"Validators" are much bigger than virtual currencies

Since "Suffix" began to publish articles, a validator has supported several articles, all of them rewarded 166LikeCoin, which aroused my curiosity about him.

What is the role of a validator? Or what role does it "can be"?

And I'm more concerned about the relationship between validators and creators? !

This time the interviewee is @JohnShao

You feel that you are particularly supportive of creators. Are you a creator yourself? Or just like sponsorship?

Well, I'm leaning towards Matters and creators. And the recent Web3.0, we should also need more support.

I am not a creator myself. I was simply looking for a way to participate in LikeCoin, and I became a validator by mistake. Then I got a huge commission and a lot of commissions. Just take the commission out of sponsorship.

Are there any other ideas other than tipping sponsorships? A special "Creator Fund"? More directional sponsorship?

Yes, I see that interested events will sponsor their event bonus. For the time being, I’m thinking about it while I’m walking. In fact, my commission is not too much. I can't do anything too high.

🤔 The community has a lot of public funds, and there are also many validators who intend to sponsor, but no one in the community will organize various activities other than essay writing.

I have also given a lot of 1666LikeCoin, but the requirements are a bit high.

Some citizens want to ask you, why are you so generous?

What kind of articles do you like to read? What kind of articles usually move you and want to support?

For me, money is enough. I don't need these commission commissions to survive. I see these commissions as tools, use them, and see what I can do in the community.

When you see the article, you will want to support it or not, and support it if you think of a reason. I don't really know how to read some articles, but it's hard to say. Ah, one point, write more of what you like! It will be easier to attract me (bar).

 The editor-in-chief will feel that this reply is a bit abstract, but I don’t want to ask further questions. Let’s observe it for yourself!

Have you considered the previous official practice of providing funds to citizens (organizers) to hold events for the participation of all citizens?

When I see that citizens are holding an event and they just have the remaining LikeCoins, I will take the initiative to ask if I can sponsor it, but it is difficult to be rewarded with tens of thousands of LikeCoins for one essay call in the past.

Is there an open fundraiser? Say I want to host a community event, can I raise money from you?

Not publicly announced, but yes. You can ask me to raise money, I expect that there will be 10,000 to 20,000 LikeCoins per month that are not intended for use. (But at present, I have shaken out all the commissions, and I have to wait for me to save them)

Do you think that after Web3, creators are assigned less praise, is that a problem? For example, will it cause the creator to leave or the creative motivation to drop? Appreciation will decrease because not enough people are entrusted?

Those who have been in Matt City for a year or a period of time should have seen this kind of discussion from time to time. The creation fund in the applause award itself is low threshold and high competition. Because the action of clapping is basically free of cost, it is easy to get clapping, and there are rewards. But because the fund rewards distributed every day are fixed, it is also natural that some people will get more and some people will get less. Changes should be the norm, but I don't think it's a problem.

If it is just to make money, it takes time to understand the mechanism, and then find a way to grab more LikeCoins in the competition. I think it is reasonable, and the reality is also true.

The purpose behind the creation should be diverse, and it varies from person to person. The LikeCoin reward is only one kind. After a long time in the community, it is natural to divide it up. And 🙈 People who take a lot of money actually rarely talk about this kind of issue.

Appreciation will decrease because not enough people are entrusted?

Yes, the number of citizens has become smaller, that is, the number of delegates is not more than the number of citizens before. The creation fund, when liker land was first designed, was to match the total amount of contributions from citizens, and allocate the same amount in the public fund (community pool), which was distributed according to the situation of the applause yesterday, to further reward the creators . It used to be about 2000 citizens at the peak, and after moving to 3.0, only about 500 people joined in these three weeks. According to the setting, less is normal.

"In these three weeks, only 500 people joined." Is it normal that there are only 500 creators? Why do creators have enough LikeCoins but don't want to participate in web3? No incentive?

The Liker Land team has explained this. Originally, about 1,000 people were subscribers to stand news and independent media. After the accident happened, it was directly reduced by half. Compared with other Web 3.0 projects, LikeCoin is very strange, not only cannot speculate on coins, but also spend money to buy coins for others. Without monetary benefits, it is difficult to attract people to join quickly.

There are incentives, but not in admiring citizens, but in creators and communities. Creators are needed to engage their supporters. It is also necessary for everyone in the community to attract more people who recognize the value. 500 people is actually more than I thought . I feel good.

