A talk about QAS — Flash AMA with CEO Light on Aug. 12
On the governance of Poseidon Network
QAS is a blockchain-based self-governance cryptocurrency, which anchored on decentralization value and can be used to vote for values.
The vision of Poseidon Network was originally collecting resources in different places and hardware specifications to redistribute them. Put this more simply, this is the non-evolutional peer-to-peer (P2P) structure. 20 years ago, there were already the BitTorrent technique, however, it could not provide the solutions to these two pain points-
1. The immaturity of the virtualization technique
The use of k8s, a container technology, has just grown maturer in 5–7 years from now. In the past, we didn’t have an ideal way to manage a large scale of Distributed System Architecture software. It was complicated to control and not even mentioned to achieve decentralizing.
Before k8s, it was difficult for developers to deploy services on the Edge. That is to say, after users install the software(e.g. QEdge), they can not get any other further services or updates.
2. Lack of rewards
As BT seeders provide bandwidth resources, they only get benefits of downloading other’s content in the meanwhile. Therefore, piracy has become a core incentive for BT. In the long-term, it causes a disadvantage to the business model — a large group of users who are unwilling to pay for the service.
There are plenty of similar designs, including theta token — while users watch game streaming, they can be a P2P bandwidth seed at the same time. The main difference between theta token and BT is that theta provides token rewards. Still, the implementation was limited by sharing only the bandwidth.
A distributed computing structure at least provides sharing bandwidth, computing power, and storage. Using the virtualized technique to integrate resources and redistribute it by k8s. Also through blockchain/crypto design to provide an incentive for miners. That is the approach of achieving a virtuous cycle of system growth.
— To Poseidon Network, the reward is QQQ.
Although we started with QAS, first we have to clarify our infrastructure technology and reward design background.
Back to the time when we designed our tokenomics, there were things we could learn from the past, however, we still found a more important problem — token-governance.
The necessity of the token-governance, you can find more information at the bottom link if you are interested (game theory/mechanism design).
Let me give a brief conclusion- Since all the software’s structure are not perfect, we need to improve them constantly. However the distributed systems are typically complicated, we need to design based on Economic theory. (you can also read it in a best-selling book- Radical Market).
In distributed system architecture, the model itself is a top-down design, but the governance concept is a bottom-up participant — the final goal is to reach a state of real decentralized governance.
That is why last year, the concept of STO was a trending topic — it just borrowed from the equity concept and made it a cryptocurrency as a method of governing distributed systems.
I think people realize, the growth of STO was stocked in the last year. Somehow this refers to that STO is not an ideal way of managing a distributed system.
When we were writing our White-paper, we did design our governance method as a “security token”. Yet when time pasted, we gave up on the concept of STO.
Since STO was designed by the concept of putting a value on company equity, if a distributed network is only functioning through cryptocurrency, it can not generate fiat income. Which means, we have no way of putting value back to our company property.
We pondered on the issue and concluded our insight below-
- Governance token must have the voting function as a managing mechanism.
- Governance token hodlers have to provide incentives for voting while combining with system long-term benefits. That is how we accelerate the optimization of the system.
- Governance token itself is the incentive and can provide the profit as a vital point of long-term holding.
- Governance token has a value anchoring effect.
- Governance token has the secondary market liquidity ultimately.
You can imagine the design of tokenomics is based on a complete and mature logic/theory.
However, In reality, we usually didn’t come up with a complete concept at first, we need to went through a process of trials and errors.
Therefore one thing is important — our mechanism design can grow with time.
At the moment, before we further refined our mechanism design, it will still be us who make main decisions. When the token governances mechanisms grow maturer, the decisions will be handed mostly to the governance token and token hodlers in the future.
Last I would like to talk about the problem of price anchoring- what I mentioned that QAS was not Security Token, it means that the token value was anchored by the decentralized system itself rather than the company.
In the operation of Poseidon Network, users pay QQQ for our services.
We give 70% profit to miners and the rest to teams(company)
Therefore QAS shares the 30% profit with the company. Furthermore, we are going to design the election of supernodes and token deposit plans to let QAS holders share profit with supernodes miners.
In the future, we will even transform 70%/30% as an option of QAS token voting. Still, I would like to emphasize that, all the designs will be adapted with development and test. Therefore we need to wait for our system to be gradually refined so we will get a clearer path.
