@Kolin
ha ha i'm sorry to laugh guys but 'm hearing a lot of "save Quark" ha ha
Yes Kolin, save Quark. I mean, Quark will most likely "survive" but I guess even to you it is not appealing to hold 247 millions of Quark and noone else wants to exchange it with you. As you may have noticed many people sold their Quarks and if you are going to laugh away problems that everyone else in the active community agrees exist then I can see more people turning their back on Quark. The hashrate issue is directly connected to price and trust in Quark, so yeah, we should and will do something about it.
@reRaise
Very interesting, i would be glad if you go into details.
Conditions:
A merge mining coin only makes sense to me if
a) there will be a prospect for a long-term value and
b) it is no direct competitor with Quark
This is why I am against a random roin that merge-mines. The coin should have a longer distribution scheme, let´s say 20 years and a different blockrate, say 3-6 minutes. This would make it distinguishable to Quark and avoid a fast boost with a short bust. When I said this could be an "experimental" coin I didn´t mean to think of it as Bitcoin Testnet but rather as a coin with a higher probability of hard forks when implementing new features.
To experiment on a different coin would sort of solve the discussion on whether we should change the Quark source code. As you know, some people wanted to push things forward and other were sceptical if that wouldn´t we a too high risk factor. To have a longer blockrate and distribution scheme would avoid the coin becoming a direct competitor with Quark as when it comes to adoption for many in-store trades 30 seconds would still be more attractive than 3-6 minutes and the inflation rate would be way higher as with Quark.
Challenges and Solutions:
Of course we need to take care that the coin is neither pumped nor dumped massively. If we want to be serious here, we should go for a currency that encourage community involvement rather than speculation as it happened several times with Quark. Even though premining has for good reason I think there is a way to use premine to guarantee a certain price stability and (yes) trust into the community, namely, if we dedicate 100% of the premine for community projects. I would call this approach "Community Premine":
We premine say 10% of the coin and slowly distribute it over say 3 years use it for the following cause:
a) Payout on discussion forum: We set up a fresh forum for Quark and "Experimental Quark" that substitutes forum.qrk.cc and has some sort of Activity measurement. Top 10 users are paid each months in that currency.
b) Payout on chat: We use a faucet to distribute the currency for people who chat on #quarkuniverse
c) Payout for bounties: a fixed amount is used for bounties where users can propose and vote for what is needed >> this affords a solid Foundation structure (will come back to this later on)
d) Payout for representants of the community
e) + more activity solutions
As you see, there is no premine used for the developer because I believe every premine payout to the developer will raise doubts whether the developer want to enrich themselves. However, we need to and should pay the developers for their work, but I think we can do it differently:
We set up a pool with a fee of 1% that will be dedicated to the developers. Those of us who want to fund the developer agree on a mining plan that will give back to the developer. This way we actually pay for their work and give them shares of the currency at the same time, which will foster self-interest. We can also agree what their "base" work is and then pay them share of the bounties where every bounty needs to be democratically blessed by the Foundation.
Democratical Foundation:
I repeated my proposal on that many times and will do it here again: To get some stability into the community we need a Foundation that is elected and has power and capacity to lead. Currently we are dealing with a structure that is not very transparent. However, as far as I understand it from talks with most Foundation members there is a great interest to change this situation from both sides: community and foundation. Currently we have three to four working teams beside the Foundation (QuarkUniverse, QuarkPlanet, QuarkLabs and QuarkPress) that are dedictad to the development of Quark.
What can we do?
We renew the Foundation and make the teams integrated part of the community. Everyone can become part of the Foundation by paying a deposit (say an equivalent of 50-100 USD) that is refunded with a short puffer (say 4 weeks) if the person decides to leave the Foundation. By becoming part of the Foundation the person has the right to become and/or elect representants. Representants stay elected for 12 months. Those persons are also paid out of the premine (see above c).
This of course needs to be worked out which is why I believe we should gather active members for a range of 6 months to form an interim structure that prepares the change without getting paid.
This is the graphic that I made (where QuarkComm represents QuarkLabs and QuarkPress)
Please post your comments.
P.S.: No matter if you agree or disagree I would like to encourage everyone to make things happen. Some of our members managed to get in touch with Max and we have the chance to keep the dialogue alive. We shouldn´t waste it.
