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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well I did say this here…
Legality is also an important question and you’re right we would need to consult with our foundation lawyers first to make sure there are no issues. If there are then it can’t be done.
Let me make a counter proposal:
100% of the miner reward goes to the Foundation.
@Nagalim i think many of us do not know yet what role the Peercoin Foundation will play. We assume it will have some kind of role in the stewardship of the Peercoin protocol and platform. But you’re dead right to slow it down if that is premature to the discussion.
We could continue talking in this thread about hardcoding an address into the protocol consensus rules practically and technically. But if we don’t know if the foundation will spend it, and we don’t have another entity’s address either, then it is premature.
If there is a “veil” between the foundation and the protocol developers, then we need to know if the devs will agree to add it.
If there’s too much of a “veil”, we’re going to wonder on the foundation’s role. Is it just to sign paperwork and make deals that otherwise would not be possible?
The most that could be done is for a developer to code a patch to do it, and then put it on ice until the community or developer consensus makes a decision.
I don’t understand. That can’t be done. A good number seems to be between 5% and 10%, but no more than that. 5% seems more likely to lessen the negative impact.
Can you explain why?
Because with 100% there would be no reward left at all for miners to collect. It would shut down mining rather than simply making it less profitable and attractive.
So? I’ll mine with my home cpu, the chain will still function. What will be lost?