Thanks for the response @applepiie!
Therefore we would either need a reference system for each project that we know completes the same computational work on each project and use this system to calculate the reward for everyone or we need another factor. What I think will be hard, is finding one. It can't be CPU-time, since my 5 years old pentium processor can crunch much longer on the same task as my threadripper. I have no idea what it cold be, ideas are welcome.
I completely agree, I plan on exploring this in future posts, to the extent that it's possible at all.
As for giving different amounts of GRC to different projects, I still don't particularly like that. Who determines the amount? Who determines the value of each scientific field? I don't like the idea of either a centralised power nor of voting.
I share the same concerns, but I'm approaching it from a different perspective. The magnitude distribution right now is effectively highly centralized. The current protocol is such that all whitelisted projects are given the exact same magnitude. If a user wants to crunch a more popular project, they are effectively punished for it by receiving less GRC. Meaning, if I personally find a project more worthy of my computational power, it's possible that the magnitude distribution punishes me for it.
The current incentive mechanism rewards those who want to make more GRC, not crunch for their favorite projects. The reason I bring up ranking projects is because projects are already unintentionally ranked, as so if they are going be ranked anyway, it should be done intentionally and there should be a good reason for it. Again, I'm not sure if ranking is the best approach, I'm just trying to point out that as it stands, there is a very clear yet blind ranking.
Because the voting is based on a tiny share of all users (a lot of people just don't vote) and would therefore not reflect a well balanced base.
This is currently happening with the delisting of Moo! Wrapper. As far as I can tell, the current whitelisting proposal doesn't address these problems either:
Poll is successful if "Yes" gains greater than 50% of vote share and vote participation is above a weight of 7.5%
and that poll is currently passing with 50 in support (99.35% share), 2 against (0.65% share). I'm not sure how to address this problem either, other than encouraging community participation.
I think we should leave Gridcoin the open place it is now for scientific computations and not start to value it.
Completely agreed.