When you need to raise money, you submit a business plan or a prospectus, investors / banks etc read this, crunch the numbers and the assess potential risks and potential return. Simple as that.
Right now you are saying “we need money let’s figure out how to get money” OK. So what are you going to do with the money exactly and how do i ever see a return on it? “Further develop Peercoin!” OK so how will you further develop Peercoin? “I don’t know!” Well who the heck is going to give money to you in that situation really…
Sure people will give a couple coins to the foundation just because with no set plan, but it will be a tiny tiny fraction of what people will give to specific ideas which they support and believe are viable. I believe most people are somewhere along the same lines or else we’d all just get free money for nothing.
Peercoin is not a business and doesn’t need “profitability” and as a matter of fact it needs to raise absolutely no money at all unless it is being used to further the development of Peercoin in one way or another.
Our business plan does not exist yet, that is my point.
You want to see an example of how funding shows up ON TIME in response to a plan? See Indicium, see (unfortunately) Nu.
These are the two best executed projects in this community to date. Money had no trouble finding them when the time came. Ask yourself why? (and it wasn’t because either of them were ultimately successfull though the jury is still out on Indicium obviously)
The money did find peer4commit, we raised the money, did nothing with it, due to no plan and actually turned off further investment.
The problem was not money and it certainly wasn’t “opt-in money”. I donated to many of those projects and never really saw anything from it, because the projects i cared about were never executed.
it was 2/3’s of the way funded… somewhat controversial, before the ICO craze, peerchemist wasn’t project leader at the time, one of the worst bear markets in history (many thought crypto be ded), it only had a 20 day funding window before it was terminated…
60k in 20 days given the circumstances, i know you posted it as a counter-argument but id say it actually supports my argument.
I’m with Teek here. A plan needs to be there before the money flows in. The other way around is not well received and easily perceived as a tax, especially when there is no formal reporting.
Just opening a donation account to receive funds (with or without opt-in and opt-outs) for the Foundation would at best provide some seed money to get started looking at the examples above. However initiatives and plans will still need to come thereafter. Peer4commit was a platform to have competing projects and plans communicated on a shared platform. This would enable people to contribute based on what they believe viable and contributing to their PPC investment and provide at least some transparency on where the donated funds were going to. Not perfect, but better than nothing at all.
The issue is advertising the available funds for the plans in place. A developer needs to be matched to the funds. Mably walking away from ppcd development is an example. This is still a viable project and well funded. I can’t believe there is no developer interested to get into it. Did anyone try to find another developer for this? Pretty sure not. Perhaps the Foundation can play a role in that, being custodian of the funds and payments to developers and ‘advertising’ available jobs for developers beyond just the Peercoin community.
Agree with that. I was not a fan of it at the time due to the gambling aspect, but it still raised a lot of funds. Had it been allowed to go for a bit longer, it might have been fully funded.
Without a plan, no funds. No-one is donating for “path to profitability for funding growth”. Only nice for the forum to talk about. Or is a path still a plan? If so, let’s get on with that and get something on the table which can be funded.
Without a tax like Dash or a foundation-held premine like Ethereum, Peercoin should at least have a generalized donation function in the minting settings of the client, like the Hobonickels client has it.
The user should be able to pick the destination address himself, and lock it into the client settings, to automatically donate to a self-selected address when minting. The point is, it hurts less to regularly donate a proportion of the minting reward than to make a one-off donation. Also, this would provide the recipients of the donations with a more predictable flow of money.
This will not solve the tragedy of the common, but it will improve the situation versus doing nothing.
I don’t watch television, instead I watch a number of Youtube creators. Many of them have Patreon accounts, and ask for donations from viewers who enjoy their work.
Patreon is a payment system, linked to bank accounts or paypal, by which people can send payments triggered by the uploading of content, or simply on a monthly basis.
Accordingly, I make a few modest donations each month, $5 here, $10 there. Most Youtubers don’t receive enough to make a living, but it provides an incentive and pays for expenses such as sound equipment or a better camera.
