you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Why? If the rewards are fixed and independent of the amount staked then there is no issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    What matters is whether or not there's any significant profit - the reward being bigger than the cost. PoW minimizes this with difficulty adjustment flushing most profits down the toilet. PoS must always have a return competitive with other investments.

    Profits should be low, or else it promotes inequality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    PoS must always have a return competitive with other investments.

    No. It needs to offer a reward enough to pay the minimum number of validators needed to establish a secure network.

    2x the number of stakers means 1/2 the return for each validator, but the network doesn't care about that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    With too low a return they just invest elsewhere.

    You get one asset with worse interest that can be spent (like dollars), and one asset with better interest that can't be spent (like bonds). The poor hold the former, the rich hold mostly the latter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Low returns and people leaving is not a problem.

    There will still be enough validators to secure the network. The remaining will get a higher return.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    If there’s a low barrier to entry then you’re just reinventing POW because someone can run as many nodes as possible with minimal stake in order to maximize returns. Can you give an example of one successful “fixed rewards” Crypto coin?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments