3

In the old version, it approached infinite cost at max allocation. I thought in the old videos explaining the allocation, it said that there was a disincentive to buying more than needed. However, in explaining the new market based system, the post says there was an incentive to buy more than needed in the old system... i.e. exactly the opposite. What changed? Am I misremembering the old videos?

2

According to Dan Larimer's Medium post, they determined that users who acquired cheap RAM would have no incentive to release it if they weren't using it since there was no financial incentive to do so. By switching to a market-based approach, holders of staked RAM are now incentive to "sell" any RAM they aren't using on the market, which makes it available to users who need it.

The downside to this approach is that those who buy RAM cheaply have no financial incentive to free RAM for other users after it gets more congested. Under Dawn 4.0 the system contract now buys and sells RAM allocations at prevailing market prices. ... Overall this will result in the market balancing the supply and demand for RAM over time.

|improve this answer|||||
  • That covers the new messaging, but when they explained the old one in a youtube video they said there was a disincentive to buy more than needed under the old regime, as far as I can remember. – Chris Chiasson May 9 '18 at 18:47
  • BTW I gave you +1 – Chris Chiasson May 9 '18 at 18:47
  • @ChrisChiasson In the original model, the price of RAM ramped up as more and more of it was reserved. If you had acquired RAM at a low price point, there was no incentive to give it up since re-acquring the RAM later would cost exponentially more than what you had originally paid. Thus, by cheap and hold to insure you don't get hit with high costs later. – John Haager May 9 '18 at 19:02
  • I am pretty sure he anticipated that and explained why it wouldn't happen in the original video, which is the crux of the question. – Chris Chiasson May 9 '18 at 19:12
  • The only comment I remember is that to avoid people staking large chunks of RAM, you would pay the "final" price of the chunk you were buying based on capacity remaining after your stake. That doesn't resolve the problem of me staking a reasonable amount of RAM at a cheap price, not using it for anything, and refusing to unstake it for fear of needing it later and not being able to afford it. – John Haager May 9 '18 at 19:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.