I will closely watch that the foundation sticks to it’s opt-in mechanism promise and support and does NOT support any other proposal that doesn’t have such mechansim.
Bookmark this proposal and just remember my prediction: The opt-in mechanism for miners will not work and ensure enough funds for the ECC and Foundation. I bet from now, over 1 year ahead that miners at best 20% will not burn the coins and 80%+ of the miners will burn them.
I even don’t have to make a calculation for this to see that the result will be a huge disbalance in necessary funding.
About the downvoting. To be honest i did not await any support at all. Sure i had a minimal hope due the governance panel voting than back that made it close, but nothing more.
This proposal was made to show give a different path and to ensure at least a funding that would result in a more secure funding than any other opt-in/opt-out proposal.
I was well aware that it will get huge resistance upfront, but that’s how things should work. There had to be such proposal so later nobody can say there wasn’t a single one that suggested this option. Especially after it could turn out at a later time, in 2-3 years that again the funding isn’t sufficient enough.
Seems i’am understanding some previous stated principles wrong than:
I guess the answer here will be: things changed …
That’s why i did it. But i’am still concerned. On one side we hear all day long that the ECC for example accepts every community decision, on the other side, as you mention it above, such proposals have go through ECC/ZF zip editors which literally will veto it. Something doesn’t fit up.
Wait, or did you mean the community can choose out of these proposals that the ECC & ZF approved allready to fit their wishes? If that’s the case i again advice that the foundation and the ECC make a proposal and than zip and discuss it, you don’t need the community show in such case.
Actually both applies. With setting such tropedo at the very beginning of the discussing i think you made it clear that supporting such proposal is going nowhere. And yes, second, people will think, as i do for longer allready, that proposals that don’t fit the wishes of the ECC and ZF have 0 chance and aren’t worth even commenting/discussing further.
You can replace the word torpedo with handbrake, fits maybe better 
IF you guys and girls really would care about the community opinion you would allready upfront test the different proposals with the governance panel to see where the community sentiment is going. But that’s not planned either from what i can see, hence i stick to my previous comments that both, the ECC and ZF and favouring and intervention strongly into different proposals. There is no such thing as neutrality even at the beginning of a proposals discussion. Some get the handbrake immediatly, some get showcased 24/7 on twitter day by day to influence the wider community. Influence can be replaced with manipulate actually, wouldn’t be wrong either. That’s how it looks from outside.
Than the formulation on the homepages seems to be wrong or we talk about different things:
Monetary Base and Founders’ Reward
The Founders’ Reward is the cornerstone of our funding and developer incentives model, and allocates 10% of all tokens created to a Founders’ Reward fund, with the remaining 90% allocated to miners eventually.
IF you lower the 90% to something else, be it 70%, or 80& or 75% you lower the tokens allocated to the miners. I call this taxing them. What else would describe it better? Sure you can word it “take away”, “re-allocate” and whatever not, but it’s still some form of tax in my opinion.