Great, great and great!!!
I have some vote and I'll vote tonight, ready to begin with the decentralized governance.
Carefully read this proposal. It utilizes a commingled project wallet/blockchain store/escrow. I don't see this as a true decentralized system. Other alternatives may work better with less risk.
Yes, on my first post I din't had read all the proposal and the remarks yet...
So patience we'll see what they will answer to the doubt on dashtalk.
Actually, I see no reason why funding the development of the project needs to be purely decentralized. We have very decentralized voting (albeit only Masternode owners), why do we have to have a "decentralized wallet" to deposit coins into. It makes no sense. It isn't functional any other way, and it is still secured by the same decentralized network that secures everyone's wallet.
This proposal will force funds into an escrow account exposed to theft/confiscation/loss/tax. The risk is higher with the more account holders, along with additional delays with more signers to get the funds out. Any account holder can be accused of something "illegal" in the eyes of a government entity and it will be traced back to this account. I believe there are also additional tax consequences with block rewards going into a fund and then separated to project owners. Plus a lot will need to be implement to even make this work - multisig masternode controls, budget software, budget voting, masternode approval for funds each month.
This proposal also has no mechanism to not fund this account(or return funds), so over time when the best projects are completed and the funds will be spent on poor projects or wasted. A much bigger deal in a few years when DASH is 10x or 100x it's value and 10% of the block rewards is not the $290k/year like it is today.(although the other post of Evan's suggested a way to return funds, it isn't in this proposal)
This is the decentralized vision that I see.
Each project owner controls his/her own wallet with the funds. Each project is directly paid similar to masternodes getting payments over time from block rewards, only the project owner receives and controls the funds. Quick, simple, no 'central fund' at risk, no fund manager/s. Each project would get paid their specific % of the block rewards they request so there isn't any funds sitting in a queue waiting accumulate before they can be sent out each month. The funding mechanism would also be the voting mechanism. 51% yes votes gets a project in the queue, and highest yes% gets priority until the 10% cap is reached. Projects get voted in every 3 months and each project has a set limit for 3 months of block rewards.
