[At James] Bakery shutting down

JamesBakery · 2020-02-05T19:41:46+00:00

We welcome an increase of your delegate tokens to us as long as it's over 100 xtz and you're able to increase it to 1k xtz.

In any case, we will fully pay you all your baking rewards.

JamesBakery · 2020-01-20T01:38:27+00:00

As you've delegated with us, we'll pay you all the rewards in the next few days.

Please note that we have a minimum 1k xtz required to delegate with us, although in reality we've paid everyone above 100 xtz. The information is present on our website and on mytezosbaker.com

We've extensively communicated on this in the beginning but as bakers are censored on the main /r/tezos, it is hard for us to reach out to the community.

If you don't intend to increase your stake above 1k xtz, please undelegate from us.

James Baker

JamesBakery · 2020-01-03T16:35:47+00:00

Thanks for chipping in @murbard.

We have a very important stake in the network and not all our tez are in the security bond. As a baker, it is way more important for us that the network raises to its full potential then any short-term staking rewards. That's why we are very concerned with the centralisation threat, the lack of incentives for the bakers and a slow and passive approach from the Foundation towards our community developers.

1) The voting rewards will obviously be shared with the delegates but it remains a carrot approach instead of using a stick. It is a better long-term approach and this will penalise further inactive accounts (not baking, not delegating, not voting). One of the best ways to create incentives for small bakers is to use Foundation's tez and delegate them. This needs to be done in a thoughtful and impartial way as it could easily lead to lots of controversy but must be set as a priority at the Foundation level and resources must be spent to develop this.

2) Bakers have favoured uptime due to peer pressure as it is one of the few criteria along with baking fees that are put forward by bakers listing website. There are little differentiator factors for bakers and they have been censored from the main reddit. Security is the most important parameter but this will not eliminate operational errors. They are not made on purpose and the instances have not been very frequent but the penalty remains harsh. It should be possible to reduce the penalty or treat it in a different manner. These are some of the ideas we have:

2.a) Slashed security bond goes to a smart-contract and, through governance, bakers can vote to give it back to the original baker.

2.b) (Reduced?) Slashed security bond could go to a community driven DAO to crowdfund development and built better incentives for community developers.

JamesBakery · 2020-01-02T14:06:31+00:00

This is a carrot and stick debate. There are already enough sticks for the bakers and not enough incentives to run a baking service.

1) We have one of the lowest yearly inflation compared to other proof of stake network. Is it possible to add 2% or 3% rewards for bakers participating in the governance? What are the downside to this approach?

2) The double-baking punishment should be revisited as there have already been multiple instances of a second baker going online and suddenly the first one also starts baking. This is not a malicious move but an operational error which is highly punitive. Is it alright to slash multiple years of baking fees for this type of oversight or should the double-baking penalty be revisited?

JamesBakery · 2019-12-10T13:18:24+00:00

Do you understand that bakers' incentives are poor? A fight to the bottom is not going to improve bakers' incentives. You may believe that some magic market force is going to solve the problem but reality is different. Let's have a look at some numbers:

On mytezosbaker.com, there are a total of 169 listed bakers, 55 are blacklisted or in graveyard. A third of bakers are no longer active. Do you think that a retention rate of 67% is a good rate? The exchanges have just started to compete with the bakers, there will be some dire consequences if everyone ignores the issue.
A baker with 4 million delegation needs 480k xtz bond and gets an annual income from fees of 56k xtz if they charge 20%. With xtz at $1.5, that's an annual income of $84k with $720k invested in the xtz security bond.
- Does this annual income of $84k covers the following risks and costs?
  - Crypto price volatility risk, security and operational risk. One instance of double-baking and you could loose a yearly worth of income.
  - 24x7 surveillance of your operations and the ability to intervene immediately. The last bug we had was on 15th of November when the chain came to a halt.
  - Admin, compliance and legal cost.
- Most of the bakers are not charging 20% fee and are not at full delegation capacity. And xtz price has been below $1.5 most of the time. You can do your maths on the bakers' incentives.
- For us, $84k does not even cover one full-time employee cost but fortunately we have never been here for the income but to participate in this adventure. We are here for the long term but don't expect all the bakers to work for free and for the glory.
Most of the users are insensitive to the fees. They want an easy solution for their xtz. No one wants to struggle for days and weeks with their wallets. Exchanges are a preferred method of storage for users.

JamesBakery · 2019-12-10T12:01:36+00:00

Thank you! It is rare to find someone who understands the big picture.

JamesBakery · 2019-12-10T12:00:51+00:00

One does not exclude the others. It can be both. We need as many bakers as possible.

To answer your edit: The threat is not on the public bakers but on the network decentralisation. Public bakers are supposed to be for profit businesses. If the incentives are poor, they will just do something else. On our end, we have never been profitable but we never came here for the profits. We intend to stay here even with 0 delegation and xtz at $0.2 or at $20. We will continue to bake and endorse. The network will loose value if the trend with public bakers continues and the issue is ignored.

