Should We Create a Development Fund?
There are many things I want to consider as we look at where we are with Steem in 2019.
https://steemit.com/busy/@whatsup/is-steem-broken-is-it-fatally-flawed
Last week I wrote a post stating that Steem the blockchain isn't broken it is functioning perfectly as designed. However, our view of Steem and the original idea of how it would function might be broken. Which is not a terrible problem to have.
Just to start a discussion I want to introduce the idea of directing at least some of the Reward Pool towards a Development fund.
Up until now I think many expected SteemIt Inc to take care of development with their stake, but it puts the entire project at the mercy of SteemIt Inc.'s ability and intentions and that seems to be a bad idea for many reasons.
-They have no accountability to us as Ned has pointed out they are a private company
-Entire Blockchains have been developed while we wait for SMTs
-They do not communicate with us on even a functional level. (Are you creating new accounts? Yes or No?)
In order to move away from our dependence on SteemIt, Inc. It is my opinion we need to have a development fund to pay for and allocate resources to developers or companies like Blocktrades in order to move development forward.
We have a lot of Orcas and whales stating they are rewarding themselves to pay for development, people like Transisto and others. Where are these projects and funds? We have no idea, because again there is no accountability.
We could spend hours talking about how this fund would be managed and I am sure that would be a challenge, but in the end, we have a Stake based voting system to gather weighted consensus on what the fund could be used for.
Let's talk about how to fund future development and reduce our dependence on SteemIt Inc.
At the very least, even if a Fund is non-existent. We're interested to see a "Steem Development Foundation" where discussion of how to move forward can be had in a more united manner. People outside the community can also interact directly for news and updates.
At present, news outlets or influencers don't know who to approach to aid with the marketing of Steem, which we all know is lacking.
We're interested in pursuing this disccusion more.
I agree a foundation might be a first step. From my experience very quickly that would lead to how do we pay for it.
Why don't you raise this suggestion in the SOS-forum discord. I would love to see a discussion on that there.
Do send us a link to the discord. we'll send someone in :D
Here you go. There is a working group on funding ideas. See you there as @traveller7761 https://discord.gg/g2xEwE
Terribly sorry! It seems the links have expired..
Here's another one https://discord.gg/8FjNVvj And here you may find a short overview on what has happened till now.
@whatsup,
You are absolutely correct! This might be a great idea of course! The problem is who could handle that kind of fund base! Crowd funding is a strategy to bring successful projects! I think if we all attach to this project we could see SMT befire that timeline and more other projects too!
Cheers~
So we should fund development and when the price of steem rise the Stinc will start selling their stake and laughing on the way to the bank??
Not my piece of cake.
Sorry.
Don't be sorry, thanks for answering. I wasn't looking for blind agreement. Strictly a conversation on how or if we should move away from dependence on SteemIt, Inc.
Until they have their fat account there is no way to move away from them. And new people will not invest or develop on this blockchain.
BTW do you know where is the guy with nice hair?
I think he is at the hairdresser getting Jennifer Aniston bangs.
If the development will grow the value at a greater rate than an investment, it would still be a win. The conversation should be around how a fund could generate greater value. I don’t think anyone would blindly fund without that structure though.
How does one verify development? How would something like that be any different from voting for content that describes such development? If you use a stake-based system, it seems kind of redundant with what we already have here and given that we would have to vet whether or not that development is quality or not, that would require a some mechanism to determine "quality" code (a billion dollar idea) or we would have to trust some individual or group.
While the idea might sound good initially, logistically it doesn't make a lot of sense to pursue at the blockchain level. You should organize a fund separate from the chain, not add it to the protocol.
How does one verify good content? Let me give you an example of what I mean. My post got a payout of $53:
https://steemit.com/utopian-io/@inertia/more-current-steem-documentation
How do you know I didn't just splat a bunch of nonsense and pick the right tags? Maybe the utopian moderators weren't paying attention. How do you determine one way or the other?
(actually, the utopian moderators are top notch and very qualified to determine these kinds of things, but that's not my point)
My point is, sometimes you do have to rely on experts with domain specific knowledge to verify delivery. Maybe that process can work for application development too.
Yeah, but those experts are centralized points. Which could be good if they are truly experts, or perhaps could be an issue as they have some central authority over the code. The only way to avoid central authorities is to have everyone vote via stake, but the notation that stake is anyway positively correlated with the ability to judge code quality is absurd.
I don't see why we can't simply have individuals willing to stake projects as investors put stake into those projects. That's how it works in the real world. And it doesn't force us to siphon off part of the pool to either allow larger voters or "experts" elected by larger voters to determine the future development. We already have those. They're called witnesses.
And see where we are now? I can see how having such a fund addresses accountability and speeds up development rather than reckless delegation to projects with most hype.