So, one option is for the Peercoin Team/Foundation to have its own Patreon account offering a range of payment levels. If fifty people can be persuaded to pay an average of $10 a month, that’s $500 a month, or $6,000 a year.
Someone proposes a significant change (like opt-out donations)…
It is met with lots of resistance.
Nothing gets done on the matter, and we just keep falling our position on coinmarketcap needlessly over time.
I go back to my initial suggestion. We re-launch a second Peercoin chain, with opt-out donations from the very beginning. Having more than one chain shouldn’t be a problem.
No, a new chain would carry more weight if it was supported by the same developers who have taken Peercoin to 0.6
It’s a tall order to ask. When evaluating any new coin if “some guy” launches a chain, it’s no where near as reputable if someone respected like the Peercoin community and development team did it.
This is in the best interest in our community long term in my opinion, even if I have about 15 people against me on it.
I wonder if it is possible to mix the original idea - allocating a proportion of Peercoins mined or minted - with the Patreon regular payment idea, whereby automated payments can be set up in PPC (from the wallet’s general balance) to an address on a monthly basis, in this case, the Peercoin Foundation.
I don’t think a PPC route for donations would necessarily be more effective than a fiat/patreon/paypal route (in encouraging participation), but a regular payment tool in the wallet might be a halfway alternative to the proposal in the opening post. I don’t know if any other crypto-wallet has such a feature.
@ppcman you aren’t even calling for a contentious hardfork. You’re calling for a complete abandoment of ppc to go work on some new atlcoin you just made up.
I wanted to launch a forked project called Peercoin 2.0 (name could obviously be changed) which would be a forked project from the original Peercoin that had this fundraising feature.
The original Peercoin blockchain would continue
The new Peercoin 2.0 fork would begin
We’d see which Peercoin fork would outlast and do better than the other.
you want a split like Bitcoin Cash
and it is not like what you say, the start would be without this feature, because it would start in the past (same time when Peercoin was released), and the feature you want will only be enabled at the time of the split
the new splitchain would be a fraction of the value of the old chain, just look at all the 71 here https://forkdrop.io/
nobody can stop you from starting something like this, but i doubt it would be a success, (even if you pay for Peercoin development by this)
it is nice you want to find a way to raise funds to help Peercoin development, but i dont think this is the way
Ok so we fork and now we supposedly have monthly revenue (we wont because 1% of nothing is nothing, but lets say we did) whats next ppcman? Whats the plan?
I think its meeting resistance because it’s a bad idea and there is no plan, not because people are are resistant to change. I think most of us actually want change and are willing to throw some time / effort / resources behind a plan now maybe more than ever… but this… this is not a plan… at least as it stands
Money will be there for the right plan, probably stop worrying about the money, start worrying about the plan.
Forking peercoin to peercoin 2.0 will cause no hype at all so i’m not sure where the idea even comes from.
Even Bitcoin testnet coins were traded and held value, and they had to keep resetting the testnet to stop that from happening. You can read some of the discussions here:
…so to say 1% of nothing is nothing, is an incorrect assumption.
Right now this is us:
We have a few people rowing the boat, for the benefit of everyone in it.
I proposed that the new wallet automatically hand each person an oar, to help paddle the boat, and if you wanted, you could opt-out from holding the oar…
I’ve been told that what we should do instead, is let people know “oars are available if you want one”
I think the better strategy is to give everyone an oar and let them opt-out.
Instead, we’re shooting the messenger of the idea – me — and that’s fine. But we’re still stuck in the same boat.
If you want Peercoin to grow in value, there needs to be an incentive to acquire it. Other altcoins have valued (pumped) due to speculation. Bitcoin acquired value first by connecting to markets - first underground, then above ground. Only after it acquired market value did speculators pump it more.
If Peercoin is not going the pump route, it needs to connect to a market. That means more merchants need to accept it, and buyers need to acquire it easily. There is a space for that since Bitcoin is often expensive to use as money, Litecoin has filled it.
Another way is the roadmap for Bitcoin Script smart contracts. If businesses eventually realize trusting their money to smart contracts written in Solidity is madness, then Peercoin has a chance at some of that.
