Start farming reward lock and utilization payments to farmers (closed, see new post to continue)

#1

While we continue to discuss tokenomics improvements for the 3.50 release, we also have an opportunity to implement some short term changes to help align incentives for farmers and support the token price. These proposals are targeting the next regular Grid release, 3.12, rather than a larger release that could take some months to complete.

In short, there are two aspects:

  1. Implement the locking of farming rewards until certain conditions are met, in line with the original Grid v3 specification or a varation thereof
  2. Remove the solution provider program and pay the allocated 50% of utilization fees to the farmers running the workloads instead

In this request for comment, Iā€™ll present two potential approaches for discussion.

Option 1

Locking of farming rewards is done as originally proposed in the v3 spec, for all farmers. That is until one of two conditions are met:

  • Two years have passed from the date the node first came online
  • The node has achieved 30% utilization, sustained for 3 months

Likewise, all farmers are now eligible to receive revenue from utilization on their nodes.

Option 2

In this option, locking is only mandatory for new farmers and existing farmers can choose to opt in. The condition to unlock is:

  • TFT price reaches $0.10

Only farmers who opt into the lock would be eligible to receive utilization revenue. For those who donā€™t it will be deposited into the treasury instead.

Any token holder can also choose to opt into locking their tokens until the target price is reached, as a signal of support for the project (no yield is earned).

Extra idea - increase entry price for new farmers

With either of the two options above, we can also opt to increase the TFT entry price, to say $0.10. This would effectively decrease the number of TFT earned per unit of capacity for new nodes joining the network.

Summary

While weā€™re confident in the value of TFT and that demand for it will grow with ongoing initiatives, the current situation is that too much TFT is being minted and made liquid for capacity that hasnā€™t yet been utilized. At the same time, farmers donā€™t have a direct incentive for utilization on their nodes that ultimately increases their energy costs.

We believe that these changes can help to improve the situation for farmers and all TFT holders, until a more comprehensive plan can be implemented. Itā€™s true that some farmers might choose to leave the network if their rewards are locked. Personally I think this is okay. Thereā€™s more than enough capacity on the Grid today, and it should not be our priority to appease those who insist on selling every month while their nodes sit idle.

So, what do you think? Weā€™d like to reach an agreement on this matter as soon as possible, so that the developers can start implementing the necessary tech changes for the next release.

4 Likes
Token lock recap and next steps
#2

ā€˜pay the allocated 50% of utilization fees to the farmers running the workloads insteadā€™

might be very nice for farmers!

Iā€™d go with Option 1.

#3

Vote for option 1, while option 2 will be easier to get accepted ?

1 Like
#4

Neat ideas! They should have been implemented 1.5 years ago, but better late than never.

On option 1, so the whole farmers earning are locked from two years of their first node? Any idea what percentage of the network that would be eligible coming up in the next 6 months? Probably a decent amount.

I would hazard the people who join into option 2 are not the ones selling. And the network growth is sideways so the new nodes under this would be minimal. Plus I tihnk that high unlock price might not incentivize. Iā€™d pass on this one for now.

I would also enact the increased entry price. It was a mistake to mint the amount we did. I was making 5k a month on paper at one time (and paid taxes on that, RIP).

1 Like
#5

Agreed. Enact the increased entry price to 0.10$.

#6

I donā€™t think option 2 would be easier to get accepted.

I would think option 1 would be easier. Itā€™s the locking program weā€™ve been discussing for years now.

Thanks for the feedback btw!

#7

Would we even vote on option 1? Itā€™s always been the deal. I even say so in the Peking description.

#8

How will option 1 work? Letā€™s assume I started farming 1.5 year ago. The lock will be for tokens farmed from now onwards. Iā€™m assuming the tokens farmed until now are not affected. I think itā€™s a fine line we are trying to thread here. I also think this feature should have been implemented from the beginning but itā€™s never too late. Also letā€™s assume the network will pick up utilisation than most of the farmers will be switching to 3.50.

#9

I am curious how that will work logistically, but tokens previously minted are yours, you can move them wherever and its not possible to lock someones wallet.

#10

It would be nice to have it in the threefold app.

#11

Great question here. Indeed, we canā€™t lock any already farmed tokens. I think the fairest thing would be to start the 24 month counter for all existing nodes when the locking feature comes online.

To answer @FLnelsonā€™s question on how many nodes would be eligible to unlock soon, I pulled some data. Hereā€™s the breakdown of node ages for all ~2400 nodes active in the last two days:

Time since creation # of nodes
> 12 months 1692
> 15 months 1400
> 18 months 777
> 19 months 228
> 20 months 86
> 21 months 0

The locking part yes, but the part about replacing the solution provider fee with a utilization based farming reward is new. I think it would also be positive to have a vote showing support for activating the locking at this time.

The proposal from the tech side is to track all minted but locked token balanced on TF Chain. Then can either be minted on Stellar later or minted directly on TF Chain when that feature is ready.

2 Likes
#12

The next voting period should have different votes, not just one group of new features.

