I agree. We need to know how to use these funds.I hope this money should be used in peercoin development and marketing, rather than on other related projects.
Would be good for this to come from the community. I have been thinking of unique and creative ways to educate new users because the technical aspects of Peercoin can be complicated for those who are not well versed in the technical side of blockchain technologies.
It would be used on all of the above. Read what I said here. Peercoin core development is vital, but so is development of our 2nd layer protocols like PeerAssets. They work to increase the tools and use cases associated with the Peercoin blockchain and those tools can be used to market Peercoin.
So the Foundation is concerned not just with core development, but with the entire ecosystem. Funds would not be given to a project like Indicium because that is a for-profit business that needs to survive based on its own merits. However the protocol that Indicium runs on (PeerAssets) would be supported because it provides a way to draw more projects to run on top of Peercoin, increasing the value of the main chain in the process.
If a PoW tax like this was to be instated then the Foundation would need to provide higher levels of transparency. This would probably include opening a public Foundation board on this forum where the community can be vocal about different topics and even use it for grant requests for projects that would help Peercoin. For example @ppcman could develop a marketing plan and post it in this board requesting funds to carry out the plan. If the board agreed then they would fund it. If not, then it would be up to ppcman to convince them further.
We would also need to have a place where we detail what funds were spent on. A tax like this without transparency wouldn’t work very well. The community would want a way to see what is going on and a way for them to be heard. Even then, it would ultimately be up to the board members to make decisions, but the community would at least have a way to influence and convince the board members.
This sounds like a good plan we should move forward with implementing it
1 Like
I think the fund’s use plan should be more detailed.The use of funds can be divided into three parts: core development, ecosystem development and marketing. Peercoin core development accounts for 50%, ecosystem development 25%, and marketing 25%. Only in this way can we effectively guarantee the efficiency of funds and reduce the malicious use of funds.
The core development is our foothold. This is a basic project. If the core development is problematic, all other projects will be meaningless.
What do you think?
The next step would probably be putting it up for a vote, but I think it needs more discussion before we do that. Early in the thread before we got sidetracked with the opt-out PoS discussion there was a lot of hesitance to this PoW tax idea. I was also hesitant, but I’m leaning more toward supporting it now as long as there are no huge security ramifications.
Why did I change my mind? I care greatly about retaining as much decentralization as possible in our network and as some have pointed out this change would impact that level of decentralization to a certain degree. PoS security would remain at the same level, but this would give the foundation board members a lot of financial power to effect change. We have seen how the Bitcoin Foundation was corrupted, so it’s clear why there is hesitation to go this route.
At the same time I believe in our current team/board members. We all have similar values and because of that I have to trust that they won’t suddenly be corrupted and become evil. I have to trust that that they will continue to care about moving us forward in such a way that retains Peercoin’s core values. Stakers will always have the option of removing this tax in the future if it doesn’t end well, but I don’t think that will be necessary. This is one of the most principled crypto communities there are and I think that will translate to the Foundation leadership as well.
The fact is we are up against unspeakable odds right now. Things have greatly changed over the past couple years. Our competition is incredibly well funded and they are outcompeting us to the point that every time I make a new announcement in r/cryptocurrency it’s obvious that people have never even heard of us. This is a travesty given Peercoin’s history. What’s more, everything costs money now. You have to pay for exchange integration and support in important apps. It is rare now that Peercoin is integrated somewhere for free. Ledger was the rare exception and it took us a whole year just to get that. I agree with ppcman that our meager voluntary donations are just no match to compete with this.
Peercoin is one of the most important innovations ever created and it cannot be allowed to go out with a whimper. We are here to provide a sustainable, distributed and censorship resistant blockchain network where all forms of value can be stored long-term. We are the best at this, yet people don’t realize it. It can provide an important service to the world, but not until we are recognized for it.
I don’t want to see our incredible volunteers suffer from burnout. If it’s a choice between allowing in some amount centralization and watching Peercoin die a slow death over time then I will choose to risk centralization. If Peercoin dies then it can’t help anyone. This tax at least gives us a fighting chance to come out of this and prove that a Foundation can stick to its values and work toward the benefit of the network. It is a risk yes, but it is much better than the alternative. I am willing to take that risk and I believe we will be just fine.
If allowed the chance, we could act as a shining example of what an open source crypto project should be like for all to see, but instead we continue to suffer needlessly without the necessary financial resources required to make an impact in this industry. I’m tired of our project not getting the recognition it deserves for its accomplishments. We invented proof of stake. We invented efficient and sustainable blockchain technology. We invented the first true distributed autonomous organization (DAO). We invented the first blockchain agnostic token protocol. And yet we receive no credit for these achievements because we have little financial resources to prop ourselves up. I think it’s time for a change. We need to do something different. We need to take a risk and I believe this may be it.
It is true that PoW is used as a mechanism to distribute new coins to new holders, but I don’t see how this tax changes that. Mining requires work to get that block reward and then it is sold on exchanges to new owners in order to pay for mining operation costs.
If this change took place these funds would be distributed to people who do a different form of work for the foundation. Those people have the choice to keep the new coins or also sell them on exchanges just like miners do. Since they are being paid for services rendered by the foundation then it is likely they will just sell and convert the PPC to fiat in order to pay their own bills, so the result ends up being the same, more PPC available for purchase on the market, just through a different path.
