Granada, no LB (PsmarYW3q)

Description for PsmarYW3q will be added by a moderator

Proposal archive

1 Like

I’ve provided a summary of this proposal on the Reasearch and Development page where it was first presented:

An admin can feel free to promote if desired.

1 Like

Tezos bakers should NEVER have the final say. I am a baker, and we are represenatives FOR our delegates not for our baking rewards.

1 Like

That is your policy of your baker, it doesn’t mean that every baker has to have the same policy as you. Not all bakers agree that their delegators should override their votes.

Their not your votes. They are votes entrusted to you. You are violating your constituents trust for personal gain.

1 Like

They are my votes, I don’t have your policy, I have control over my rolls. Delegators trust my judgement. If you want to have an internal voting within your bakery, so your delegators override your vote, that’s fine, that’s your policy.

The only control you have is what your delegates give you. The only votes that are yours are the ones representing your stake. The rest are just customers you are taking advantage of for your own personal gain. Just because you can take advantage of your customers does not make it right, or justify it in any way. What you are doing is no different than coinbase charging high fees. You are just taking from your customers in a different way. Telling yourself it is OK and stating its all yours does not make either true.

Here is the definition of delegate. Can you explain your interpretation of this definition.


  1. a person sent or authorized to represent others, in particular an elected representative sent to a conference.


  1. entrust (a task or responsibility) to another person, typically one who is less senior than oneself.

“the power delegated to him must never be misused”

So at Tezoswakeandbake the delegate has no voice? No vote? and the baker overrides the delegates? Your website slogan is " We wake n’ bake, you profit n’ vote!". Can you explain the vote part. It kinda seems like thats not what you are doing.

Yes, I will explain, before, when I started baking my policy was to let delegators decide, same as yours, but later, I figured that there was going to come to a time when delegators would be voting against bakers interests, bakers need incentives to run a baking node, nobody runs bakers nodes without incentives.I changed my bakers policy and removed the parts that said that in my website, I missed that one, thanks.

But the point is, that bakers need incentives to run a baker node, and if delegators vote against your incentives, then baking becomes less attractive, and it hurts decentralization, unless you want.a centralized blockchain, I recommend you do the same.

Also, my baker fee is one of the lowest of them all, I’m sharing not only block rewards but also the profits from the transaction fees that I get from blocks with them. We share profit through the voluntary agreement which is the baker fee. Even if you charge them a 10% baker fee, they get part of the transaction fees along with the block rewards, my fee is 5.9%, so I’m sharing a lot. This is why is full, but if I let them vote, they could vote in the future to expropriate, block rewards and transactions fees from me and all other bakers. This is why it is not a good idea to lose your vote. Most of them rather kill bakers incentives to run a baker node, and see the chain centralized knowing they expropriated hardworking baker’s’ revenue, when bakers are locking their TEZ in bonds, securing the network. This will end up bad.

And to end this conversation, I will quote arthur:

1 Like

Its not that you wont make ANY money. You just want more at the expense of others.

Yeah your welcome, I know how hard it is to remember to change the slogan on the front page of your website. You know the one in big bold letters in the middle of the page. Youre shady.

So you reccomend that instead of voting in the intrest of millions of people all 400 bakers should vote in their own interest. And you think thats more decentralized? Do you think people will fall for that?

Thats not what we are voting on. Nice try on the misdirection though.

I couldnt care less about a quote taken out of context and used for validation to backstab the Tezos holders so I could farm max profits. If I did I would have bought Cardano.


Is not like the other don’t make any money either, since bakers distribute block rewards and transaction fees already to their delegators every cycle, but people will want to make more money at the expense of bakers. But the only problem here is that bakers secure the network, not the others.

I’m shaddy because of what? Changing a policy? Those are strong accusations!

Yes, bakers should always vote according to their rational self-interest to keep their incentives intact and attract more bakers to increase decentralization. You think that altruist bakers voting for their own self-sacrifice will attract more bakers? You are so naive. Furthermore, you are way too far from how reality works, you think that bakers nodes will be run pure on altruist motives. If bakers incentives are reduced, so the interest from outsiders to run baker nodes. Since you are an altruist and wants to self-sacrifice, you want all bakers to think like you and self-sacrifice along with you.

You are talking about letting your delegators votes, go on, self-sacrifice, just don’t make me self-sacrifice along with you. Don’t force me via a governmental proposal, so delegators overrride my vote, because you want me to have your same altruist morality. Again, bakers nodes are not run on altruist motives, they are run on incentives, on rational self interest.

Nope, it was not out of context, it was literal, bakers are the ones who vote for a reason and earns the bigger pie of rewards for a reason, so they have incentives to run a baker node.

Its not at the expense of bakers. It is crafted not to be so.

How is that relevant? This remains so either way the vote goes.

