Quote from: sunk818 on June 12, 2018, 12:21:39 AM

Quote from: 616westwarmoth on June 11, 2018, 05:07:04 PM

So if anything 35% is to me unfair to the operator and insufficient.

Fairness and logic aside, there's something to be said for predictability making changes slowly. If you want to attract people to the pool, there needs to be some sort of incentive favoring the cruncher. I also think fee changes need to come slowly and with a lot of thought. Sure, if you want to treat the pool like a corporate business, you'd want to extract maximum profit, but I think there's a few other factors where slowly making changes will create big disruptions for the DC projects, BiblePay, nor the pool.

I think of bbppool as a form of advertising. You reduce the barrier to entry and more people will hold BBP. A big user base has more value long-term because of the network effect. Look at PayPal, eBay, Facebook, etc. Growth became exponential as more users joined.

Like the BiblePay Faucet, might I suggest bbppool be partially subsidize up to max # of RACs. Add KYC type verification, and you can mitigate some of the botnet type issues.

The pool operator has not asked for any compensation. 35% by my numbers will be still operating as a loss compared to running Sanctuary (after considering the time and expense of running the staking pool versus the ease of running a Sanctuary).

My hope when I approached the operator was he would be willing to do the work to change the GRCPool software to work with BBP and we could then make a proposal to do it internally. However, he jumped right in and was willing to do the work to a much greater degree. I had also hoped it would lower the barrier to entry and grow the coin.