Jump to content

Proposal to Ripple: Reward Validators


Recommended Posts

Since one of the most fundamental points of criticism concerns the XRP distribution in favour of Ripple (and its founders), I would like to put forward the proposal that Ripple with its XRP creates a clear incentive for the operators of validators to pay them continuously for their operation and thus promote a fairer distribution of XRP.

In this respect, a remuneration based on a continuing consensus of the respective validator and a classification of the degree of validation would be conceivable. This means that the higher the general agreement with the overall network and the more verified the validator is, the higher the (ongoing) reward could be.

@JoelKatz, @Pablo: Please inform the other Ripple employees :bye:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ripple paying validators would be a step in the wrong direction for decentralization.

How could the network be seen as decentralized if the decision-making nodes were all being funded by the entity that holds the majority stake?

Even if the reward scheme was transparent and not based on agreement with Ripple, per se, it would be easy to imagine that behind the scenes, validator operators who were motivated by money alone, would feel pressure to side with Ripple on any proposal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That are fair points. Perhaps a solution would be an implementation within the consensus algorithm itself (when implementing Codius), e.g. that a part (perhaps fixed 50 % or adjustable) of the to-be destroyed XRP share per transaction is redistributed to the validators (by mentioned classifications). So, on the one hand, validators would be rewarded and Ripple (as not anymore holding the majority) cannot not per se be seen as (main) beneficiant.

Edited by tar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ripple the company should not involve itself in rewarding people running these validators. The xrp community could though, it is in all of our interest. I´m sure Wietse Winds Tipbot and Coil could be used with a webpage that could show the statistics for validators and shows wallets to send tips to. The people who run validators should ask to be listed themselves though and they need to be verified as the one actually running the validator.

This is simply an ecosystem evolving.

Edited by mandelbaum
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PickleRick said:

Um no. It might as well be Bitcoin... ?‍♂️ Next thing you know, there will be fu**ing Node farms popping up in china.

Why? The verification/validation process will not be skipped and therefore a proportional global validator distribution should still be part of the overall process when adding new validators.

42 minutes ago, mandelbaum said:

Ripple the company should not involve itself in rewarding people running these validators. The xrp community could though, it is in all of our interest.

What would be the difference to therefore adding a mechanism into the consensus protocol itself?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, tar said:

hat would be the difference to therefore adding a mechanism into the consensus protocol itself?

This could cause a fork. It would be smarter for people developing on top of the ledger to solve this problem. If someone developing a wallet, an exchange or payment app wants to kick som drops over to the validators for every transaction made to make the network more robust, nothing can stop them from doing so.

Edited by mandelbaum
Link to post
Share on other sites

here's a quote from @nikb a while back talking about this very topic:

Quote

I don't think that incentivizing validators by having the Company compensate operators in XRP helps to meaningfully make the validator network both more robust or more distributed. In fact, I think it's a bad idea.

If people run a validator only to get compensated, then I wouldn't trust them because I'd worry that they would be willing to collude against me if someone paid them to do so. Validator operators need to have a stake in the long term health of the network, not in a monthly paycheck. Presumably the compensation would be enough to making running a validator profitable (otherwise, why do it?), in which case the plan could be easily gamed: simply setup multiple validators, under multiple personas.

I am not against operators seeking to defray their costs. If someone wants to operate a validator and publishes a policy that explains how they'll operate it and then chooses to solicit donations to cover the expenses associated with running the validator, I have no problem with that. A program, operated by the Company, to compensate validator operators? Sorry, I don't like that.

Although, I'll be honest: the marginal cost of operating a validator for an entity that already operates at least one server is minimal. Even if you're a user and want to host a validator in your home, the cost is likely pennies a day.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, sudomark said:

here's a quote from @nikb a while back talking about this very topic:

The costs may be pennies a day, but it's unlikely to remain pennies a day, when the number of transactions per second goes up. It goes up even significantly more if you keep history.

I think it's completely within the idea of the IoV that validators will charge micropayments for accessing them. Users paying for read/write acces to the validator's  API is a much better solution than Ripple paying for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ripple paying validators would be a step in the wrong direction for decentralization.
How could the network be seen as decentralized if the decision-making nodes were all being funded by the entity that holds the majority stake?
Even if the reward scheme was transparent and not based on agreement with Ripple, per se, it would be easy to imagine that behind the scenes, validator operators who were motivated by money alone, would feel pressure to side with Ripple on any proposal.

Not Ripple but the XRP ledger. Instead of burning XRP, send them to validating nodes
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.