It is a hard question; but I think they have to be able to post. It needs to feel just as simple to use and as functional as Reddit etc. I think the Leo approach is good; they simply create an individual account for every lite account but hold the keys in escrow essentially so they can just log in using Twitter login etc until the person is ready to take custodial ownership, but they keep their initial rewards etc. You could have reminders to take custody of the account when they hit a certain HP level to minimize hacking risk of central control. That requires a lot of delegation to set it up and create all those accounts however, they are incentivizing the delegation to their main account (by paying out something like 18% IRR in Leo ) to cover this RC onboarding requirements. Alternatively with the above account system you could set all lite account rewards to go to PeakD for instance (or whoever set up the lite accounts and provided delegation) and this would allow them to interact, but stop any buildup of funds in the account so remove any motivation for hacking the light accounts, and provide an incentive for them to take control of the account when they actually started to earn enough income they thought was worth the hassle and learning curve .
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Interesting idea that if they are not real owners of their account (aka "custodian accounts"... because let's be honest here they are NOT actual owners of their own accounts... whoever has the keys is) that perhaps the beneficiary could be partly peakd or maybe partly null or maybe a community pool.
has someone asked LEO what happens if all the Passwords/keys they are holding in custodialship get hacked? There is an increasingly higher risk of problems and attacks as that user base grows or more money is in their accounts.
But we have talked about these sort of things so we are interested in the discussion. But our main advertising about the site (home page changing soon) is about True Ownership so we will be completely up front with users that this is a sort of intermediary step for those who i guess aren't ready or maybe don't even care if they have true ownership of their content, connections and crypto.
I understand the need for those sorts of stepping-stone accounts however I'm personally a bit disappointed that so many people think that the answer to our problems is to create a product that goes against the biggest and best feature of Hive ... that people can have true ownership over their own content, connections and money.
Again i think we'll do it but we're gonna keep reminding those users that they aren't the actual owners until they have complete control over their own keys and they're doing the transactions themselves with one of the login software options. (because lite/custodial accounts won't be doing their own transactions is the assumption peakd will be doing the transactions for them)
Yes agree I think you need to have them get no rewards. This could be either via sent to Null or preferably (until we get RC pools) returned to the delegation pool who 'paid' for the account creation and activity with their RC credits to encourage people to delegate to set up the accounts. Having rewards build up simply creates incentive for hackers, and also creates potential tax issues for people who just want casual engagement. If all the accounts have no value (just a delegation) then there should be no incentive for hacking (no more than anyone hacking a FB account for example).
Here's another topic of discussion... is there a way to see what accounts are held in custodianship by services like LEO?
Do you think we should be letting our users know on operation like wallet transfers that "The account you are transfering to is not truly owned by the user you are transferring to... it is held in custodianship by a separate company. Are you sure you want to transfer them tokens?"
We will likely not allow crypto transfers to accounts we hold in custodianship however there is the issue that a user could use another system to transfer to accounts we hold as custodians.
Yes that is interesting; would have to ask Leo that one. In a way they are a little like exchange held crypto accounts , although in this case more secure as its not just one massive account to be hacked, its hundred of smaller accounts but still the master key register is vulnerable.