Maybe we need a decentralized exchange first, in case Craig is banned from exchanges as Pavel pointed out.
Then we can have a dynamic fee, but I don't think 0,3$ is too much, I was thinking much more, something like 1$.
Also I'm thinking if we can try to peg the value of a Craig to something... but I need to think about it some more.
This will not solve spam problems anyway, maybe it will help reduce it, but 1$ or 0.5$ won't stop people to post stupid things if they want to.
Here we need to evolve as a community and try to mature. Maybe we need to confirm every post, like we need confirmations for normal transactions.
Let's say before a post is passed into the blockchain it needs to have 75% (or 100% or 51% etc) positive valuation (and a minimum number of votes)
Tx adv fee will be used in part to keep development alive and in part to pay those who take part in the confirmation process.
It may become even a job for some people, and a real life application for a cryptocoin.
I'm throwing these ideas on the table for now.
P.S: forgive my English, I need to brush it up.
Why would it be banned from exchanges?
--------
I would like community voting to approve posts, but that too is susceptible to fud or spam. At this point, 5 people downvoting every submission would mean nothing gets posted.
--------
Your English is fine
TX FEE
An exchange could remove Craig for any reasons, it doesn't matter what the reason is.
As we rely on it's value to (dynamically?) set the tx fee for ads, it would be a good idea to have some sort of decentralized excg as a first thing.
So if Craig doesn't depend on anything that is centralized for this, we are ok.
SPAM.
You're right, confirming posts is not feasible but still, a form of decentralized and wide "control" over posts should be done, even if they last a week or a day.
I know we're trying to build this system to be as free as possible but who would like to keep (even for a short time) something about pedophilia or other weird things? I hope none.
Someone on a previous post suggested something like a "report as inappropriate" feature to be implemented.
If a post gets a number of negative feedback, it gets removed. I'm not sure if it can be removed from the blockchain, probabily not, maybe it can be sent to some sort of "burning" address?
I know, if a group of people want to sabotage a post they can massively give it a bad feedback, but some form of auto-regulation should be thought.
As we do in "real" life.
DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT
I think Pavel is up for the task of developing Craig, even if it's doing it slowly.
He can lay down the fundamentals of the coin and get it to work smoothly now, but in the future a huge thing like this cannot rely on a single (centralized!!!) developer for many reasons.
It could be a good thing if, as new ideas need to get implemented into Craig, more than one Dev
could workon it. Maybe in turn.
I think it's fair if they could be paid for what they do, but how?
Maybe a special fund made from staking could be used for this purpose.
Once a Dev
has finished his job and peers voluntarily
review what has been done, he/she gets paid.
Let's put all our ideas on the table and have a discussion!