Stating on the front page of your website that peoples vote counts then disregarding their interest in a obscure forum. Not changing it until you are called out and saying oops I missed the front page of my website.

You are missing the bigger picture here by being short sighted. You are so focused on the number of Tez you collect that you disregard its purchasing power. 1000 XTZ at 3$ vs 900 ZTX at 8$. I am not altruist or self sacrificing by any measure. I am only trying to stop you from yourself.

No one is forcing you. You are forcing others. You are using the voting power DELEGATED to you to vote aginst your own delegates. You are trying to rationalize it by stating the votes are yours. Theyre not.

It was literal and out of context. Bakers are the ones who cast the vote aligned to their delegates. The entire design of Tezos delegate system was made to mitigate what you are doing right now. If they truly were YOUR votes you would be able to keep them when people leave. You cant do that because the votes leave with them. The votes belong to them. If you want more votes for you then get more of your own Tez.

I tweeted that long time ago, bakers change policies. I’m not obscure in any way.

Yes, you, thinking it will be at $8 with only a few baking nodes is the most funny thing I ever heard. It will be 900XTZ at $1. So naive to think that killing a little incentive of bakers will result in price surge. How do you know that if incentive is increased instead, to 1200XTZ would not be at $10? Like if the market didn’t value increased decentralization and security. Tell me, market doesn’t value decentralization and security? If not, let’s kill all the incentives of bakers at once, so it can be at $1000 per coin with 10 remaining baker nodes operating. If your theory is right, it will be at $1000, if I’m right it will be at $1.

The more bakers are attracted, not only the more security and decentralization, they also have to lock their coins in bonds, and forced to hodl. Price surges due to more and more XTZ being lock in bonds, reducing incentives of bakers is never a good idea for price, sorry. The only SHORT sighted here is you, you completely disregard market valuing increased security and decentralization, and NEW bakers locking XTZ in bonds forced to hodl = price surge.

I’m forcing delegators to stay with me? How? They can leave any time. Who am I forcing? Am I pointing a gun at their heads, forcing them to stay in my bakery? Jesus, you really don’t know how delegation works. You are the one who wants to enforce, through a governance proposal, that delegators are able to override the vote of their delegate. YOU are the fascist here. When they can just simply move to other delegates who are more in accordance with their philosophy. But no, you are the one that wants to enforce via governance this new rule, so all bakers who do not think like you, are forced to adopt your policy.

Bravo, then I’m not forcing anyone to stay with me, previously you say I was forcing people. You contradicted yourself and fix your contradiction in two statements. In the meantime, if delegators are with me, the votes are in my possession you want it or not this is an undeniable truth. They are with me because they trust my judgement regarding voting and the service I’m delivering to them, if not they can leave any day of the week.

If its not clear that you will vote with disregard to the token holders, then it is obscure.

You keep trying to steer the conversation to a loss of decentralization and security to justify your actions. Thats a big stretch. Ill keep it simple. Youre a gold digger.

Im saying this as a friend. Trump lost, you need to find a way to move past this.

Thats what I keep saying to you.

Actually you said that… if you will just scroll up a little and read your posts.

Nope. They are with you because they are unaware of your obscure policy of stealing their vote. Is it in the fine print? Oh wait I have an idea put it in a user agreement. Nobody reads those. It sure as hell isnt front and center on your website, and we both know why.

Oh hey did you see Arthurs youtube video? Since you like his quotes hows this one.

“the idea that technological innovations and upgrades should not be controlled by an informal oligarchy. That responsibility and decision-making authority should belong in the hands of the token holders.” Arthur B.

It was posted today. So … kinda awkward huh… You know, with that last part being so crystal clear.

1 Like

That’s your response? I guess you lost this little debate already, by calling me selfish. You want baker nodes to be running based on altruism/self-sacrifice. Baker nodes, are run based on SELF-interest. If you want to self-sacrifice, why you don’t just buy some TEZ and send them to a burning address? And yes dude, is about decentralization and security, without incentives, nobody will want to run a baker node. Your logic is flawed. Also, your theory that reducing the incentive of bakers will result in price surge, market values descentralization and security, your market views are also flawed.

It is in their hands already, they can delegate to who ever baker they want. No baker is pointing a gun at them. Additionally, they will be able in the future to associate in Baker DAO’s if they can’t afford a roll to get the benefits. But your idea of reducing the benefits, is chain destructive.

You are so wrong in so many levels, you believe you are morally superior because your morality is based on altruism (self-sacrifice). You condemn self-interest morality like if it was some sort of evil. Go and buy XTZ off the exchanges and send it to a burning address if you are so altruist. Show us how altruist you are.

What obscure policy, dude? That’s completely false. I tweeted, I changed the website, I said it on my telegram channel. They simply don’t care, I can’t magically know what is the voting wish of 6800 delegators. Stop, spreading false lies.

1 Like