Then, there was a problem with the fiat currency subscription in the past. The supporters who most recognized the value of the community and were willing to act were those who did not hold coins at all. From the perspective of community governance, I personally think this is very detrimental to the development of the community. The system of the LikeCoin chain is that only those who hold coins can become community stakeholders. I prefer the current way of allowing supporters to hold LikeCoin.

I remember in Web 2.0, there was a saying that citizens with "appreciation 2.0" status could get a higher profit, so everyone was happy to swipe $5 per month, because it is easy to repay the money as long as the document is produced.

But now Web3.0 entrusts "Civic Liker Appreciation" 5000 Likecoin without "annual rate of return", because the interest has to be distributed to the applauded citizens who are applauded. Would anyone think that it is better to entrust 5000 Likecoin to other people? Validators, casually have an annual rate of return of more than 10%?

Can I still get a higher profit by becoming a citizen who appreciates Citizenship 3.0 status?

It's a misconception that being a citizen will make you charge more LikeCoins. I guess it may be because other platforms are like this, and I mistakenly think that LikeCoin is also like this.

To become a citizen is to buy coins for others by yourself, so that the creators you support will be rewarded more, and it will not do you any good. Now 3.0 is the same way.

If it is for oneself, of course not to become a citizen, because the system of appreciating citizens is used to reward others, not oneself. However, interest is never just about money and LikeCoin.

LikeCoin and Matters have always adhered to the path of " creating value " rather than "commercial and profit first". Many people who are willing to become citizens are not only supporting other creators, but also because they agree with this value, they are willing to pay and become a part.

Or to put it simply, open https://matters.news/authors and count how many individuals have paid their own delegated interest and become appreciative citizens.

Without manual counting, Uncle Duojin (@Uncle Xin) helped to make a report to count the number of people (the number of wallets): [Mini Program] Appreciate the Citizens Web3 report (please clap more).

When you're wondering who would join in when there's no benefit, just look at this appreciative citizen Web3 0 status .

I read it, 504 citizens have become appreciated citizens, 142 citizens who have entrusted but less than 5,000 Likecoins have not yet become appreciated citizens?

Yes, according to the rules set by Liker Land, it is necessary to delegate 5,000 LikeCoins to become an Appreciated Citizen.

 That is, Matters may have tens of thousands of accounts? But currently only 646 of them have entrusted LikeCoin to appreciate citizens. (Only 142 of them have not reached 5000LikeCoin)

Then how many citizens do you think at least join to become admiring citizens, is it ideal or reasonable?

😜 I guessed that there would only be 346 in the first round, which was guessed by the number of people who had Airdropped Standard by Matters before.

Pre-Order Blind Box Announced, Travelloggers Airdrop Announced! Did you win? 🚀 (Please clap your hands a lot)

There are currently 504 appreciative citizens, which is more than I imagined. ideal value? 🙈I don't know, I guess it won't be many, but these people will be the core of the community. Some people just want to write, and there is no need to force them to join .

Some citizens mainly clap their hands and do not produce texts. They used to use credit cards to support citizens. Now they are limited to joining Web3 with LikeCoins. What is the easiest way to exchange LikeCoins with credit cards?

Use electronic payment or bank transfer to make transactions with validators or interested friends in the community. This is called "over-the-counter transactions" . It will be more convenient than swiping a card, but you have to be willing to trust others! Looking for a validator is a good choice, a few thousand LikeCoins are not worth running away.

It seems convenient and safe to go to the exchange to buy, but in fact it is not convenient and safe at all. The trust and security of financial mechanisms in real life largely stem from the high level of government supervision, while the current supervision of exchanges is very small, and it is impossible to directly apply the knowledge in life to exchanges. In addition, there will be a lot of pits!

Is the existence of a validator necessary? main effect? The main work?

This is going to be a long story! Check out Xu Mingen's article: Block Potential Becomes LikeCoin's Validator (Please clap your hands a lot)

Like Xu Mingen, I tend to think from the perspective of governance. But if it's from a "technical point of view", the short answer :

Necessity : In order to realize the consensus of the chain, implement the PoS mechanism.

Main role : accounting for transactions.

Main work : obey the call of "! Rat Whispering Rat", don't let the node die and upgrade the node.

