As you formulated and wrote a very well written proposal, or condiderations as you name it i hope it’s ok to ask some questions and comment.
1.) Currently with the Founders Reward the Founders/Employees receive the Founders Reward and than donate a percentage to the ECC. In my opinion this is an interesting experiment but it has more flaws than it has positive points. What would be the distribution of a new developement reward? Same?
2.) Isn’t it of any concern for “placeholder” that there is an ongoing law suite with an ex-employee where shares/distribution of the Founders reward is part of it? And of course the dilution of the founders reward towards ECC?
Nic’s whole research is a must read and we can find a lot of usefull information there, without doubt. But there is as well a lack of deeper or wider research, mostly because it’s from 2017.
Some questions that arise with the cross -sectional survey I and II are:
- it doesn’t sum up how much a given founders reward, ICO, whatever funding, has generated in US$.
Means in theory a given ICO at the start of 50% (just as an example) could have generated $10M for example, but a 5% continous Block Reward (Founders Reward) could have generated $500M. As ssaid, just as an example. This means while the percentage of Nic’s Chart than back have been mostly correct than back it doesn’t tell us anything about the amount of funds a development team has received to reach it’s target. Without this factor this chart has only limited value.
It’s not that easy for the community. Just because someone or a group of people doesn’t like the whole idea of a contioued dev fee, and/or propose to consider other funding sources or even a hybrid mix of different proposals as well shouldn’t mean exactly the Ycash one-man-show should be the alternative.
+1, absolutly agree on this one. This should be a MUST having in mind the importance of such decision.
A project without own tech can’t be called competition seriously. Just as a sidenote. If you replace Ycash with another privacy project and own tech like Monero i fully agree of course.
How is this provided and controlled havine a for-profit company as the recepient with limited transparency? An important factor in the whole dev fee discussion (at least for some).
Why not the foundation with bigger transparency options having the recepient and having the foundation allocating needed funds to the ECC? What are the arguments against this variation to ensure proper governance over treasury and control from/through the community?
There are several points why i don’t fully agree to this argument:
- When the ECC run with a deficit the ZEC exchange rate was $60 or lower if i remember right, currently we are $100.
- With the current Founders Reward there are expenses that shouldn’t be anymore the case with the new dev free, for example advisor, early founders and so on … This should mean more funds in % are available for the ECC development anyway compared to the current situation with the Founders Reward.
- The halving won’t cut only block rewards, there is a big chance, even i’am not yet a believer of this, that the effect would/could be compensated by a price rise. Or at least partially, which again would lead to at leat partially more funds available for the ECC even if it’s just 10% or any given number.
Of course we do not know where the price goes so it could work out either way. Having way too much funds available or not enough funds. Wouldn’t here some kind of dynamic funding system versus US$ fit better and have the ECC safe? For example the Dev Fund gets adjusted monthly and correspondents to a $1M value per month from the generated dev fund. $1M can be replaced with whatever value the community thinks is fine.
Makes me remind Nic’s figure 4:
Any improvement to this governance model or should it stay like this?
+1, absolutly agree on this one!!!
It was an interesting read for sure, no matter i don’t agree to some points or have some concerns, much if not most makes just sense. Interesting to see if there will be indeed a discussion.