Over a week ago, Dan introduced a proposal that would allow network resources to be rented. The opportunity for EOS holders to make passive income was lauded--to no surprise. During the celebration, a user soberly asked the question, "what about the 4% inflation?" Dan's response was radical yet fitting, "Let it burn."
The Worker Proposals System (WPS) allows for inflationary funds to be directed towards projects that are beneficial to the community--and approved by the community. The exact rules determining how we reach consensus around using the funds is still unclear. Dan shared doubts about the voter community a few weeks ago.
My guess is that Dan, plagued by voter apathy and by incentive issues with the EOS token, crafted a strategy to land the ultimate Tetris, and vanish all problems without unintended consequences.
But not quite.
(It is reasonable to question how representative this poll is, but it is the only result I have seen)
Though several are fine with WPS being ditched, it seems most of us are not. I personally am a supporter of WPS, but feel that 4 percent inflation is much too high. I would prefer trying out 0.5 - 1.0 percent for a one year trial, then deciding as a community if the program is effective enough to continue.
But what of the arguments against WPS. Surely, there are reasons outside of, "Dan Larimer mentioned on telegram that he doesn't want it." Unfortunately, we don't know the reasoning behind his telegram remark, as Dan didn't mention killing WPS in his Proposal for EOS Resource Renting & Rent Distribution.
However, after enough debates in the community, some just silly, I am unsatisfied with the counter arguments.
Maybe Dan will provide an article with some missing clarity.
Most people against WPS seem to think that incentivizing or paying developers to create dapps is not needed due to the following reasons:
- Good dapps will not have trouble getting funded.
- BPs are paid to create dapps the community needs.
As someone who has raised over a million dollars from investors, I can tell you that fundraising is inefficient and distracting. We can do better here--and isn't that the purpose of our technical revolution?
Another consideration for the first argument: If every community good was self-sufficient, we would not have public libraries.
Argument 2 assumes a lot. First, it assumes that all dapps can be created by anyone (and specifically our BPs), and that there is no such thing as specialized division of labor. What about dapps that require a team of specialists? Are BPs creating the next breakthrough decentralized medicaid dapp? I think not.
The main problem I have here is that it describes exactly a Command Economy. To think that a single group of individuals are able to select what is and isn't good for our ecosystem is misguided. The best dapps are the ones we cannot ourselves foresee.
Also, argument 2 has some entitlement vibes that I am not comfortable with. I think the EOSVibes video illustrates this vibe well enough.
Here is a fact. Block Producers are paid to secure the network. Not give us stuff. If we didn't pay BPs well, it would increase the chances of backdoor deals, and inevitably lead to them selling out. If we consider the game theoretics, the payout isn't unreasonable. $5k a day isn't unreasonable payment to secure a 4.5 billion dollar system. Yet swarms of voters are expressing sentiments of entitlement to BP rewards. Paying them well is to our benefit!
...but don't think you are off the hook BPs!
Smart BPs will use funds to support community, but the community shouldn't expect BPs to solve everything. It is impossible to list all cases where argument 2 fails, so I'll give you a toy for thought play. Daniel Dennett, a cool OG philosopher, has a concept known as the intuition pumps of an argument. By examining an argument's template structure and tweaking the parameters, we can start to see where the argument fails to hold water. Let's look at the following:
We need X. BPs make good money. Therefore, BPs should do it.
I ask you to play with reasonable values of X until the above logical template seems absurd. My best is where X is a robust watchdog tool that puts BPs in check. Do we really want BPs to make this?
If you've made it this far, I thank you for taking the ride. WPS still has potential. The idea was good enough to be included in the first place. Let's not kill the experiment before it starts. Let's keep the baby, throw out the bathwater.