Marketing Fund Charter


#1

[center][/center]

[center]peer4commit.com/projects/96[/center]

Scope of Marketing Fund
The Marketing Fund is established by the Peercoin community for the purpose of increasing the awareness, visibility, and promotion of Peercoin to the world. It is focused on finding new users and investors and keeping existing users and investors.

The Marketing Fund is not meant to fund development of applications or Peercoin related services, but can be used for the promotion of those services when clearly in the interest of the Peercoin users and investors.

Submissions for the fund
Submissions are only valid when submitted according to the template for submissions.

Voting and Voting eligibility
There are two types of votes:

  1. votes by normal voters (“Voters”)
  2. votes by core community members (“Peervoters”)

“Voters”
Only community members with an active account created more than 3 months before the voting occurs and with a karma>4 may vote. Those are called ‘Voters’. Voters can be added to a blacklist by the community. This may occur when the Voter is misbehaving, or is not behaving as a contributing member to the Peercoin community, spamming, has a purposely created account or has not been contributing for more than 3 months in a row. Adding voters to the blacklist will be done at discretion of fund keepers. The fund keeper may seek advice via a thread on peercointalk.org or r/Peercoin before adding voters to a blacklist.

“Peervoters”
For the purpose of voting on submissions requesting significant funding, another type of voter has been created. These voters are core community members. Core community members have active accounts over 6 months with >49 posts and karma >20. Those are called ‘Peervoters’. Peervoters can only be added to the blacklist when at least 5 other core community members request this. Peervoters have an equal vote weight to Voters, except when voting for Very Large Submissions. See the Voting Process below. Fund keepers will assume Peervoter status during their role even if they don’t match the criteria.

Voting process

  • For each submission there must be at least 8 valid votes by Voters. When there are less than 8 valid votes at the deadline, the submission will be automatically rejected.
  • When there is equality of votes, only the Peervotes are counted. When there are at least 3 Peervotes, the result of that would count as the final vote. In all other situations, one of the fund keepers will provide the deciding vote to their discretion.
  • For proposals >250 PPC (Large Submission) at least 5 Peervoters must vote to make the voting results valid. All votes count as one for Large Submissions.
  • For proposals >1000 PPC (Very Large Submission) Peervotes will count as two standard votes for Very Large Submissions
  • Rejected proposals can only be resubmitted 10 weeks after the voting or earlier when significant changes to the proposal have been made. Any changes and reasoning needs to be proved to the fund keeper and they will decide at their discretion, which may include a consultation process with the community.
  • Approved proposals can only be resubmitted 10 weeks after the voting if they require additional funding or continued funding.
    Submissions with a request for an amount less than 20 PPC (Small Submission) may be approved by the fund keepers at their discretion without going through the voting process. When deemed controversial or unusual, they will still follow the normal voting process.
  • Voting will occur in a designated thread. This will be the thread with the submission or a thread clearly linked to in the original submission thread. A valid vote from a Voter or Peervoter must contain a reference to the proposal and a clear yes or no. All voters are encouraged to add a voluntary explanation why they voted yes or no so future submitters can improve their proposals and assess their chances on success.
  • Any alias/person can only vote once. Aliases which appear to be all from one person will be added to the voting blacklist at the discretion of the fund keepers

Donations to the Fund
Donations are irreversible and donations can’t be assigned to a specific submission. Donors are encouraged to provide a return address in case the fund is closed and funds need to be returned. See paragraph about Closure of Fund.

Payments
Payments from the Fund are irreversible. Rejected or returning payments from submitters will be dealt with as new donations to the Fund. This includes any profits from approved proposals donated to the Marketing Fund.

Role of the fund keeper
The fund keepers will hold the private key to the Fund. The Fund is held by at least two fund keepers via multi-sig when practically available to them. The fund keepers will ensure that processes in this charter are followed before any funds are transferred. This includes related processes as maintaining a blacklist of voters, inviting voters to vote, inviting submitters to submit proposals and advertising the Marketing Fund as they deem fit.

The fund keeper is a voluntary role and is chosen by the community. The fund keeper does not own the funds and is only assigned by the community to ensure the processes in this charter are adhered to. Any costs required for the Fund (e.g. advertising) will be submitted in a similar way as other proposals applying for the Fund. When a Fund keeper can’t agree for personal reasons to an approved submission which followed process in this charter properly, the fund keeper shall step down.

