On committing a % of minted/mined coins to sustain development

[desrever]

I just had a thought and wanted to share with it you.

I am watching so many crypto-currencies striving to fund the continuos effort needed to maintain and develop the project.
If not funded, each community needs to come up with a business model to generate revenue, mine, mint, keep a large chunk of shares for the team and dump them when needed, collect donations, run campaigns, and other more-or-less genuine tricks…

Given the fact that currently PoS and PoW are basically backed by individual’s greed, I wonder if it would be possible to leverage part of that greed to fund development.

Let’s take the bitcoin example : what if the bitcoin protocol enforces 0.01% of each newly mined block to get transfered to a multisig BTC address controlled by core devs?

I see a regular and predetermined money flow.

Details apart, did someone ever tried similar models? What are the “stops” you see to it?

Now let’s take Nu : let’s say someone puts out a motion that goes like :

• x% of newly minted shares goes to dev-fund address abc
• y% of newly minted shares goes to marketing-fund address xyz
• z% of newly minted shares goes to liquidity-fund address xyz

Would you vote for it?
What are reasonable values for x,y,z to change your mind?
Would you keep minting, knowing that a part of your profit is automatically donated?
Is this technically feasible?
What rules would you enforce in the multisig addresses holding profits?
If not a motion, would you rather have shareholders constantly voting for percentages and public addresses ?

Does it make any sense?

The biggest problem I see now with this model is the human element controlling revenues. This is just a temporary and technical problem: with smart contracts, tip4commits, or other solutions the human element could be put aside.

[desrever]

In case of BTC : currently about 108’000 BTC are mined every month = 32’400’000 $ (at 300$/BTC) .

A 0.1% cut of bitcoin mining revenue will provide coredevs with 32k $ / month fixed revenue.

If I were a miner, I’d take 0.1% of my greed aside and invest it in core dev, without thinking twice about it.

[seki]

i like it!
the same could be applied also in ppc for devs in order to quit their daily jobs and invest their energy to crypto world!

[CoinGame]

Would it not be easier to just pay out people as we have been with grants? NSR grants will be available when 2.0 launches.

What is the different between taking a percentage of the mint reward and distributing it to an address every block, or everyone voting for a specific address to receive a specific amount at regular intervals as we have been? It seems like a less flexible implementation of the same result. Some address getting NSR or NBT.

Right now because of the NSR price the cost to develop such an implementation would far exceed the return that those addresses would get from a .1% for quite some time. The only argument I could see for this is that it doesn’t introduce “new” NSR since it’s taking from the block reward. So it may have less impact on the price if people use it to cash out, as the payout will be delivered over time than all at once.

Here’s an interesting way to combat that which requires a less complicated change, and would also be an interesting experiment in general:

Let NSR holders vote on the block reward, and control the inflation rate of NSR.

[masterOfDisaster]

Would it not be easier to just pay out people as we have been with grants?

+1 at the end it’s the same - paying a part of the minted NSR or diluting the NSR by NSR grants equals to NSR holders paying the price for (hopefully) raising the value of their property.

But I still like @desrever’s initiative!

[desrever]

What is the different between taking a percentage of the mint reward and distributing it to an address every block, or everyone voting for a specific address to receive a specific amount at regular intervals as we have been?

Very good question. Our blockchain is lucky under this angle, unlike most. My proposed solution can also be applicable to fixed-supply blockchains.

So for Nu I guess the only difference between the two approaches is that one requires continuous trust in shareholder votes to sustain development month after month (or with an annual large grant) , while the block-by-block reward is more… smooth, guaranteed and timely. Another minor yet important difference is that as a result the supply is not inflated, as core-team takes a cut versus a bonus.