For locking tockens

  1. option 1
  2. option 2
  3. no locking

For removing solution provider program

  1. remove solution provider
  2. donā€™t remove

For 50% utilization fees to farmers (if solution provider is removed)

  1. burn the 50%
  2. distribute 50% to farmer running the workloads

For TFT farming rewards price

  1. stay at 0.08
  2. change at 0.10
#13

I want to point out one thing here, or rather ask: who is responsible for selling the capacity on the grid?
Is it the farmers? Because in that case I will stop farming, I have no time nor resources/network to do that.
When I started farming 5 years ago, the idea was that we would get a compensation by receiving farmed TFT for putting capacity online, and we would even farm more tokens if the resources were actually used.
But nobody said it was the farmers that would need to sell their own capacity!

Instead of constantly trying to lift the token price by lowering the supply side (farmers that cannot even pay electricity from the tokens farmed), do some marketing and try to raise demand for tokens by selling capacity.

Itā€™s not that there is no market for capacity, but Threefold has been constantly running away from it as hard as it can!

4 Likes
#14

If the main reason this change is implemented right now is to remove selling pressure, unlocking all tokens for the entire grid at the same time seems like a very bad idea. If the monthly amount of tokens is already too much, 24 months of tokens for everyone at the same time is gonna be a disaster. Farmers will need to be faster than other farmers in selling, because lots of farming are gonna sell, and the TFT will race to zero, no matter the price level at that time.

I believe we want move selling pressure to some point in the future, but with a decent spread. I donā€™t see whatā€™s wrong with using the nodeā€™s first come online date, it does exactly that. It just means that the amount of months that are going to be locked from now on, is gonna be 0<x<24 depending on how long you have been farming already. If you think this is gonna be too many tokens unlocked too soon, just add several months extra for existing nodes (up to a max of 24 in total), and leave the 24 months for new nodes. This will ensure some spread and implies a small benefit for early adopters. Which seems fair ideologically.

Also, will it be node-based or farmer-based? The first seems more fair but i donā€™t know about the implementation challenges. Many early farmers (including me) kept adding more nodes, something to keep in mind.

3 Likes
#15

I agree. ā€œusing the nodeā€™s first come online dateā€. Setting all locks at the same time would not work.

We canā€™t lock previous farming rewards but we can lock future farming rewards.

If your node was online for 10 months, for example, then you would have 14 months of locked tokens.

#16

Many projects on the way are meant to increase utilization. TFCloud and Freeflow are some examples.

#17

In general TF focused on building great technology in the past years. Now a lot of the focus will be on consolidating the technology into functioning and high use cases products and enterprises.

#18

Hi,

Why not do a staggered locking per node from the time it first came online? For example, when I started with presearch nodes, the stake was only 2000 per node and now 4000. For my understanding, this was done to slow down the growth.
If we lock tokens per node age in increments of for example 3 month up to now and have it increase by a set amount. This way you take the first supporters in consideration and attract only node creators that are serious about Threefold. And as long as the node is running it stays locked. Just like flux for example.
You do not want to have a big chunk of tokens locked for 2 years and then suddenly dumped on the market. That would tank the price. Because people will sell to cover cost and take profits.

The problem currently is that the value of TFT is down, but thatā€™s with almost all crypto. Plus the cost to run a node has gone up quite a bit (for me more then double). This means I have to sell more coins (in theory, I havenā€™t sold) to cover that cost which brings the price even more down.
To fix that, we need more utility. Which means more marketing. We need to sell our services better and more, to elevate the value of TFT.
For example: I saw a comment in flux discord about them being the most economical one to run a presearch node. I responded that that was interesting, because I could do one for less than $1/month on threefold, instead of 3 for $13/month on flux.
One of the responses to my comment was somewhat concerning. The person stated that there is only 1800 presearch nodes allowed on threefold. Why cap that? Are we capping our potential income?
Another project Timpi, similar like presearch, is been working with flux to run their nodes. Why not work with them, so people have more to choices from.

Final thought about earnings. I do feel people should be rewarded 2 ways. 1 basic monthly amount which is to cover running cost and a little extra. This can be done depending on the value of the coin.
For example, node 1 get 1000 tokens per month at a value of $0.01/TFT. Now the price has gone up to $0.1/TFT, therefore the rewards will be only 100 per month. This way you get a constant value for your service. Plus less token output when value increases. So, when people do decide to sell, less coins to sell.
2nd part of reward would be when the node is utilized. Utilization should be done fairly by the protocol/network. This can be done by older nodes will be used first. When the services is stopped on an older node, it goes to the back of the line. Or nodes utilized closets to the one requesting the service. But if a person wants a specific node or location, it can be made possible for extra charge.

This is all my 2 cents. Sorry for the long message. Have a great weekend!

Greetings,

Jefke

4 Likes
#19

Hello,

I think option 2 will not work because all existing nodes will continue receiving same reward without any lock tokenā€¦ it will not change anything on the current situationā€¦

If I must choose one of two options, I will choose option 1 but with 2 years from the date of existing node like already mentioned.

I still believe on locking collateral like flux to run node will help the price, it will add more utility to the token.

1 Like
#20

When we say tokens are locked, that means they canā€™t be used for utilisation for 2years as well, or until 30% utilisation is met? Or is utilisation the exception?

For instance; someone purchased a 3K plus node with 88 vcpuā€™s earning over 7000 TFT of which he wants to use 1500 for utilisation?