to increase overall inflation to be greater than 9.5% if needed since the total supply is reduced.
But lets say there is 1 percent as a Streamer i call it Lurker, its a User which have his own POWER and watch all night long my stream without saying anything or doin anything ... but he / she watches all night the stream , but now i get a step forward and bann all INACTIVE Accounts because i call em bots would it be fair for this LURKER then ???
No thats why i think its okay to touch the never touched STAKE instead of deleting accounts because if someone didnt used it so far doesnt mean they maybe dropped it there as a PLAN "B" Investment or watching time by time what happens to the chaain without being ACTIVE in a way of using votes or doin their own posts.....
It would no be fair to delete their money( TOKEN ) and as you say it could really start a BULLSHIT WAVE to Blurt which it not deserve!
I never got an AIRDROP Payout of Blurt i was a late Starter , i like the idea of reburning this airdrops which never been used ... Thats why i went with OPTION 1
I think this option is the best as it will decrease the total supply and also increase the reward pool as well. So will there be a 30 day notice for the users as well before burning their coins?
Yes correct, 30 day notice will be made public and memo's sent on Hive, Blurt and Steem.
Please I don't really understand this, hope this won't affect the newbies. I haven't fully understand this blurt.
I try to read and grab something but I'm seeing different opinions..
I'm completely lost 😭
No worries, newbies will not be affected, they will actually benefit from increased rewards when a lot of liquid tokens are taken out of circulation and burned; the rewards pool will then respond positively.
I am fully in support of this position. Come to think of it, many users here are contributing vastly to the blurt community through different activities but 1/5th of total blurt supply is just lying dormant on exchanges. This is not making any sense to me at all.
As for dormant accounts, there is every chance that these users are no longer into blurt and may have even lost their accounts and moved on. So it is logically correct to burn this coins although there is a little risk of burning accounts of HODL investors
But please how exactly can I vote? @megadrive
Just vote for the comment that this was a reply to.
Vote the very top comment starting with Vote for option 2
For me, this is the best option and the one I would support 1000%.
This is the most coherent option, it is necessary to make adjustments and, above all, to make decisions that can drive a better growth not only of the price but also of the platform.
I have voted the vote option 2. To me, it is better option.
100%
I vote for option 2
Burn it all ….
Pyromaniac lol :)
VOTE FOR OPTION 2
The option two is my choice.
I vote for this option (2).
I express my opinion from @jacobgadikian post, unclaimed exchange and user stake must burn.
This is the best approach to support the future of blurt.
I also think option 2 is the best choice.
Vote for option 2
I'll go for this option because you ain't making any use of Blurt why you're having it. A bit risky but 'no risk no gain'.
I vote for this option 2.
I'm going with gut feel on this one. I wanted to go with do nothing, but didn't feel right. I wanted to go with option 1, but then it wouldn't be fair with the active Blurt accounts.
Option 2 felt just right for me.
Option 2: Burn both unclaimed exchange and user stake
As long as those who have been active on Blurt are not impacted just because they do not get the word within 30days are not affected. Not everyone has the time to spend on the Blurt Discord Channel or searching for changes.
Personally this whole COSMOS change over has left me confused. I know i sent a cosmos address to @cosmosdrop 2 months ago, but I have no clue where I got the address. I did not have a KEPLR account until today (as far as I can recall).
I talked to @jacobgadikian about this, same question as I had another wallet to start with and did the cosmos address from that one. I since got keplr, I was advised to just do it again. Wouldn't hurt at least.
I appreciate the info
I think make a new transfer to cosmosdrop with new address to be safe.
Thank you, will do.
How about rather than burning it all it is given as a bonus airdrop to everyone who is using Blurt…. 100,000 Blurt Power for everyone who has posted once a day ? Or deposited to a Curation Account ? How much is there ?
I like this Option too
Great idea. 👍
The burning was in context to minting new supply on Cosmos, not everyone has attested their Cosmos account so can only airdrop on those who have, some is also needed for starting a liquidity pool on Osmosis and for initial validator reward.
Vote for option 1 - Burn only unclaimed exchange stake
I support this option . Exchanges had long enough time. Burning also user stakes seems 4 me a little bit 2 risky
I think this is the one and only right decision , because we touch UNCLAIMED Token, what we touch a TOKEN of someone whos maybe only a lurker over time , but he / she dont use the page as we think it should be !?! it wouldnt be right to take them the tokens away... i know there is still a leftover of loads of unused token so far ... but the risk to burn some of maybe rejoiners or anything like that is too high as i want to touch it...
In the option of Burning never touched Exchange stake is not that risky in my opinion...
All valid concerns, thanks for voicing your thoughts. I don't think there is a wrong answer here, just degrees of risk, but in time the market forgets and moves on anyway.
