To vote whether or not to apply CA minting fees as rewards in miner blocks

propose this, since we require hard fork to enact the 10 Beam amount anyway.
BIP#: <# to be assigned>

Title: CA reward to miners

Author(s): raskul

Contributors: Beam

Tags: miner, rewards

Type: onchain vote

Status: <Assigned by BIP Facilitator>

Date Proposed: <2022-06-04>

Date Ratified:<yyyy-mm-dd>

Dependencies: <previous vote was against, re-ask the question :)>

Replaces: <BIP2>


1 Like

This has already been voted on. BIP 2 - Directing CA mint fee to miners

Why do we need another vote because you didn’t get your way?
Is this how beams governance works? Admin doesn’t get their choice so vote again until pass.
much decentralization.

I think this should be discarded because it was voted on less than two months ago. Team admin will resubmit until they get what they want? reasons for and against have already been discussed and decision made by vote. No need to do everything again because admin is unhappy with vote.
not a good look from team.

1 Like

Firstly, i’m not an admin here so do not presume to be all high and mighty as someone who should expect all my demand met. That would be daft of you to think it.
Secondly, an onchain vote would be much fairer and this thread is designed to initiate the conversation and opinion.

State why you do not want the BIP to be revote upon, rather than point and say ‘but admin’. It’s an immature response. Shirting roind the real reason; ‘you do not want miners to dump coin’, well that would be idiosynchratic. Hiding behind ‘because admin/team’ could be replaced by you with some other interesting and debatable proposal of your own. I do not see any from you.

Beam’s governance should not be conducted via gameable forum votes and if it were up to me i’d run the entire CA issuance vote BIP1 and BIP2 again. Miner rewards are what encourages miners to secure the network. I am not concerned with ‘number go down’.

I shall indeed keep this proposal forwards and relevant for as long as it takes


1 Like

you are an admin of one of Beams public forums. i can post proof if you really want.

i state why this BIP should not be revoted in my original comment but will make more clear---- this subject has been discussed before and voted on two months ago. the vote went against your proposal. you don’t like it and feel bad for losing. that is ok but it don’t mean we should discuss again and give credit/substance to the revote proposal ---- THE VOTE ON BIP2 HAS BEEN DONE TWO MONTHS AGO–YOU SHOULD ACCEPT THE VOTE–NO NEED FOR FURTHER DEBATE BECUSE IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. DONE = OVER.

talking down on me by saying i’m immature and daft, is poor comments. i have saw your comments in telegram as well, so it is expected from you.

ps – an admin should not be high and mighty as you put it. they must be completely impartial, nonjudmental and fair.

Sorry for poor english language - it’s my 2nd tongue.

Big caps lock to show your authority? Got it.

I ignored the majority of your immature rant because it’s incoherent, perpetuating your ideology that 'bEaM admIn cAnT maKE pRoPoSaLs…" and absurdly opening you to ridicule.

So pray tell me, who exactly are you permitting to be enabled the right to post a proposal here?

Since you are clearly in charge of that?

You don’t like the proposal i have and will perpetually recommend, that’s your case to state. Every recommendation i offer is for the benefit of Beam and it’s longevity. The fact you see me in discussion in public forums means i shouldn’t be entitled to raise a proposal? You’re silly.

Guy who study Law, Trust, Equity and sh*t out there:

I just read back the two proposals: There is no mention in any text that the vote is final and can’t be resubmitted later as is or different wording…

According to law, nothing impede a re-submission. Now there is some technical particularities as a new change would require an hard fork. That said it may be clumsy to ask a new vote just after too months it was submitted.

Proposal would better to make future vote of CA issuance cost and where the proceed goes in a programmable Dapp where you can stake BeamX for vote for example (can be renewed each epoque default is statu quo.)

My two cents on the public side.

1 Like