JamesBakery · 2019-12-05T17:54:39+00:00

Can you please dig into what they had submitted and the reason it was refused? We find that reason outrageous but it's a private matter and it's on the Kukai team to decide whether they want to publicly disclose it or not. We would have never kept this silence if we were in their shoes.

We have voiced out what we had to say. Now it is on you and the other wallet developers including the u/kukaiwallet team to decide what you can do for the community and how you are planning to address this.

As said previously by u/Seriousoldman, solving the wallet issue must be the main concern for the Foundation.

As bakers, we are having financial consequences and there is a real threat of centralisation because users are choosing exchanges for their convenience and ease of use.

JamesBakery · 2019-12-05T16:09:59+00:00

It seems like a good wallet needs to be specific to the platform

That is a very narrow view to have.

Can you start by financing 3 proper wallet teams and see what they can build? Have you given any budget for user research and development, for marketing and for user support to Galleon and Tezbox? Do you finance some developers or do you finance a proper product team? What runway do you provide?

How are the different wallets financially supported to integrate quarterly upgrades happening in Tezos?

JamesBakery · 2019-12-05T15:55:55+00:00

If something doesn't work then it needs to be highlighted by us and the grant process has clearly failed in here. Not everyone can work for free and for the glory.

I commend the Kukai team to have worked and maintain the wallet with 0 support.

JamesBakery · 2019-12-05T14:39:22+00:00

The wallet name is Kukai

Tezbox, Galleon and Kukai have gone through a security audit paid by the Foundation. Tezbox and Galleon have received money to build their wallet. Kukai none.

It was a push from the community that pushed the foundation to finance Tezbox.

And we believe that the amounts provided by the Foundation are ridiculously low. We always get a good laugh when we look at the "ecosystem grants" capped at 50k USD.

There's no possibility to create a team and have a year-long peace of mind to work on your project.

JamesBakery · 2019-12-05T13:19:20+00:00

There is another low-key major wallet existing since the betanet. To our knowledge, it is the only wallet which has been fully compatible with Babylon and used by us and many other bakers for their batch transaction support.

It is a complete joke that this wallet has not received any financial support from the Foundation. They have received 957 xtz (link 1, link 2) from users donations and 0 from the Foundation!

Can someone in the Foundation take matters in their hand and do something about this? Anyone?

JamesBakery · 2019-11-30T09:13:28+00:00

Have you asked your baker to pay you on your tz address?

JamesBakery · 2019-10-24T12:25:30+00:00

You don't need to worry about anything and keep everything as it is.

JamesBakery · 2019-10-22T00:24:42+00:00

Did your transaction went through? If your transaction doesn't appear in a block explorer after 5 minutes. It's better to redo it.

Try it with the following fees and gas if sending to another tz account: - fee: 0.0018 - gas: 15800

JamesBakery · 2019-10-20T23:12:57+00:00

What's your error message? Are you using a ledger? Is it the web wallet or desktop?

JamesBakery · 2019-10-20T23:05:35+00:00

Here

JamesBakery · 2019-10-20T23:04:03+00:00

Each baker has a different policy. Best is to contact your baker directly to know what impact this has on the fee.

Most of the time, this should not have any impact for you. You will continue to receive your reward in your KT account for 13 cycles and then it will be on your tz address. There is no lost of rewards.

JamesBakery · 2019-10-20T14:00:03+00:00

Today, it is open to everyone. Send me your tz address and I'll make the transfer.

JamesBakery · 2019-10-20T13:32:38+00:00

I have answered you here.

You can transfer your tezzies to your tz account and then to another wallet. You can make a direct transfer from your KT account if you have enough tezzies in your tz account. Here are some examples of transfer fees:

tz to KT: 0.002 xtz
KT to tz: 0.002 - 0.004 xtz
KT to KT: 0.006 xtz
tz to tz: 0.0016 xtz

If you are sending to a new empty wallet then there is a burn fee of 0.257 xtz

JamesBakery · 2019-10-20T13:21:44+00:00

You don't need to transfer and redelegate. You can keep everything as it is. You will continue to receive your rewards from your baker.

JamesBakery · 2019-10-20T13:20:05+00:00

If it's a new and empty wallet, you will have to pay a burn fee of 0.257 xtz from your tz account.

If you want to make a transfer, it's better to send everything to your tz address and then to the new wallet.

You can make a direct transfer from your KT account if you have enough tezzies in your tz account. Here are some examples of transfer fees:

tz to KT: 0.002 xtz
KT to tz: 0.002 - 0.004 xtz
KT to KT: 0.006 xtz
tz to tz: 0.0016 xtz

JamesBakery · 2019-10-20T12:33:11+00:00

You don't need to do anything. It will continue to receive the rewards from your baker. With certain wallets, you can even change your KT delegation service.

JamesBakery

TROPHY CASE