It is proposed to allocate ten percent of the proceeds from the mining to the foundation

The development of PEERCOIN to the present stage is not easy, the development team has been working hard, but now PEERCOIN is facing a huge challenge, from 2013 ranking third, has slipped to 200, and there is still a tendency to continue to slide. In the face of major changes in the block chain industry, the development team is very thin, many developers turn to paid services, making many development work difficult to make progress. If there is no corresponding measures to prevent the tragedy, then PEERCOIN will become history, forever buried.So we recommend the establishment of the PEERCOIN development foundation to help the development of PEERCOIN out of the dilemma, and ten percent of the PEERCOIN mining earnings are used to pay for the development foundation.


It is proposed to allocate ten percent of the proceeds from the mining to the foundation.

What do you think? So the foundation will not worry that there will be no money for further development.


Only if the funds are allocated to the foundation, can the foundation have more funds to do more work, so that the development work will not stop.

Everyone would like to express their views, agree or disagree?

I think this should be a long-term development mechanism , It is very helpful to the stable development of the community

This idea has been proposed several times already, but never kinda took of as we did not have a formal organization until now. I am looking forward to see the comments on this topic.

Thanks for initiating this @diandianbi.

I always disliked the “dash” concept of taxing the PoW reward. It’s prone to corruption and inflates the foundation’s role.

Other projects like Monero have communities which finance basically everything through donations. I would rather have that.


I also would not like to see this happen on the protocol level, but would rather hope to see it as a concerted effort from the community. Ultimately, the Peercoin Foundation is not Peercoin, but merely a legal construct that will help the blockchain remain relevant. The Foundation should always maintain at least a thin veil of third party independence from the blockchain itself (and vice versa). I think including the Foundation in the protocol itself would be a breach of that veil.


I agree, this should definitely be a done on volunteer basis. But tragedy of the commons.

I would also favor to not do this via a hardfork. This would effectively take away 10% of the coins of those who are not stakeholders yet, without them having a say. This is not sound money, although I would agree that the cryptomarket often rewards the reduction of PoW inflation (Dash, Ethereum). Sad, but true.

And what about the funds of abandoned projects on Peer4commit?

Sigmike posted that he will transfer them to the foundation if nobody protests after 2 weeks.

But that is minor sum of coins which is just recycling old funds, it does not solve the question of future funding.

I agree that a mandatory tax is not ideal. All the previous comments are valid in my opinion. It inflates the importance of the foundation to the point that it is no longer acting as an independent 3rd party organization. It will in effect be directly tied to the Peercoin blockchain and become a source of increased centralization in terms of decision making.

On the other hand, if the foundation ever became corrupted over time and was a burden to the network rather than a benefit, stakeholders could always hardfork in order to remove that direct connection, thus removing its influence. The benefit at Peercoin is that stakeholders ultimately control the network, so if they saw things going down the wrong path they could always cut off the foundation by removing the mandatory tax at a later date.

It has also been proposed that we setup an official team hosted mining pool which collects a tax and passes it on to the foundation. This would be the voluntary option. If miners wanted to support Peercoin then they would mine in the official pool. The question though is who on the team would set it up and maintain it as well as whether anybody would actually use the pool. Since this would be voluntary and not mandatory, it would be up to the miners to decide whether they were ok with taking less profit from mining.

This would be the case for why the voluntary mining pool might not work, but we would have to try it first to find out.

1 Like

Peercoin has never done a hostile hard fork, and it is not a recommended course of action for a distributed consensus project.

FYI: ecoining pool takes 1% fee and seems to find 6 blocks/day or less @ 39 PPC reward.

That’s about $585 US/day, and 1% is $6 USD. Not a huge amount.

There’s got to be only 14 -30 PoW blocks found per day for Peercoin.


Yes, at current price the voluntary mining pool option does not seem very effective at generating enough funds.

I think, that if pool operators add 10% fee for Peercoin foundation, miners will go to another coin. Donation is the right way. I looking statistic on ecoining. Thera some miners, who donating to pool. I think they will be donate for foundation. But absolute majority of miners won’t to donate. As pool operator I can share only my pool fee and add donation link on main page or message of the day.


2009 Bitcoin way of thinking in 2018 has shown us that it is not plausible to have a decentralized blockchain, with decentralized marketing team with decentralized developers, all unfunded.

Creative and borderline unethical ways have been utilized by many blockchains, and even mining pools to give the illusion their chain is truly decentralized even if it isn’t in order to survive and fund the work by their own developers and mining pool operators.

Examples are:

a) Ninja launches

b) Sharedrops announced (after the people with advance insider knowledge buy up a lot of discounted other coins on other chains prior to the sharedrop announce of which other chains are the beneficiary of a sharedrop)

c) Deliberate code exploits, where the developer himself might exploit his own chain, and then run to the rescue and fix the bug… after accumulating lots of coins in that short time

d) Promising a CPU mineable coin, even though a GPU miner in secret already exists

e) One or more of the original founders / developers sets up mining pools immediately, but they have “fake user participation” where the mining operator actually gets a larger paid share of each block reward than the legitimate users.

