Allow anyone to pay dividends?


#1

There has been some discussion on Telegram recently about removing the requirement that only asset owners can pay dividends. Removing this requirement would allow any user to pay a dividend to all of the users of any asset.

Thoughts? Is this something you counterparty users want?


Change in dividend payments
#2

User demand:
The current dividend implementation is used about once every two days. With flexible dividends, I guess we’ll see quite a bit more usage. Nevertheless, if someone writes up a CIP and development gets funding, then - yea - let’s do it!
(if only removing the owner-only requirement, then no funding needed)

Dividend parameters:
Dividend is one very specific case of a mass-send. Why not add some flexibility to it:

  • Receive proportional to holdings (how it works today) OR everyone receives same absolute quantity (e.g. one PEPE card to each holder of PEPECASH)
  • Pay dividend only to balances above X (currently not possible to specify, ie zero) OR pay dividend to top N balances only

Fees:
The fee now is 0.0002 XCP per recipient ($0.002). Is this reasonable? Remember that it only takes one bitcoin transaction to potentially send to 1000s of recipients. Distributing your token to 1000 recipients would cost only $2, and a hundred thousand would be $200.


#3

We can enable anyone to pay a dividend just like an asset owner by simply removing 4 lines of code. No additions needed, no extra fee calculations, etc… just delete 4 lines of code :slight_smile:

IMO There is no need for a CIP or a bounty, or for any fee calculation changes, as dividends dividends already have an anti-spam fee of 0.0002 XCP per recipient which has been working fine to prevent spam.


#4

Side-Note: We really should put together a fees CIP which outlines what the targeted fees should be for
named assets, subassets, and dividends, as well as outline what criteria needs to be met in order to adjust the fees higher/lower.

If the price of XCP goes up or down considerably (which it does pretty regular) then the fees can swing wildly… We should do everything we can to try and normalize the fees :slight_smile:

Also, if the long-term plan is to move to dynamic fees, we might want to start working on developing that calculation :slight_smile:


#5

This is excellent! Thanks Jdog. I’ll certainly fill you up with some of my rarepepes as at least a token bounty.
Does this still mean that payout will only be done as a share? Or can I pay one token to each address no matter what the share of target token?


#6

If you only want to send one token to each holder regardless of the amount the holder has, then dividends are not for you, as dividends pay out per-unit.

You could probably accomplish what your wanting to do pretty easily by
1.) Dump a list of all the holders of a token at xchain.io
2.) use bitsplit.tokenly.com to distribute 1 coin/token to every address that holds some of your token.


#7

I don’t see why not even though it’s probably not going to be something I would use often. It does open up other possibilities.

I think it was on foldingcoin’s slack I suggested “receiver tokens”. Basically, instead of sending foldingcoin as usual, one could create a monthly token that gets distributed in the same manner foldingcoin does. Since it would act merely as a token to receive other tokens it wouldn’t matter how many were created, it could be 10s or 1000s (as long as it’s divisible). This token would then receive foldingcoin as a dividend. Now, if dividend restrictions were lifted, anybody could participate easily in the so called merged mining by simply doing a dividend payment to the “receiver token”.

Projects could look at the history and choose the month it wanted to make the distribution. They could also add another layer to that by incorporating the “receiver token” into their project. SOG could for example say that the month that generated the most folding points will become a card in their game, giving it added value than merely being a “receiver token”.

If restrictionless dividends makes it easier to cooperate without permission, great! Counterparty could be a superorganism in the making.


#8

Necroposting here: This could be done nicely if we enable an “OPTION” for addresses to opt-out of non-owner dividend distribution (or maybe, opt-in), in case someone doesn’t wants to allow their holders to receive tokens from anyone else as a distribution on a pay-per-unit ‘dividend’.

Is this something useful for the community? I know ppl that wouldn’t want anyone airdropping stuff on their token holders, but at the same time there has been enough ppl asking to send dividends to non-owned tokens


#9

I like this option as it allows the asset owner to :

  • Specify no dividends on any assets owned by their address with a single broadcast
  • Asset ownership can still be transferred to new address where non-owner dividends/distributions are allowed

#10

I’m looking forward to getting this dividend to as many as possible ASAP
https://xchain.io/asset/KALEIDOSCOPE.The_worlds_first_ever_longest_digital_asset_name_and_an_experiment_of_an_experiment_on_the_blockchain_verified_forever_by_the_counterparty_protocol_and_bitcoin_OPreturn


#11

Yes the feature could be very useful, if expanded to non-owner. It allows a lot of possibilities for a flexible proportional delivery:

  • 1 token could be used a subscription for monthly distribuition of other token(s)
  • airdrop for targeted people/interest
  • incentive for counterparty usage as more token will “fly”
  • one idea I have to use it for community base engagement.
    => read it again all these features should bring more usage and more users. simple math.