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.
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.
NOTE: A VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION SYSTEM IS VERY OBVIOUS ABOUT HOW THEY ARE FUNDED
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.