The fund keeper won’t allow submissions for voting if the required funds are not available in the Fund.

Appointing fund keepers
There will be at least two fund keepers and a maximum of 3. Fund keepers will be appointed according to a similar voting process as Very Large Submissions. Fund keepers will automatically step down after 6 months, but can apply for a further 6 month term without constraints. In all cases, voting will occur.

Large and Very Large Submissions may be put on hold at the discretion of the remaining fund keeper if there is only one fund keeper left.

Fund keepers can step down at any time at their discretion. It is preferred to receive timely notice in order to find another suitable candidate and follow the required voting process.

Charter changes
It is recognised that the community may wish to change this charter for a variety of reasons, e.g. changing legislation, unforeseen circumstances, process improvement, errors, etc.

Proposals for charter changes will be submitted in the same way as the Very Large Submissions process and voted on accordingly.

Disputes
The fund keeper will resolve disputes by default where possible. The fund keeper may choose to consult community or start a voting process at their discretion.

In principle, the fund doesn’t accept any responsibility or damage repair payments to any Party, e.g. resulting from the inability to meet any deadlines in this charter or other agreed deadlines, any action or inactions by the fund keeper or others involved.
When any Party does think processes in this charter have not been followed appropriately or they have been unfairly duped in any other way by the Fund, both parties will have the opportunity to plead for their case publicly and without restraints during at least 1 week and thereafter request the fund keeper to start a voting process. The voting process will be similar as for Large Submissions or Very Large submissions depending on the issue or value at stake in the dispute at the discretion of the fund keeper. The outcome of the voting will be binding and final for all Parties involved.

Closure of Fund
The following reasons may lead to the closure of the Fund:

  • No submissions have been made for more than 3 months
  • No fund keepers available for more than 3 months
  • At least 5 Peervoters all vote publicly and motivated for closure of the Fund in the same thread as where the fund has been established.

Remaining funds after closure
Funds will be returned to the donors where they have provided return addresses. Returns will be made based on their share of the remaining funds or as close as reasonably possible by the fund keeper.

When funds can’t be returned, voting will occur based on the process for a Very Large Submission on where the remaining funds will be transferred to. When the number of voters required is inadequate and remains inadequate after reasonable attempts to request to vote, the fund keeper or if not available, a Peervoter chooses from the following in that order:

  • The funds will be transferred to another fund for the promotion of Peercoin or its legacy if available
  • The funds will be transferred to a key development project for Peercoin or closely related if available
  • The funds will be transferred to an official charity

#2

The voting phase for the fund keepers is now open. The role of the fund keeper, as well as the full voting process, is outlined in the above charter.

Volunteering for the role of fund keeper took place in the original proposal thread. The deadline for volunteering has now passed and so the only two candidates are:

Cybnate
river333

There are two types of members eligible for voting:

“Voters”
Community members with an active account created more than 3 months before the voting occurs and with karma >4.

“Peervoters”
Core community members with active accounts over 6 months old with >49 posts and karma >20. For this particular voting process, peervotes will count as two standard votes.

Each candidate requires 8 valid votes before the deadline in order to be elected. The deadline is in 3 days time from this post (deadline = 1 PM UTC Mon 30th June 2014).

Each eligible voter is allowed two votes, but is not required to use both. There is no order of preference, each vote carries the same weight. A voluntary explanation of your vote is allowed but not necessary. Please post your vote in this thread and phrase your vote in a clear manner with reference to what you are voting for.

Example:

My votes for the role of fund keepers are:

  1. Person 1
  2. Person 2

If you are not satisfied with the candidate options, you may vote against one or both candidates. The volunteering phase will be reopened if not enough candidates are elected.


#3

There are only two candidates, so the choice is clear.

I vote for:

  1. Cybnate
  2. River333

Unfortunately, I only have 3 “Karma” at the time of this writing, so I need someone to give click [applaud] to the left of my post in order for this vote to be valid. :slight_smile:

Thank you!


#4

My votes for the role of fund keepers are:

  1. Cybnate
  2. river333

Congrats on receiving two donations of 2000 PPC each to the Marketing Fund today! Now the focus can shift from the structure of the Marketing Fund to creating actual proposals for marketing activities.