  • (Has it not ever seemed uncanny that a mining pool usually goes live within 24 hours of a coin launch or sooner? Who is in the know? Who designed the proprietary mining pool back end. Who has modified the mining pool payout code)

These types of scams and exploits have been happening in every one’s face for years. Very few normal users or investors take the time to realize it.

If you’re smart enough to code a blockchain, you often are smart enough to come up with a cunning way to exploit the same and still maintain the illusion that the chain was fairly launched. This has been done dozens of times, if not hundreds of times.

Let’s not breed this type of necessity into our current chain, just so the hard labor involved doesn’t get opened up into fraudulent activity later.

Or worse, our honest dev team, marketers, etc, get burnt out from volunteer time, and our investors too, and the chain eventually slowly dies from lack of financial resources to support it.

In cryptocurrency, you have to ask yourself…

If I can’t tell how the founders, developers, and marketers are making return on their time and effort, then that gives the increasing probability that they either have already, or are planning to, do “something” to recoup their investment.


For example, not all scams or pump and dumps are planned that way. Honest people with good intentions have been seen to set out on a roadmap that becomes technically impossible, and they them selves dump their holdings onto the market quickly leaving bagholding users before the announcement comes out that the chain has been abandoned.

The most responsible thing you can do, is have a tax, to fund a foundation if you want longevity of a blockchain to exist.

Now if we’re redefining the word “currency” in the form of cryptocurrency… I suggest we avoid the word “tax”

Tax is something that we’ve known to be paid by the public to the government all the time, with little accountability for the way it is spent.

Soon as you say “tax”, people freak out.

I suggest that all wallets come with a voluntary contribution to the Peercoin Society or Peercoin Foundation that can be turned off at will.

In order for people to leave “it on”, the contribution percentage would have to be quite low.

I believe all minted transactions would have an algorithm set in of 5% of the minted funds to automatically be allocated to a foundation address unless the user explicitly turns that off.

People have a sociable mindset that if this is the default, and the norm, and everyone seems to be doing it (as reflected by the blockchain explorers), than it is the right thing to do to leave on it to protect their investment moving forward.

If you minted 10 Peercoin, 9.5 of them went to you, and 0.5 Peercoin went to the Foundation by leaving the default contribution enabled… there is some solace and piece of mind also seeing someone who minted 1,000 peercoin, also sent 50 Peercoin to the foundation address as well.

These small numbers add up over time, especially if the foundation address mints for itself.

In order for this to be generally accepted, people would need to trust and see a monthly accounting of funds and if they wanted to earn some of those funds, they could use their skills and talents to bid on jobs, etc.

TAX… NO, it will always be shot down

Voluntary Contribution for Minting Wallets, YES.

There is one important feature that needs to also be included…

If someone like cryptopia, bittrex, or any other “known” exchange wallet has minting “contributions” turned OFF, it should be viewable and publicly known on the blockchain. (Which is quite easy since the large wallets are often identified already)

So if their last mint did not include a contribution, that should be known.

This way at some point, people can visibly see who contributes and who doesn’t, so the “tragedy of the commons” problem of everyone switching it off, becomes a lot less of a problem, if there is a social stigma for doing so.

Of course you will always have nay-sayers and complaining parties who say this can never possibly work out.

That’s what they said about Bitcoin in 2009 and today we still have that coin.

I suggest we forge ahead on this idea and implement it.

If not, then I believe we should come up with a Peercoin fork that DOES have this voluntary minting contribution capability and see which chain out performs the other.

I completely believe that any Peercoin fork with similar community members, developers and support would succeed with a chain containing this design and that proof would become self evident in the first year.

Please do not be easily dismissive of the incredible good this can do for Peercoin. Let’s learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of other chains and do what is imperatively important.

Idea for a forked chain: Launching a fresh genesis called PEERCOIN 2.0 with only the last 24 months of transactions and balances from “live” wallets imported as part of its genesis might be a good way to preserve the last 24 months of stake, and still give an opportunity to support a chain like this.


I really like the idea of a donate option built into the front-end wallet software. I’m not such a big fan of mandatory reporting, especially since it is an implementation nightmare (honest actors are punished), but the concept of putting a donation option in the wallet is pretty cool. So you could do like a checkbox for ‘send all mint rewards to the foundation’ as well as a straight ‘donate xxx Peercoin’ button, both of which have the foundation multisig hardcoded in.

1 Like

@ppcman i think this idea is worth pursuing. I’ve thought a similar idea in the past.

It shouldn’t require forking or creating a new chain. It should just be a matter of adding the feature to the reference wallet software. Opt-out for minting percentage donation should not be controversial, it will prevent forks of the client.

Reporting by address will be automatic just by checking the block explorer.

I do like this idea as well. It is voluntary which is important, but at the same time we can have the default setting be on like ppcman suggested, so it automatically catches as many minters as possible. Users can turn it off if they want or even adjust to increase the donation percentage. If it were to be done, this seems to be the best way to handle it in my opinion.