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

Thanks for sharing. Don’t let the door hit you.

That’s exactly what Peercoin is meant to be, that is the original idea.
It’s original creators never had bigger plans with it.

I just had an idea relating to this and I thought I’d share it just in case anyone thought it sounded better than the previous ideas in this thread. So let’s go through the previous ideas again first and their negatives.

1. The first idea was taking a small percentage of PoS block rewards and allowing users to opt-out if they want to. Since minting participation is low this isn’t very profitable.

2. The second idea is taking a small percentage of every PoW block. This would provide more funds than the PoS idea, but it is likely to crash our mining participation, which would cause our PoW inflation to skyrocket. It would ruin Peercoin’s trend of lower inflation. It would also significantly lower Peercoin in profitable to mine lists.

3. The third idea is implementing the Peershares custodial grant feature where stakeholders can vote coins into existence. This sounds nice, but we are not the Federal Reserve here and shouldn’t be printing coins out of thin air. It can possibly be abused by stakeholders who get too eager to print their way out of problems. If abused, it would ruin Peercoin’s economic system by causing lots of unpredictable inflation. The concept of sound money would be lost.

4. The 4th idea is taking a percentage of coins from wallets with no transactions in the past 2-3 years, assuming they are lost coins. This could affect people who haven’t lost their coins, but are simply minting with them or just have them in cold storage. This doesn’t seem to be technically possible either.

5. The 5th idea is adding a donation button to the core wallet that ties to the Foundation address. This is the simplest and least intrusive way to raise funds. It’s voluntary though, so there’s no way we can predict how successful it will be.

6. My idea is that the network has a yearly minimum operating budget. One time every year a set amount of peercoin would be created inside an address controlled by the Peercoin Foundation. This would act as the minimum budget that the Foundation receives from the network every year to fund development and marketing initiatives. After the Foundation spends this budget, it will have to either rely on community donations for the rest of the year or it will have to wait for next year’s budget in order for more coins to be released. In this way the network pays for its own maintenance every year.

This is similar to the custodial grant mechanism in that it creates coins out of thin air, but it has some key differences that make it more appealing. First, the coins are not created from voting, so it’s impossible for stakeholders to abuse it whenever they get the itch to spend money. Second, unlike custodial grants the number of coins created from this mechanism every year is hard coded into the protocol, making it predictable and something that can easily be factored into annual inflation forecasts. Third, it encourages smart spending practices because the budget is limited and the Foundation board members will know it can’t be refilled again for an entire year.

The number of PPC we hard code into the protocol as the minimum operating budget should be low enough as to not affect our inflation level too much, maybe between 50k and 100k PPC per year. It should be no more than that though. Anyway, I just wanted to share this idea in case people thought it made more sense. Are there any drawbacks to this I am not thinking of?

An excellent summary of the discussion. I think point 4 should be a definite “no”. Point 5 seems the most straightforward.

Regarding suggestion (6), yes, this could work as described BUT, as I understand it, PPC can presently be created only through minting and mining. The blockchain’s growth is thus organic and independent of other considerations.

If the community itself can manufacture extra coins/blockchain, then the blockchain becomes political, rather than economic. What can be hard coded can later be un-hard coded. A set amount (e.g. 50,000 PPC) can be unset and increased. It will create a unique relationship between the Peercoin Foundation and the blockchain that might affect how the blockchain is perceived by outsiders. Those would be my thoughts.

1 Like

Ok I think we’ve seen enough of this thread. I have been silent so far but I think it’s time to draw the line.
If you are new to the thread and this is latest post, whatever was said above does not express opinion of the Peercoin Foundation and the project leadership.

Let me just make some things clear now:

  1. Nobody on the “Peercoin team” and the Foundation board has expressed desire to be payed.
  2. People who actively contribute to the project now as happy as volunteers.
  3. Foundation was primarily setup to be a legal face of the project, secondary it’s means to issue a real paychecks for when people do want to get hired. Or when we are in position to hire people.
  4. Foundation has enough money for now, at least to handle the things we have to do and for which we have plans.
  5. Funds we have now will mostly be used to finish up the legal matters about the project and do some other minor things like hosting couple of development servers and revamping the branding.
  6. There are plans to hire a “core developer” as foundation employee but that is still being discussed, if this does come to fruition I do expect community to step up and just donate more.

In the near future (after legal matters are resolved and set) I’ll present a new per-project funding system where people can present their project, define it’s scope and mission and split it up in “milestones” and get funded step by step while their results are verified by the board which co-own the donated funds in multisig.
Projects will also have expiration date, so the tragedy of peer4commit does not happen again. Fundraisers will just have to finish before the pre-determined deadline unless they want board to issue paybacks to the community. The constant control by the board will also make sure quality standards are met and bugs are fixed. Overall I think this will be great for the community and the stakeholders.
I expect good results from this platform, we’ll kick it off with iOS and Android native wallets and see how it goes.


Now, about taxing the miners, minters or other parties or changing the economics of the system.
This is something we are in no position to do, Foundation is merely a shepard of the project and it’s mission is to protect the project legally.
Personally, as the project leader I can not allow that this project becomes shitcoin after six years of service. Taxing, motions, and other methods of raising funds from the project itself will drastically change the scope of this project and in my personal opinion will make it a shitcoin.
Peercoin is a drop-in replacement for the Bitcoin and it must be kept as that, it must be kept sane and sound. Controlled by no party but by it’s minters. If minters and miners chose to support the foundation, the address for donations is public. Foundation will never force anyone to send any funds.

Futhermore, some people around here often bring up the relative position of Peercoin on the marketcap and use that to describe the status of the project. I will say this as industry insider and I have been advisor on dozen of ICO projects, and will likely be on dozens more.
Market cap is a marketing thing, it’s made artificially and it’s direct byproduct of “premine” and how aggressive is the market maker. The bigger the premine, easier it is to pump it high. Market making and whitewashing is also quite common and it’s quite effective in drawing traders to the party.

This are methods which are disease of modern crypto, I do not think Peercoin needs to be compared by marketcap. I mean, if you want to compare it then please filter out ICOs and un-minable “projects” and then tell me how it looks.
Premine is a normal thing now in crypto, so is having CEOs and CFOs.
Let me just ask you, does Bitcoin have a marketing budget? Does Bitcoin have a CEO?

I agree that marketing is our pain point, it has always been. At the moment we are simply in no position to dedicate manpower to handle that. Do not just complain, do something about it.
Foundation will get to that after we resolve more important matters.
In the near future we can certainly use foundation to accumulate marketing funds and then hiring a professional PR agency or something, but first things first. I can’t juggle so many balls at once :slight_smile:

9 Likes

I agree.

Nagalim. You have no more right to talk this community than I do. You’re quite uncouth with your words and I think it’s quite sad that you take the attitude you do, and still get praised by the team.

Peercoin is at a crossroads right now, and talking about not letting doors hit people on the way out, is an immature attitude that does not earn any respect.

I gave 3 years of my life to this coin – so when you act like that, this is more on you, than me.

I hope other people see it too. You’ve just lost some points on who you are publicly.

1 Like

Fortunately, im not keeping score.

You think peercoin is a failed project. I know why I’m here, why are you? Love it or leave it, baby.

can we please lock this stupid thread

1 Like