- WELCOME TO CRYPTOCURRENCYTALK!
- PASTEBIN IS NOW ONLINE! CHECK IT OUT: VISIT CCT PASTEBIN
- NEW BITCOIN CASH FORUM. CHECK IT OUT: VISIT BCH FORUM
- CHECK OUT OUR VIDEO SECTION: VISIT NOW
- MULTIPLE THEMES TO CHOOSE FROM CLICK ON THE + THEMES BUTTON ABOVE!
- ADD SOCIAL LINKS: UPDATE YOUR SOCIAL LINKS
- CHECK OUT THE LINKS DIRECTORY: VISIT NOW
I suggest a solution to calculating the mag. multipler as such: A new class of wallet I'll call an "Endowment Wallet" which is owned by a BOINC project manager (or in trust of the BOINC project.) Said endowment would work like any other wallet, but the size of the endowment relative to all endowment wallets would be used to calculate the multipler. Donations could be made to the endowment, and the project could withdraw funding as needed. I point the the history of SETI@Home, which for many years struggled to support the demand for WU due to lack of funding to by the necessary backend hardware. Seemingly, SETI would have benefited from its large user base by attracting a failry large endowment which it could then periodicly draw down as needed for funding. By drawing down its endowment, it multiplier would be reduced making the project less attactive to those only concerned by GRC rewards and therefore helping to reduce some demand for its WUs. None-the-less, its large user based would likely rebuild its endowment quickly. In otherwords, I propose that such a system would greate a market balance of supply and demand for WU and project funding. I think we then leave it to the communtity to "vote with their GRC" as to the "worthyness" of any particular project. I think because popular projects like SETI would be tempted to draw down thier wallet, said temptiation would help offset some issues regard the popular projects crowding out less well known projects (i.e. the "Rich Getting Richer"). Also, less popular projects would have fewer particpants to diluate the GRC rewards. Finailly, the large endowments that projects like SETI could accumulate may actually attract the attention of the project managers, and, if offically adopted by the project, promote GRC to its non-GRC particpants. I would also like to sugggest a general endowment for the developers of BOINC itself.