Masternode owners will surely have an incentive to vote for some features like masternode blinding and 2FA. This only ensures better security for the owners and stability of DASH. Maybe some other features are not as high on the list, but any benefit to the rise in price of DARK will also be the desire of the MN owner. Of course, if there is a big concern about MNs voting no, we could fix the MN% and only have the votes change the mining reward %. Looking at it another way the MN owner makes about 1.5%/mo on a MN. It would be more advantages to donate to anything that would increase the value of DASH by more than 1.5%/mo even if all the rewards need to be spent.
Once block rewards are in an escrow, I find it really unlikely that they will ever be returned. This is just the nature of a tax before allocated system.
The suggestion that 10% or 15% is what is needed, is not specific. Is it needed for 1 month, 10 years? We are talking about a system that could be around in 1000 years with each DASH valued at $10,000+. A % and specific time-frame allocated for each project is the only way I can see this lasting over the long run. There are so many other opportunities for this funding it is really incredible. This could be a way to setup loans that are repaid to miners/mn with additional interest. Start capital projects(like an exchange) that self generate cashflow from fees. This is only possible if the voting and funding system is setup per project per % and per length of time. Think big!
Another problem with the fixed percent is that funding is not always available, or is in excess depending on the projects available. With a project specific % and time, each project can be started immediately. The funds for projects would be provided as the block rewards are generated - no escrow, no inefficient allocation of resources.
Great discussion. We are on to something big.
I think you've interpreted Evan's underlying idea of the value this system represents to masternode holders well. The MN are still investors, and unlike other investments, they have the opportunity to directly make decisions that affect their asset value in terms of exchange rate in other currencies (not the dividends from masternode reward, which is a fixed 45% amount of Dash). Instead of giving the MN an extra 15% in 2016, why not have give them even more incentive to not only hold, but also increase the value of the asset itself. A large Dash reward means nothing if the coin itself is worthless. In this early growth phase of the currency, the growth in exchange rate versus other currencies will offer a much better return on investment than the dividend alone.
Actually, this is not quite what I wanted to get across. I believe masternode owners will vote for the benefit of the value of DASH even if it reduces block rewards. But I don't think this should be a forced donation/tax. All funding for development should be voted on before any specific amount is allocated. The default would be 100% of block rewards to miners and masternodes. The allowable funding limit would be capped at 15% and could come from masternode or miner block rewards. Just to list a couple to give some ideas:
Long term planning and core development 1% for 2 years, and auto-renews with voting, default vote of yes.
Mobile wallets 10% for 1 month, default vote of no
Blinding 5% for 1 month, default vote of no
2FAE 5% for 1 month, default vote of no
Video 1% of 6 months, default vote of no
Secure messaging 1% for 2 months, default vote of no
This way we have multiple projects getting worked on at the same time with the most desired first. Core development projects would go forward without a vote needed, but could be vetoed by no votes. Most projects would require a yes vote from x% of masternodes to go forward.