Dash, Bitshares, Ethereum, even Bitcoin does this to a degree.
Sure, decentralize everything. And then Project A will work on heading north and Project B work on south. Nothing gets done in the end.
The central issue of OP's post is the address reliance AWAY from a few parties. Edge case scenario, say a legendary developer comes to the Steem blokchain and is willing to work on a proposal. He's not a witness though, does that mean he's not qualified to develop Steem?
There are certainly better reasons that the blockchain is suffering more than the lack of developer incentives. One of them is developer focus. Another we can tie into the game theory behind Steem. A third would be cryptocurrencies being strongly correlated with Bitcoin. All better reasons to why we are here now.
Nobody forces anybody to delegate. How would a shared pool solve this issue? Please enlighten us.
My concern is about on-chain funding. Foundations and private companies are off-chain funding. I'm perfectly fine with that sort of funding and would encourage it.
I feel like these ideas conflict with each other to a degree. The second implies moving toward the first, and critiquing the first would suggest moving towards the second.
He may be qualified to develop Steem, it depends on his experience. But let's say dude solves all our problems with perfect code. If code doesn't get witness support it isn't passing regardless.
But that's true for judging content too, which I just said previously. For some content, some people are better suited to judge quality than others. I don't see how this informs us on how to to use the reward pool.
Well, that's a great idea. Go do that. In fact, why we can't simply have individuals willing to stake content as investors put stake into content production as well?
Why do any of this at all?
Read the SMT Whitepaper? And think Development Fund?
Yes. No.
Maybe you verify the development at the Code Drop. Or you payout in thirds which is common in contracted development projects.
Although I agree we can currently fund small development with votes, what about larger projects like SMTs or other features?
I disagree that logically it doesn't make sense, it could logically make sense. Which also doesn't mean we have to implement it. :)
How do other projects raise capital? Bitcoin doesn't have a fund. It has passionate individuals that work on it for free and groups of developers that propose functionality to investors and raise capital through these proposals. Such an approach is better for developers in that funds are often in stable currencies and it makes sense to trust investors since they provide all the money that is "at stake". It would be preferable to encourage more startups and small organizations around Steem, not turn Steem into a partial funding platform because it can print tokens.
I'm not sure how Bitcoin's devs are paid.
Dash does have a foundation and a group of people who approve work proposals and such as do several other chains.
One thing that is hard when you have more than just a currency is how to attract people/devs and projects to your blockchain when there are no assets set aside to fund it.
I'd like to recommend you this read in case you haven't already.
https://medium.com/@lopp/who-controls-bitcoin-core-c55c0af91b8a
IMO, there are much to learn from how Bitcoin Core Dev does their job. And even then they still admit it's somewhat centralized.
I'll read it, thank you.
Does busy.org take a cut of your earnings?
It almost seems like Steemit might need to practically freeze development.
It's an interesting idea. Sometimes it's difficult to trust the people at the top though. Who would be in charge of such a fund?
Upvoted 100%.
The fund would have to be managed by stake based consensus voting. Because we are a DPOS chain.
The good news is it would be fairly easy to write some sort of app for presenting and voting on Work Projects to fund.
Here exactly where I see the biggest problem.
Stinc with their accounts can approve or dismiss any proposal or money allocation to any project with their stake.
Yeah, that is a very valid concern. You are right, I keep thinking the whole project is doomed to either rely on Steemit Inc or hope they are good partners if we try to manage anything with out them.
People buying lotto tickets all the time and hope...
The fund has to be decentralized with a decentralized account +people on Steemit must have a chance to vote for their favorite project/idea but don't know on how we could do it 😂
Posted using Partiko Android
We have a voting platform... I guess that is a good start.
Definitely, STEEM users all think we are decentralized, and then we wait for Steemit Inc to spoonfeed all the blockchain development. I fully support this idea. Put some money (steem from the reward pool) on the table and we should find ourselves progressing much faster.
Thanks for opening the conversation on this.
Posted using Partiko Android
I'm glad you like the idea... I would love to hear a lot of people weigh in.
If we did all agree, we would also like have to fund developing the blockchain to do it. lol.
Hi whatsup. That is one of the smartest ideas I have heard since joining Steem. If this had been started a while ago it would not be a problem today. A slush fund sounds perfect.
I now find it "Self-evident" that we needed a fund all along.
What if we add fiat to the equation so that devs etc get funds?? Somehow...
I'm not sure how to picture what you just said. If you can give me an example I'd love to consider it.
How about we create an account where committed people who are here for the long run fund it with steem from the exchanges....every now and then. Specific devs will have the keys of that account etc...And not use the reward pool for generating constantly new tokens.
Just an idea...
This is a cool idea!
Also it would be nice if there's something that can automate the conversion from fiat to steem (like if someone want to support the development fund for $10 per month) to fund the the account.