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

I also like this idea. It hurts less to donate the stake reward than to donate a portion of one’s own stock of coins.

Hobonickels has this option built into the client, they call it “stake for charity”, so we could more or less copy their code. They have a nice dev (“Tranz” from Bitcointalk) who I am sure would be happy to assist.

1 Like

I’m interested to know how they have it setup. I think ours would need to come with a number of characteristics…

1. On by default
2. Default baseline percentage (5%)
3. Op-out setting
4. Pre-selected percentage options ( 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, 100 and custom)
5. A separate donate button that you can use to send any amount from your balance without involving staking.

So I did a little math. The current supply is 24,772,330. 1% yearly interest is 247,723 PPC. As a default baseline, 5% of that yearly interest comes to about 12,386 PPC. Current dollar value of that is around $30k, which is ok as a base to work from, especially if the price increases from the work we are doing.

The problem is that this figure is only accurate when you have 100% of participation in minting. It is the maximum, which we are far from. So if you divide that figure by another 20x you end up with about 500 PPC/year, which is barely over $1,000.

So it seems that this is not a proper solution either unless you can think of something that I’m missing @ppcman. We would most likely get more funds just from installing a manual donation button in the wallet.

I like the ppcman’s idea of Peercoin 2.0. Because even the biggest holders are not interested in Peercoin developing such as founder Sunny King. They could donate to the Peercoin foundation the hundreds of thousands coins.

Good numbers, glad you took the initiative to check that for us. Thank you.

Increasing the mint reward “per block” is another option. Whether it is 21 million circulated or 42 million circulated seems to mean very little these days if you look at the amount of coins in circulation on coinmarketcap. Coins with 3 billion out there, or 30 billion still seem to do well. Does that make sense? Not to me… but it doesn’t seem to retract from their trading volume. :stuck_out_tongue:

That’s a bit of a stretch to think about at this point, but it is an option.

Knowing that this is in place, and is working, on any level, will raise eyebrows, encourage participation, and could easily raise Peercoin 3x to 6x current price especially knowing that the end goal is to better Peercoin, promote it better. etc.

These numbers you have calculated mean very little in the long-term.

I personally deliberately didn’t buy Ethereum because of its failed initial launch (which had to be rescheduled) its strange mining in the beginning, the lack of documentation, etc. I watched it grow from $3/ETH to what it is now (before the fork to ETC and ETH)

…these things have a way of mooning pretty quick. As long as your infrastructure makes sense and your distribution is working… the price and value of each coin will take care of itself as time goes on.

Start here, and adjust as necessary.

Remember whether you DO SOMETHING or DO NOTHING you will always have gripes and complaints. Begin somewhere and progress forward, always, and the market will follow with a positive outcome if what your doing has a positive outlook.

By the way, if this was ppcman-chain and not Peercoin, I might have opted to have a 2% minting reward, with 1.25% payable to to the user, and 0.75% payable to the multisig Foundation address that is hardcoded into the protocol and verifiable by every node on the main chain.

There is many ways to do this… :slight_smile:

do you think you can just throw money at something and yell develop? unfortunately also developers are required, just having a pile of money wont make them appear out of thin air.
In fact, it has shown that some projects have failed because they gotten too much funding.

Personally, I’m looking less at development myself, and more at marketing resources and paid marketing promotion, giveaways, contests, and paid-for meetups that can get people interested paid for travel expenses, attending crypto-tradeshows, etc.

Having a Peercoin booth professionally done up, financing more professional videos, etc.

Not just development.

1 Like

Has the foundations role been defined yet? I mean… precisely? What is it going to do? How does the contract look like? Who is playing key roles? What does accountability to the community/public look like?

Until then I’m not comfortable discussing any kind of minting/mining “opt-out donation” within the official wallet.
If, and only if, we’re going to do that, please: make it opt-in, anything else will raise eyebrows.

2 Likes

Our development team is very smart and intelligent. Any compulsion will have great trauma to the system. If the foundation fails to make good use of it, it will probably lead to very bad problems. If the foundation is not well managed, there will be tragedy of the Commons.

I’d be OK with an opt-in donation option in the wallet. Perhaps there could be a donation screen that allows people to do a one-time donation, donate a percentage of minting rewards or donate a percentage of each transaction. I do not agree with adding a default donation in an update that needs to be opted out of.

I’d like to make something very clear.

When I first joined Peercoin in 2013 until now, I’ve met numerous resistance for things from people who like a “tread lightly” approach to everything we do…

That mindset has gotten Peercoin from #3 spot, steadily falling fast on coinmarketcap to #192 spot today.

If I keep hearing things about opt-in, and passive donation schemes, you are all going to lose. Please re-think your position.

This is time to do something aggressive.

You want a significant change to the way Peercoin shines and is adopted? Then you have to make a significant change to your thinking too.

Go into unexplored territory. We can’t be doing any worse than we are now.

Raising eyebrows? Excellent. YES! Raise eyebrows. Make it OPT-OUT

We always seem to hear from the complainers the most. They are the most vocal. There is a passive majority that never post, and fully agree with me. I’ve met them. They’ve given me wallet donations in my profile sig before. When we changed to discourse these people seemed to have disappeared at the exact same time

More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_gallery

However, raise some eyebrows, get things moving where they need to go… these people will return.