 (Quoted from LikeCoin official website)

Bank + legislator LikeCoin DAO's validator plays the role of "bank" and "legislator" at the same time.

Validators are responsible for the 7x24 operation of the server group to verify the data records of all Likers, including token transfers, content publishing, voting actions, etc. Validators of LikeCoin DAO act as both bank and legislator.

Have you encountered any fun or setbacks as a validator?

" ! Rat Whispering Rat " is very fun, although it will give you a headache when summoned by it! Frustration is okay, I am open to everything! But this picture is always giving me a headache.

source :

The expression "! Rat slaps the rat" comes from a citizen whose writing style is often on the verge of losing control

It's fun, what do you mean by fun? What happens when you type this spell? Isn't it just replying to a message or something. Will there be sound effects? Have fun? Can everyone play?

Yes everyone can play, but, not yet.

It is used to check the status of the checkpoint node. If there is a problem, it must be resolved within about 15 hours, or else it will be fined along with the client.

It's fun, just ask it regularly every day to see how it's mood (state). It's nerve-wracking for a second or two when the message pops up.

Come in and see, in the #mainnet-node-status channel (please install App Discord first)

See, then what?

Swipe right from the far left, there will be a list of channels, find #mainnet-node-status, click

Then enter: !status

Swipe up to see other people's status and messages.

With, (because I'm not a validator) it replies:

The so-called fun is that it (the robot) will respond?

When it (the node) is happy, it's fine. But when something goes wrong, it's super stressful!

Like this: "your node missed 2500 blocks!" and then have to fix it?

Yes, and it needs to be repaired within 15 hours. If the node is offline for more than the upper limit, 0.01% of the LikeCoin in the delegation (together with the delegator) will be deducted.

After setting, when the mouse (node) is unhappy, it will also actively summon you. 🤔 Thinking about it, there seem to be fewer problems recently (I seem to be raising a flag, for fear of being slapped in the face soon).

Discord has been filled before, and I don't know how to use it, so I deleted it. If it is convenient, I recommend a use article.

🤔 Do n't you just know how to speak? Similar to slack, this type of tool is used to talk through, you just need to know how to speak, you don't need to learn too much, you can just ask others how to use it when you need it.

Matters also opened a https://discord.gg/matterslab

But this picture is always giving me a headache, uh, what's the point of the headache?

The number of delegates ranked first is much more than the people behind, so in terms of community governance, his influence is a bit high, not because he is not good, but in terms of the existing governance mechanism, power is already biased The case of a single individual appears.

And he not only has the highest number of commissions, but also the largest number of commissioners. From the point of view of mechanism/rules alone, he is the legislator who is most "supported" by the citizens.

However, I'm not sure if everyone has the same understanding of the mechanism. Kind of like a real-life election. His node is well maintained, and he has only seen it offline once. In fact, there is no problem, but I personally think this is not a good phenomenon!

The editor-in-chief is already "intellectually saturated", so I won't write an afterword this time (lazy), and directly excerpt Xu Mingen's classic article " Block Potential Becomes the Validator of LikeCoin" , explaining the current behavior of validators:

 And the commission set by the verifier is like the "salary" that the verifier sets. Indicates how much percentage of the LIKE the staking gets more every year as the validator's reward.

Two validators, such as WeLike and 0-ZeroKeeper, can provide an annual rate of return of up to 10.99% because they volunteer to volunteer without salary. On the other hand, a validator with a return rate of 5.49% on the list is offering a commission rate of 50%.

People who don’t know what the validators will actually contribute will of course prioritize staking to non-commissioned volunteers. Validators who charge high commissions may be contributing to the community, but they may also be just “sit on dry wages.” Similar to the situation of public opinion representatives.

Take the validator Forbole as an example, they offer a commission rate of 100%. In other words, your mortgaged LIKE income will go directly to Forbole's pocket, which is equivalent to donating future LIKE income to them. However, Forbole's contribution to LikeCoin is also very specific, which is to create a blockchain browser similar to Etherscan - Big Dipper for LikeCoin. This is one of the basic constructions of the blockchain, otherwise other users have to use the command line to fish out the data on the chain.

From this point of view, entrusting LIKE to validators who receive commissions is equivalent to agreeing with what they are doing and directly sponsoring them with a portion of future LIKE coin earnings.

Remember to read the full text, please clap a lot!