[quote=“Nagalim,post:31, topic:2550, full:true”]With a rising BKS price, we have more monetary power to offer better compensation to our signers, thus creating competition and more security. For instance, with a higher signer compensation we could probably increase the number of signers per transaction.
Conversely, with a lower BKS price we need to tighten up ship and lower the compensation. Then we need to vote to lower the number of signers per transaction. This is entirely consistent with @Sabreiib 's concept of firing emplyees when the stock price tanks.
The two situations above are automatically taken into account when offering BKS rewards to signers.[/quote]
If BKS price rises or falls it has to do with the success of the exchange. Aka if BKS prices rises the exchange is doing well and generating more revenue. If the BKS price falls the exchange is having a hard time and generating less revenue. This also means that if we pay signers a percentage of our revenue (revenue is BTC since we have to convert our BKC income to BTC anyway since we payout our shareholders in BTC) their reward is tied in to the success of our exchange thus providing the signers with incentive to make B&C a success.
If revenue is low and thus income for signers decreases some will quit (aka firing people) if we feel too few are left to provide our service we can increase the percentage they get through motions. I don’t think singers will quit after a few bad months since their operational costs are relatively low and they be giving up a good position (being a reputed signer) that is hard to get back when revenue picks back up again. If I was a reputed signer and had been providing service for 4 months getting a decent amount of bitcoins everything month (say 0.5 BTC-1 BTC) depending on how B&C was doing, and suddenly hard times hit and B&C is hardly making any revenue (aka no BKC sold) would I then think fuck it I quit? No I would think things will pick up and I don’t want to lose the reputation and time I invested into getting this position. Since I as a singer should realize if you give up your position there’s a small change of getting it back again. It will probably be hard to become a signer this will make it so that becoming one is essentially an investment that will only pay off after doing it for a while. It would be weird for an established signer to quit even if a few months they get paid little due to low revenue.
Now I would imagine lots of signers will be BKS shareholders or interested in becoming shareholders. But instead of diluting shares and thus devaluating shares we could give reward them with the BTC which they could use to buy BKS which would create buy pressure and thus driving up BKS share price. If however they have no interest in becoming shareholders they will be happy with the BTC since ,and you can argue all you want, it’s by far the most liquid and widely accepted crypto out there. Everyone accepts BTC few will accept BKS.
Why dilute shares and give signers BKS when we are already using BTC and we can just give them a percentage of our revenue instead? Just as with giving them BKS their reward is tied to our success thus creating incentive for them to have B&C be an success. Instead you want to dilute shares and thus devaluating them and off top of that create addition sell pressure for BKS on exchanges since some of the signers will want to sell them. Instead we can give them some our revenue (which we already have in BTC) which doesn’t dilute BKS shares and on top of that create more buy pressure for BKS due to some signers using their reward to buy BKS.
[quote=“masterOfDisaster,
post:22, topic:2550, full:true”]
re
"Solution I"
where do the BTC come from if not from sold BKC? Should BCE issue BKS to buy BTC? 
If they come from sold BKC you can very well just pay them with BKC and let them sell
the BKC for whatever they want.
Paying with BTC creates unnecessary dependencies on the Bitcoin network. If you want to pay
the signer with something that has sufficiently liquid markets and a stable value, choose NBT 
…but I’d prefer not to have external dependencies when dealing with signer payment[/quote]
I really don’t understand your reasoning here. Since we use BTC to pay out dividends we are already depended on the bitcoin network.
The problem with paying them in BKC is twofold.
The first problem is that they will be forced to trade the BKC since BKC has no value outside of B&C. Essentially we’re saying here’s your reward and good luck trading it in something valuable. To stay with the BKC stamps analogy, imagine being paid by your boss in stamps and saying good luck trading your salary into something that is actually useful to you……
The second problem is that with generating additional BKC that we do not use to sell at 1$ to our customers (aka our trade fee) we are undercutting our own revenue stream. We’d lose money doing this. Imagine us selling 100 BKC thus generating a 100 dollars now let’s say we pay them 20% of our revenue. If we do this in BTC we’d distribute 20% of the BTC we made in revenue to our signers thus paying them 20 dollars. If we do this in BKC we’d create 20 BKC worth 20 dollars and distribute this to them.
Now one could say like @Nagalim does “spending money is spending money is spending money” but this is not actually true. Cause let me tell you what happens next, the signers need to sell their BKC (since its worthless to them) on the market, since we have an infinite sell wall of 1 BKC for 1 dollar they will have to sell them cheaper. Thus selling them for example for 0,80 cents this will mean that essentially we are creating additional BKC to be sold at a lower price than the price we’re offering and in doing so undercutting our own revenue. If we do this every month we’re essential auctioning part of the BKC we create at a lower price and thus costing us money.
So we give our signers stamps and hurt our own revenue. Aka terrible option.