#5

[quote=“Jordan Lee, post:4, topic:2579”]My votes for the role of fund keepers are:

  1. Cybnate
  2. river333

Congrats on receiving two donations of 2000 PPC each to the Marketing Fund today! Now the focus can shift from the structure of the Marketing Fund to creating actual proposals for marketing activities.[/quote]
Thanks Jordan, I’m impressed. I think this underlines the importance of this Fund. As soon as we have the required votes we will start accepting proposals. So please vote!


#6
  1. River333
  2. Cybnate
  3. Alfonso SanGiancarlo

#7

[quote=“Ben, post:6, topic:2579”]1. River333
2. Cybnate
3. Alfonso SanGiancarlo[/quote]
Well, that is an invalid vote! Number 3 is not a candidate in case you missed it :slight_smile:


#8
  1. River333
  2. Cybnate

#9

I vote blank! Both are totally trustworthy and will do an excellent job. I’d prefer that you decide amongst yourselves who will do it.


#10

The fund needs two fund keepers so both can be elected at the same time, maybe I didn’t make that very clear but it is explained better in the charter.

I know people might think that this voting process seems a bit over the top, but there may be a lot of money involved and we are trying to set up something that will last long-term.


#11

I vote for:

  1. Cybnate
  2. River333

#12

People are willing to donate but they have not right to vote. Why?


#13

Yes sorry, it is not ideal but unfortunately there is no other way to do this. If we allow any account to vote then there is the potential for abuse, especially when voting on proposals. If a better method of voting comes up in the future then we can switch to that.

Non-voters are still free to submit proposals and receive funding.


#14

[quote=“Chronos, post:3, topic:2579”]There are only two candidates, so the choice is clear.

I vote for:

  1. Cybnate
  2. River333

Unfortunately, I only have 3 “Karma” at the time of this writing, so I need someone to give click [applaud] to the left of my post in order for this vote to be valid. :slight_smile:

Thank you![/quote]

Hi Chronos,

I am glad to see you making more posts recently. Every since the first post of yours that I saw: http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=2467.msg21197#msg21197

I now always try to pay a lot of attention to your posts, because I think your posts are knowledgeable, intelligent and insightful.

After your post linked above, which I was critical of at the time, then I soon came to see the merit of your Idea, so I applauded your Karma back then, but I don’t think I gave you any positive written feedback.

Maybe this message should be a PM but instead I’m giving you this public praise because I think you deserve it.

Thank you for helping Peercoin.

I applaud you, :slight_smile:

NewMoneyEra


#15

[quote=“Cybnate, post:7, topic:2579”][quote=“Ben, post:6, topic:2579”]1. River333
2. Cybnate
3. Alfonso SanGiancarlo[/quote]
Well, that is an invalid vote! Number 3 is not a candidate in case you missed it :)[/quote]

I think Ben AKA Alfonso SG has just volunteered to be number 3 :))


#16

My votes for the role of fund keepers are:

  1. Cybnate
  2. river333
    It’s not an easy job and I am glad to see someone step out.

#17

You’re welcome! Although I don’t own very much PPC compared to some forum members, I am fascinated by the technology.

I have an idea for a marketing proposal that will be ready when this voting is complete.


#18

Yes sorry, it is not ideal but unfortunately there is no other way to do this. If we allow any account to vote then there is the potential for abuse, especially when voting on proposals. If a better method of voting comes up in the future then we can switch to that.

Non-voters are still free to submit proposals and receive funding.[/quote]

Which thread to submit proposals?

Thanks!


#19

[quote=“caribou, post:18, topic:2579”]Which thread to submit proposals?

Thanks![/quote]

Proposals should be posted in a new thread on the Marketing Fund child board, and they need to follow the template for submissions.

Please wait until the voting process is finished and the fund is live before submitting proposals.


#20

The fund needs two fund keepers so both can be elected at the same time, maybe I didn’t make that very clear but it is explained better in the charter.

I know people might think that this voting process seems a bit over the top, but there may be a lot of money involved and we are trying to set up something that will last long-term.[/quote]

why do we need to vote when there will be two fund keepers, and there are two candidates, makes voting seem futile to me