I think as well there is no WRONG Answer, but there are risks which are logic and some which maybe start a wave we dont deserve over here. I see Blurt on an amazing step forwards , and i want to go this way together :)
Looking forward to taking the journey with you!
I am voting for option one. Say I am someone who is a HODLer and not so active in the community or a lurker it would not be fair to nuke their claims as staking was a form of accepting their airdrop. Less controversy is good for the community in the long run also.
Consider lurkers could make a brief transaction or vote when they see the annoucement, all announcements will be featured on Blurt.blog prominently.
Yes I also read what you said about there was actually no action of them actually staking. But I personally feel this is more risk and more targeted at an individual it just takes one wrong person with the right mouth piece to cause a PR problem for BLURT.
I'm not very competent, but I would still choose this option. In the post you talk about Binance Smart Chain, if BLURT goes short on the Binance Smart Chain it could become one of the first social networks of Binance Smart Chain. if it were possible it would be a move that would totally change the scenario and I think it would be beneficial for BLURT himself
I Support this one, seems perfect fit to me.
Please cast your vote on your preferred comment, comments don't count.
I support it. Because for these coins the blurt shows a high supply but these are never useful.
Please cast your vote on one of the comments
I go option 1 as if it is staked they did use it once and I would be cross if I had staked some tokens and they were burnt as by staking I took ownership.
To clarify the inactive user stake we are referring to was cloned over from Steem and never actually had any action on the Blurt blockchain. Blurt is a direct clone of Steem with modifications.
oh i see then that is different lol
Burn it!!!
Best decision ever!
I am getting my node back up in September
Look forward to having you back!
Option 1: Burn unclaimed exchange stake
Using the DAO to do the actual voting would be a better use, since it keeps track of actual stake weigh vote.
That's actually a good idea, the comments also keep track of the stake-weighted vote, the idea was for everyone to vote the comment they preferred. We stripped out the DAO options on the UI and would have to put them back in, the DAO was abused on Hive and Steem so we prefer if projects make an application for funding to the foundation and such funding would be given on completed milestone and open source code. I think comments work quite easily and are probably more accessible to the general user.
DAO can be used for any type of voting which I think is the better way to do it. Just direct 0.001 payment to null each hour on the "proposals" and see which one is the most supported. Only problem I see with these "comment" type votes is with delegations and VP affecting and not giving a real stake weight measure of what the stake wants to do. They do allow discussions though, and all proposals need a post associated with them, so it's perfect since the post can host the discussion.
Adding it back in might take time and resources(congrats on getting the image server back, what's the next focus?) but should be worth it. Lots of features are on the graphene chains and not all of them have a good interface to use them.
Good point regarding delegations skewing the results and sure we can look into adding back the proposals system to the UI for voting purposes, we still have a few more fixes we want to do the Condenser and the Wallet and will look at this thereafter.
Thanks again.
Loving that community feedback is being taken. Excited to see whats in store for Blurt, and it seems bright.
You have taken right decision. The users have a lot of blurt in power or in exchanged which is idle for a long time should be burned. If so the total supply of blurt will decrease. Then to maintain enough suppliance, perhaps you have to increase reward on blurt blogging platform. Anyway it is a good decidion to be integrated with cosmos. Best wishes for you @megadrive and also blurt.
Yes we will increase the supply elsewhere, Cosmos, BSC or if not then we can take a witness decision to increase inflation rewards on the native chain.
Option 2: Burn both unclaimed exchange and user stake
It would be the best decision and push the blurt price to get attention to others exchanges and inactive users.
Wow. I should be on this for blurt platform. I'm back fully on blurt.
Welcome back!
Thanks so much ❤️❤️. Thanks for showing me love everytime.
Vote for option 2 - Burn both unclaimed exchange and user stake
Vote for option 3 - Don't burn anything, rather mint only new supply on other liquidity platforms.
Until Notestein v. Bittrex gets a conclusion, it might be best to do nothing.
Might never have a conclusion :)
There was an update a little over a month ago, I'm watching it, first of its type in crypto.
Do you have a good site with free docs? I see most legal sites have most of the docs on a pay per view. Thx
PACER waives quarterly fees if under $30. That should be enough to view all documents and save them. https://ecf.vawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?119172
Thanks, yeah was PACER - other legal sites use the same system.
lol this option is getting no love so far.
Lol.
Congratulations, your post has been curated by @dsc-r2cornell. You can use the tag #R2cornell. Also, find us on Discord
Felicitaciones, su publicación ha sido votada por @ dsc-r2cornell. Puedes usar el tag #R2cornell. También, nos puedes encontrar en Discord
It's 100% right decision. I think option 2 is the best.
If having the funds liquid is the problem: Could we move the the funds into SAVINGS accounts instead of burning them?
Then no one can say we burned their tokens.
i am suport no2.