Thanks for the clarification. I haven't looked at the numbers to see for myself, just trusted what I had read... (my first mistake). I do know that there are many well meaning witnesses and that the pay they receive doesn't even cover the projects they are currently funding (like yourself) but others it seems like it could be an overpay. My opinion would be for money from other sources be used to pay for those projects, sources such as some kind of crowdfunding. Your witness pay should not have to be used to pay for projects... The fact that the harder you work the less you make is exactly the wrong kind of system we want setup here.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
IMO it isn't a question of overpay, but underperform. Two sides of the same coin, but the fix is a little different, Vote 'em out. We can find 19 who all perform at a high level. There are many good candidates in the top 50, even some in the top 30 who would be relatively easy to move in and replace someone who might not be delivering.
As for 'pay' vs. 'budget', I view it as a more of a business than a job. Witnesses who, as a service business, deliver the most value should be voted in, and if they can do all that and still make a profit, great, but it doesn't need to be guaranteed. Anyone who doesn't find it an attractive proposition can step aside easily.
None of this precludes other funding options such as crowdfunding though. Currently witness pay doesn't even add up to a lot when it comes to the sort of funding you need for big projects -- about $150/day in locked funds (at times it has, perhaps in the future it might again). A witness who organizes a successful crowdfund or leverages other revenue sources besides witness rewards and gets amazing solutions built is doing a good job too IMO.
Good points.