There is no long-term effective solution to the problem of BCH development funds. I recently thought about it for a long time and came up with a plan .
General plan
1 Establish a BCH foundation, which only executes and does not make any active decisions about capital expenditure. Please note that this is very important.
2 The foundation issues a token on the SLP (BCH token protocol) that is not fixed in total and can be issued at any time. It is assumed that the name of the token is vote.
3 Any user who donates 1 USD to the foundation will automatically get 1 vote
4 Any expenditure of the foundation needs to be approved by all vote holders for digital signature voting.
Detail
1 Why is the foundation not allowed to make active decisions?
This can avoid corruption to the greatest extent.
2 Why is there no upper limit for vote?
This is to ensure that all donors have the same voting rights. Whether you donate $1 today or donate $1 a few months later, you can get 1 vote.
3 Can vote be traded freely?
Vote holders can trade on their own, and those who need voting rights can either get votes through donations or buy votes on the free market. If you got the vote from the donation at the beginning, and then sold the vote, no matter how many times you resold it, assuming that the vote price has not changed, it is equivalent to the last purchaser actually making a donation.
4 Is the voting right of vote permanent or one-time?
Vote's voting rights are permanent. As long as you hold a vote, you can vote on any proposal of the foundation. Please note that this is very important. Only votes with permanent voting rights have transaction value, which will greatly stimulate people's motivation to donate. In the traditional donation behavior, the donor is purely donating. In this mode, you will get a vote and have the right to vote. When you don’t want this voting right, you can still sell it for cash. The choice is very flexible.
5 How to vote? What is considered as a proposal?
Use the wallet for digital signatures to approve or oppose a proposal. Within the specified time, if more than 50% of all votes cast for a certain proposal are approved, then the proposal is passed. As the executor, the foundation transfers the corresponding funds from the fund wallet to the wallet of the proposal initiator.
6 If you make decisions based on the number of votes cast, will it become a big deal?
The core idea of Vote is that whoever donates more money has more right to speak, rather than the egalitarianism of one person, one vote. Why do you donate US$1 and others donate US$10,000? You want to have the same voice as others. So I think even if the big business has the final say, there is nothing wrong with it.
7 How to restrain the foundation and prevent corruption?
First of all, make the accounts transparent, and make every income and expenditure public, and these can be checked on the blockchain. Secondly, use professional digital asset custody services to prevent people from running away with donations. Finally, it is through legal constraints. The foundation should be initiated by respected people in the BCH circle.
8 Does the foundation need to provide centralized services?
The foundation needs to establish a website to publicize various income and expenditures, and also needs a section for users to initiate proposals for funding.
9 What if the daily operation of the foundation also requires funds?
It's very simple. Just initiate a proposal and let everyone vote for it.
10 Why does BCH as a POW need to use this POS-like method to make decisions?
Because POW only protects the network security of BCH, it cannot directly provide funds to developers. The holder of the vote is the sponsor of the development funds, whoever pays the money and speaks, nothing wrong. Vote holders only vote on the issue of "who use the money we donated", not everything.
Several advantages of this program
1 Fair and reasonable. Let the donors vote to decide how to use the money, the foundation has no decision-making power.
2 This scheme can perfectly fit the pumping scheme of miners. The miner pumping scheme is to use a certain percentage of the proceeds from each block of the miners to inject into the foundation. Many people agree with this scheme, but the most unhappy group must be the miners, because they have to "take it for nothing". money. But if you combine the scheme of this article, it will be different. Miners will automatically get 1 vote for every $1 of BCH drawn. Then miners can sell votes on the market and recover most of their losses.
3 Developers can be counterbalanced. Now the leading development of BCH is the ABC team. If the ABC team provokes public anger, then when ABC wants to apply for development funds from the foundation in the future, vote holders can vote against and strongly support other teams to counterbalance the ABC team.
4 More efficient. From the time a proposal was initiated to the end of voting, ten and a half months was almost over.
5 No permission required. The program does not need to be approved by anyone, and those who are capable and willing can start it now.
sum up
This article is just an idea, many details are not in-depth. But in general, I think it is feasible. This solution can not only provide funds for protocol/application developers, but also provide funds for the marketing of BCH.
Not very enthusiastic about this, but I liked that you wrote it!