From the outside looking in it might seem that we’re doing worse because an outsider’s focus tends to rely too heavily on the market-cap as an indicator. Any consistent contributor or team member of the community will tell you the exact opposite.

This network has never been as strongly positioned as it currently is in terms of meaningful infrastructure for growth in the near future. You don’t force a seed to grow into a tree. The seed gathers nutrients and is watered in the darkness of the soil before breaching the surface.

Making donations opt-out takes advantage of individuals who are not aware or haven’t been given the chance to consent to the donations. I’m all for this proposal but surely we should make it opt-in.

3 Likes

There is a third option, neither opt-in nor opt-out:
A pop-up window, which explains about the Peercoin foundation and asks whether the user wishes to donate or not.

3 Likes

I think the time to be more aggressive is coming closer slowly, but it is not here yet.

Forget the stake donation thing and any form of “forced” donations (even if its optional be it in or out).

We need to be more specific on WHAT this aggressive plan of action is to be, right now we are talking about generating some revenue via donations but nothing about what EXACTLY is going to happen with this revenue.

There is money out there, but money is looking for a PLAN, build the plan and i assure you if it is worthy it WILL be funded.

Currently this is looking for a solution to a problem that has not been clearly defined.

A donation option in the wallet that is completely optional and not intrusive i totally agree with though.

This comes from someone who has donated directly to you in the past as well ppcman, and i will do so again without hesitation if i see another reason too.

2 Likes

There are very definitely many things the foundation could use money for, including but not limited to development and marketing, both of which have a long way to go. While I dislike opt-out because it creates hostility between minters and developers, I do think we could use this opportunity to make some nice new features for the client that include a hard-coded Foundation address. The key point to make here is that we want to be sure that we don’t put more effort into adding new features than it ends up generating in donations.

I appreciate every ounce of energy our developers are putting into the network. They’re volunteering their time, and creating positive externalities for me and other holders without the technical skills to participate. We’re free riding on their work. However, volunteers are not paid professionals, and I appreciate that the benefits of volunteering only extend so far.

Part of the mission of the Foundation should be to fund development, paying as necessary (others can comment to the extent the pace of the development is slowed, if at all, by the lack of resources to hire support). I would go so far as supporting a mandatory fraction of the minting (not mining) awards go to the Foundation (this seems equitable). However, the Foundation must have proper management and governance, with transparency and accountability in place, to instill trust w/ this responsibility. Accordingly, rather than operating through representatives (with attendant principal-agent problems compounded by internet anonymity), I suggest it operate through democratic process w/ each coinholder having a vote. A distributed consensus mechanicism and a public ledger is the objective of all of this after all. Why not apply the same to our Foundation.

Can the Foundation be the first PeerAssets application? With its purse strings controlled by the community? If so, I vote to fund it.

2 Likes

No, the Foundation is not Peercoin, it is a legal construct. Making that kind of a promise, to tie governance to coin activity, has legal implications for the Foundation. The Foundation could read signals off the chain and consider them when making choices, but promising a response would be iffy. On the other hand, minters could be publicly polled on chain for their opinion on matters. This could be initiated by anyone, it doesn’t have to come from the Foundation. If we make a common code, it could be written into a transaction as null data and could signal feelings about what Peercoin should be or the direction it should go in. For example, minters could include a hash made of digits representing how happy they are with the network on a scale of 1-8, which projects they support (mark projects with a number on some public website), what should be Peercoin’s top priorities, such as marketing, dev, staff, branding, documentation, so on. There are tons of options here for real time feedback from the minters, and we don’t even need the Foundation in order to do it.

1 Like

Peer4commit shows a failed experiment of self opt-in donation funding.

We did okay with that when Peercoin was “hot”. But that project died off pretty quick, got fragmented and the way new developers come in to see an opportunity to get involved look at how stale it is and just leave.

I find our community has a hard time learning from its mistakes, or changing its thinking to adapt.

The same technologies Peercoin has now, or is planning to have, exist in other chains in similar ways. We’re no longer cutting edge. Yes, we do have a very reliable blockchain, that is truly decentralized, fairly launched, and not manipulated.

…which is our treasure. However, none of that means anything, if we don’t keep interest and attention alive.

Ongoing, regular, and predictable funding is helpful in the mission.

Teek, legitimately wants to see the PLAN, and says if there was one, funding definitely will come.

Isn’t that counting eggs before they are hatched? How can we possibly come up with a PLAN for fund generation and spending if we have no idea of what how often, and to what amount, the income will be?

Any business must have a path to profitability for funding its growth, and we don’t have that…

Our business plan seems to be “we’ll plan growth, development, and adoption” and hope the funds will show up on time to support it.

That’s a flawed plan to success in my opinion.

I’ve said enough. You know how I feel. I’d like to sit back listen to the rest of you decide.

This is false, for example multisig minting has never been implemented. All the rfcs are aimed at carving out a technological space that has never been touched before. Aside from the fact that Peercoin is unique in its PoW/PoS combined launch and implementation, we have plans to make innovations and are continuing to implement them. PeerAssets is in a very functional form now compared to where it was a year ago.

You are just espousing that somehow Peercoin is a failed project, or that the projects people have been working on are flawed or failed. I think that’s complete malarkey, more edgy than substantive.

4 Likes