I think it’s also of note to say that mining is a voluntary act. If stakers change the rules of the network then certain miners don’t have to accept it if they don’t want to and can move on and leave more rewards for others as the PoW inflation rate dynamically adjusts to the change.
I think it’s difficult to know what our costs would be for each part. That would ultimately effect the percentage number. For example core development requires specialized knowledge and there are few people with that experience. We have one core developer who is open to doing paid work, so I don’t think that one person requires 50% of all funding. Any new people coming in would have to learn from the existing core developers. Plus the resources required in any specific area may change over time. Once we get caught up with the core protocol for example we will probably spend less resources on that and more on other things.
Ecosystem, which consists of building wallets, developing 2nd layer protocols (tokens, smart contracts, payment processors) is where our future lies, so 25% seems too limiting in my opinion. Core development is mostly adapting other people’s work from BTC. The 2nd layer protocols on the other hand are the unique inventions put forth by our own developers, which makes us different.
Anyway, I think it would be very difficult to do it this way because it all depends on variables, who is willing to do paid work, which projects are more urgent than others, what the time commitments are for a project as well as costs, etc… These all constantly change.
Things will change for peercoin with percent of mining going too the peercoin foundation but I believe it will be a change for the better you can’t compete and complete your vision with out being funded properly and the more peercoin increases in value the more money goes too the foundation there will be tremendous incentive too make peercoin the best coin it can possible be and the end result will be a return too being a top 25 coin on coin market cap vertcoin soared when in late 2016 early 2017 the implemented this same type of miner pct going too the foundation the vertcoin holders and the good vision too see this was the way too go and there miners and coin holders were rewarded for it we can and should do the same thing here at peercoin sky’s the limit on how good peercoin can be let’s see too it that the foundation has the funding too make great things happen for peercoin
I disagree.There is no guarantee of sub items, inefficient use of funds, and easy to cause corruption. So it becomes meaningless.
At least, it is necessary to give an appropriate proportion of distribution. I think we can ensure the development of all kinds of work. If there is no arrangement, it is hard for me to believe that funds will not be swallowed up by some rotten items. They used the help of ecosystem building as a reason to defraud the fund.
Peercoin core development : ? %
ecosystem development: ? %
marketing : ? %
You talk about this proportion
What do you mean by sub items? Are you referring to the 2nd layer networks I talked about? Because we do have plans for other protocols like this. PeerAssets is only the first and it’s the primary focus right now. Extensions to PeerAssets will be introduced in the future as well.
I am talking about fund allocation. This is the point of discussion.
As mentioned above I would not know how to determine this because of all the variables. Maybe @peerchemist would have a better idea of what the percents should be. You will have to wait for him to respond.
I think a general plan of what pct of funds would be allocated too what projects is helpful but as time goes on the general allocation plan can be changed based on the current environment and the most pressing needs at the time need too have flexible plan
1 Like
I don’t think it makes any sense to try to do a percent allocation. Most aspects of the project, such as marketing, require more attention than they do money. Money is not the limiting factor in these cases. When a situation arises where we need to pay for something, we will pay for it with general funds. When particular sub projects require funding, we can do individual funding rounds for them (we are still building the infrastructure for this). Making generalized statements and quotas about how much money we spend on general catagories can only lead to inefficiency and waste.
3 Likes
If there is no mechanism to ensure that funds can be used well, the fund may be very inefficient, and funds can easily be carved up by some people.
These people will use deception, say developing related projects to get funds to steal property that belongs to the community, and finally give up because of the failure of the project, there is no return on the investment in these projects, and the core project has no funds.
I just said my opinion,I belive the community decision is the best.
There is no harm in the discussion.
It appears from this thread that the peercoin community is on board with percent of mined coins going too foundation for devolpmemt marketing and the betterment of peercoin in general I don’t think we need exact plan how the money will be used since that will change with time just the general outline I feel we should be ready too move forward with this and let’s get peercoin back too being a top 25 coin since that’s what everyone wants and maybe even top 10
You are talking about board members. If you don’t trust them, don’t donate to the general fund. I hardly see how mandating some percentage goes to marketing will help this problem. If anything, quotas exacerbates this.
I disagree. It looks to me like most of the people with responsibilities in the community said no, then stopped commenting because they thought it was a silly idea and a waste of their time to debate it. The Foundation could vote on raising funds this way at a board meeting, but I doubt it would pass, and I would consider it a distraction from more important topics to put it on the agenda.
For example, no one has responded to this yet:
Also, i couldn’t care less about our marketcap in comparison to a host of ico shitcoins.
3 Likes
Honestly, instead of trying to siphon off miner funds and putting regulations on what the Foundation can spend, I wish y’all were thinking of bylaws and context for what the Foundation stands for. The monetary aspect is such a small part of all of this.
1 Like
The initial discussion was sidetracked because of ppcman’s idea about opt-out PoS rewards. Then we realized this idea would not generate nearly enough funds to warrant its development. I brought back discussion of the initial idea here with some actual numbers and I spoke about my change of heart here. In our current predicament I would not call it a silly idea.
There has been no analysis of the security or legal implications of having the blockchain generate coins directly into a hardcoded address representing the Foundation. Until then, it is not a practical possibility.
1 Like