Perhaps if staking in projects were encouraged, so that if you decide to stake your reward from the royalty fund would be 100% and if you don’t, it would be a smaller percentage, perhaps 20% or whatever is decided.
I had this functionality in mind:
50% Royalty on Gas for Smart Contract Creators → More Info
Which is an improved version of your proposal, because the incentive is to build a good app first and the money automatically goes to apps.
But of course the problem does not come from the fact that there are no good apps, but that nothing in crypto is used.
Which is understandable the mass of people in crypto are miners and gamblers. The ordinary people have not rushed to use crypto and are unlikely to rush to use something unproven like Autonomi, so the focus should be on the node runers who will maintain the network until it is proven.
Check out the Dev Forum
5 Likes
That incentive is still there to a lesser degree with my proposal; teams that have delivered high quality apps are more likely to attract further investment to create more desirable apps / features / improvements.
Node runners will get plenty of focus. The proposal takes nothing from them, and gives them more influence in the network, should they wish to use it.
I disagree that the quality of apps will have little impact on Autonomi’s success. Even in the early days, a high quality browser, file sharing, video sharing, music streaming, decentralised social media apps etc could create significant followings and data flows.
What would you prefer to see in the first year after Autonomi’s launch:
a) ~10% dilution of the token supply with no clear benefit to the Autonomi ecosystem or node operators
b) ~10% dilution of the token supply that funds tens of millions of dollars worth of dev work by a variety of teams to build features / applications that enrich the Autonomi ecosystem.
4 Likes
B
plus required chars
2 Likes
The biggest negative is that it moves the network away from one which has a token for in network resource usage to an investment vehicle. WOW talk about bringing in the SEC. Invest in this coin or that coin for returns. Each node runner then has to work tax on their investments even if they only intended to use their earning to store data (no tax involved in that case for many/most places).
BTW I also do not see any good in the network then also becoming a staking network (not talking of reserves etc). The core principle of the network is for use, not a money maker. Yes economics are needed for operation and incentive for many to run nodes in the first place. But to then have investments, staking, money making schemes is moving away from reinventing the internet and usage of it to a crypto project with $$$$$$ signs
9 Likes
You’re absolutely right there - didn’t even think about this aspect yet Oo
3 Likes
I hadn’t been thinking about the compliance / tax considerations, but I don’t expect there would be anything that couldn’t be designed around.
I don’t think the SEC would be interested in the proposed ‘locked’ ANT in any way they wouldn’t be interested in an ‘unlocked’ ANT.
It’s not 2014 any more. There are well established ways for projects to raise funds through token offerings in a compliant way.
If anyone didn’t want to participate, they could simply elect to forego earning the ‘Ecosystem tokens’ in favour of the foundation, or donate to projects that aren’t offering anything in return.
The proposal wouldn’t change ANT, which would still be for network resource usage, as well as everything else ANT will be used for in practice.
The concept is quite close to the plan that was in place for years; for a portion of earned rewards to be allocated to the foundation for distribution to ecosystem projects. The biggest difference here is that node operators could opt to choose where their earned portion is allocated.
I’d certainly prefer to see a build in mechanism that facilitates a load of investments that enrich the ecosystem vs a built in mechanism that creates tokens that could have done significant good, but instead only dilutes the supply.
If we want Autonomi to have the maximum impact reinventing the internet and being transformative for as many people as possible, it’s going to need a strong ecosystem with developers creating all kinds of applications. I expect directing token emissions to this end would help Autonomi have a far bigger impact on the world than if instead there’s just a bit of a dilution of the token supply.
You’ve been clear about the negatives you see in the proposal. Do you see any positives about potentially unlocking hundreds of millions of dollars to invest in ecosystem development?
3 Likes