How to Fund Development of the Steem Blockchain
View this post on Hive: How to Fund Development of the Steem Blockchain
5 years ago in #steem by valued-customer (67)
$4.74
- Past Payouts $4.74, 0.00 TRX
- - Author $3.32, 0.00 TRX
- - Curators $1.42, 0.00 TRX
The nice thing about taxes is that we can use the tax to pay for things that the entire community benefits from. Let's say roads and water treatment plants. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
The bad thing about taxes is that someone is in charge of the money and they will funnel it back into their own pockets if given the chance. Let's say the prison state and infinite warfare via politicians.
And so, we have cultivated a bunch of ignorant self-righteous citizens who think they are funding roads and foodstamps when they are really paying for legalized slavery and death
And so, until I am shown a decentralized proposal to fund development where no one is in charge and the rules are difficult to game and not worth the risk... I must assume all ideas put forth are inherently fatally flawed.
There seems to be quite an urgency to get the ball rolling all of a sudden. Did people just now start caring about blockchain development, or do they smell blood and desperation in these bearish waters and want to use that fear as leverage for more power?
I very much agree with you. One thing that has alarmed me about this present circumstance is the sudden discussion about taxing rewards, before any decisions regarding how to allocate those funds have been undertaken. I see this as shaping the debate, and precluding discussion of alternative funding sources.
It is for this reason that I made this post: to broaden the debate, and include what I think is equitable, for all the reasons I stated.
Thanks!
Ya know, with the high amount of STEEM being paid to the top 19 witnesses, they should be funding things in part.
1,800+2,100+ STEEM per week, times 19, is 39,900 per week. Voluntarily funding things with a portion of near 40,000 isn't much to ask, given the easy mining of being a top 19 witness. Not all projects can get some, but some can, if those witnesses want to do it.People on other chains develop and mine to fund it, but they can just run rigs to mine. On Steem, you can't, the top 19 witnesses are the major miners. They make so much STEEM by just running hardware essentially. Help fund good projects with all that easy mining if you're not developing projects of your own where you need that funding yourself, no?
Also, posting about the project development and having the community reward it, is doable right now. That's voluntary stake-based rewarding.
Nothing new needs to be added. A tax is just bullshit. If people want funding to happen, it can already happen. I make posts on my development. Maybe when I actually release the app I'll get more support, or maybe I won't because people won't value it, or some people don't like me lol. But we shouldn't be just taking STEEM and allocating it to projects just because they have a project.
The free market value should be voluntarily determined. If no one values a project, then you can still develop it without getting rewarded by the community.
I am convinced you know more than I about witness rewards. What about witnesses not in the top 20? Aren't ya'll far less compensated?
I basically agree that voluntary funding is righteous. However, @smooth points out that the inflation that funds rewards is a form of tax, and it's just built into the token. If we're gonna have to pony up for development that Stinc won't anymore, we should not go after rewards, because that defeats the purpose of rewards.
If we're gonna get taxed because folks demanded Stinc let them control development, that's the last way we should do it.
I posted regarding a voluntary program to fund development recently, as you may recall. That's far preferable to what I am seeing discussed now. I'm just trying to keep rent seekers from killing the goose that lays the golden eggs as best I can.
Thanks!
That's why I only stated the top 19 for the mass of STEEM they are mining ;) Yes, all rewards are created, based on previous rewards created, and this is an inflation compared to producing no new rewards which would be 0% inflation. Witness, comments, posts, and curation are all getting new tokens that are part of that inflation. Inflation is not a tax, it's a result of creating more of what was: STEEM tokens, in this case. The alternative is no new tokens are created. Then what would happen to this platform?
As I said, voting on posts of development would be allocating author rewards, and the top 19 witnesses can send some of their rewards too based on what they value. They make a ton each week. At around 9,000 per month, with their servers costs not being close to that, and the future of RocksDB reducing server hardware requirements, they will have even more STEEM left over. Voluntarily funding work being done on Steem is something they can do, if they want to, if they want development funding to happen, rather than expect Steemit to pay people...
Congratulations! Your post has been selected as a daily Steemit truffle! It is listed on rank 11 of all contributions awarded today. You can find the TOP DAILY TRUFFLE PICKS HERE.
I upvoted your contribution because to my mind your post is at least 4 SBD worth and should receive 136 votes. It's now up to the lovely Steemit community to make this come true.
I am
TrufflePig, an Artificial Intelligence Bot that helps minnows and content curators using Machine Learning. If you are curious how I select content, you can find an explanation here!Have a nice day and sincerely yours,
TrufflePighey @valued-customer, wanted to thank you for this writeup, it helped me tremendously in grasping the issues at hand, still far away from a full understanding though.
Rushing this bill is the last thing we want to do as I see much confusion and little understanding right now in posts and comments (feeling similar myself) - yet some people (with vested interests) seem somehow keen to get this bill finalized as quickly as possible before it has even been discussed. Called it bill for a reason. After years of communication drought, an era of indecision and no apparent steemit movement forward besides some empty promises we suddenly have to sign something the majority of steem users do not even understand?
I'd rather read up on your and others' comments and find a concensus of the best ideas before we start building that system to basically allow for finding concensus in the future.
Dictating the start of this proposal system from the top down seems entirely dissonant to the spirit of a proposal system itself. Especially since there are already alternative systems that have been creative at finding other ways to fund development (as you also mentioned).
I hate to be so blunt but is this a community of people with a shared interest and passion for where we are going, able to communicate and find concensus NOW (based on the best pros and cons and an objective preemptive discussion) or is this a monarchy where the little people have to simply accept any and all decisions by the king and his staff of advisors which will then be used as consent for more centralized decision making of seemingly large ramifications...
Well said.
Thanks!
Edit: I note my understanding is evolving as the day wears on. I expect that to continue as I gain the benefit of criticism which refines my grasp. Still, the basic principles I have espoused remain essential to the paradigm: users create the value of Steem, and decreasing the incentive for them to do that will not grow the value of Steem.
Aye, I will do the same, formulating my minimal grasp on it once I feel it is somewhat comprehensive.
When you say 'tap stake' I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Would that be a % tax on your Steem, SP or SBD? Would the taxable amount be direct debited from your account? And what would the taxable event be to trigger the tax?
Thanks in advance
Those are all questions I have not seen anyone address, and I haven't addressed them either. The discussion has been simply regarding from where funds are drawn to fund development.
Thanks for raising them, as those are all matters that will need to be considered, no matter where funds are extracted.
My only concerns are those I have raised: decreasing rewards decreases the things rewards are intended to increase. I don't think we should. Basing any SPS funding on stake doesn't do that, and it also ensures that folks holding Steem are going to involve themselves in how to spend those funds - which is a good thing. The more parsimonious the folks funding the proposals are, the harder they will hold devs feet to fire, and drive productivity with great zeal.
Lastly, I don't want to see worse oligarchical 'democracy' here than we see in the real world, with funds drawn from those with less of them to pay those with the most.
If we're not going to play fair, we shouldn't play.
Thanks!
As a simple content-creator, most of this is over my head. But I do thank you for doing what you think is necessary to improve the blockchain.
Thanks!