Topic: how should coin developers be remunerated? (Read 4687 times)

One problem with that is how to prevent someone just spamming transactions. Not that we would expect a dev to do that. But someone could do that and then people might blame it on the devs gaining the reward causing problems.

Well a useful currency will drive demand which will naturally increase the price of the currency if the supply is limited.

It takes a long time for a currency to mature fully in to one driven entirely by transactions. We're not even really close to that with Bitcoin yet. It's a long term thing and it's good to have devs that are in for the long term.

The tax could be base amount * number of transactions in a block.

If it is largely coming from the reward then it isn't incentive to make the currency used because block rewards are paid even if there is no activity.

I think in this case the large majority of developer remuneration is coming directly from the newly generated coins from each block as opposed to transactions. That is until the the block rewards reduce themselves over time as is normally the case.

One potential issue with a tax per block is that transactions that happen off the block in major web wallets wouldn't be subject to it.

e.g. when Mt. Gox was still around, a lot of transactions simply weren't in the blockchain because they went from one Mt. Gox account to another.

So people who did not use the major web wallets would be subsidizing those who did.

Yeah, if you think about it that way it is pretty much the same thing.

And it's good that it's distributed slowly over time rather than a lump sum all at once.

A tax per block does the same thing.
A Transaction fee tax has the greatest incentive as the rewards only come when people actively use the coin It forces the development team to do everything they can to encourage adoption.

Right, that's what I was referring to when I mentioned "time locked coins". That one could work as well.

So what about AliceWonder's proposal? I think its strength is
its simplicity. It is understandable to the non-techies, and
because of that great at inspiring confidence towards the dev(s).  

One problem with this is that while they have incentive to make their coin better, it's only until they sell their premine at which point they have no more incentive to work on the coin.

The whole premine - pump - dump thing has been done to death as everyone knows. New solutions are needed that balance fairness and incentive. So far the IPM is the best idea. Time locked coins are another good one as well.

Donations can work only with a community that is fully behind a coin and has the resources to support it, which is not easy. Some people might have the will to support a project, but not have the funds to match their enthusiasm.

Don't get me wrong here, I do not support premining in general. But consider this: The devs having a premine can give them an incentive to make their coin better. The more successful their coin, the more their premine is worth. Note that in the overwhelming majority of cases this doesn't apply, due to the overwhelming majority of cases being scams.

Like it or not, bitcoin will fail without other coins.
Decentralizations means more than one coin for the market itself to choose from, the market should not be centralized on a single currency.

The limited supply of bitcoin means demand for currency will result in the creation of alternate currency.

Like it or not, bitcoin was the first of its kind and the first always has design issues that could have been done better, because the first of its kind didn't have real world experience to draw upon.

Personally I want the next coin that has major success to be open source, and the best way to see that happen is for there to be a profit motive.

Clearly pre-mine where the developer gets it all at the start is a bad model, too easy to scam.

But a pre-mine where the developer slowly gets access to it over a 3 year period, that's only profitable if the coin is a success - the developer only profits if a lot of early adopters profit and continue to profit.

I don't want Google or PayPal creating the next digital currency that gets broad International adoption. I want it to be open source, and skilled developers need to be paid.

The thing being created is already launched now, Bitmark. We originally planned for a 0.25% taxation on each block, however rejected this and moved to a donation based Bitmark Foundation, where all donations are in the BTM currency only, locked until for a year at least.

My goal was not to create something which earned profit, but to create something which ensured that if Bitmark was widely adopted, the team working on it would have a reasonable amount of the currency to support continued development and further focus on enabling greater adoption.

Who's the 'you guys' you keep referring to? No one is doing premines or anything like that.

The thread was simply meant as a place to discuss how developers should be remunerated. And if you think donations are the only way they should be remunerated then that's a valid argument to make, but you're not really making any argument. You're just screaming 'ponzi this' and 'scam that'.

You assume that this thread is full of 'scammers' as you put it but if you've been paying attention that's actually not the case at all.

If you think that this altcoin scene is full of bad actors then threads like this where the community can have a rational discussion about important issues are important. Just try to take a deep breath first before making assumptions.

If you create something really new and stable that can becomes new Bitcoin some day - ever 1%premine is pretty much. Some about 0.5%for all dev's and promoution team and then just donation's. If the coin is really good - this amount is enough for team. In the opposite case  - they deserve no profit.

I never seen one i felt worth donating too except for Bitcoin.. the rest can go fuck themselves.
and it's one thing to post a donation address and it's quite another to add a premine etc..
donating to the Linux foundation is real and legit and great option.
paying coin cloners is not .

you guys just want to justify your posting ponzi schemes and wanna discuss the best way to get paid for doing it..
cloners already make lots of money by exploiting all kinds of advantages i have seen in dozens of ways in the last year
and you guys are playing dumb about that and ignoring the fact that the dev position has been exploited BAD.. pretty much 100% of the time.
if being able to mine the coin or what ever on MINUTE ONE of the coins release is not enough then your being greedy.
Why do you guys think your entitled to a paycheck over top of your supported paying for electricity or service costs ?

you guys are playing dumb little games, saying how do i get paid ? i am doing the work..
But your only doing the work to get paid in the first place !
IF you were truly interested in doing the work you would do it for free and pay what little costs incurred out of pocket by getting a job.

i know i am a life long coder who has created endless programs online ALL FOR FREE for close to 15 years.. that is a LOT of software u have coded and posted online !
so spare me your weak ass greedy pathetic arguments.
coin cloners don't deserve fuck all !
The perks you get from being the guy posting the coin and having access to it on day one is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more than enough payment.. don't be greedy .

bullshit, i don't release coins and i also don't sit around here trying to find ways to cook up a so called "distribution model" with an integrated paycheck for myself.

you should design a business model on paying your bill by using someone else free open source code.. write if you wan to do that maybe.

and you wanna pay bills ? get a job.

cloning an altcoin using other people's free GPL source code does not entitle you to a pay check in one form or another.

and and

snarky little quips or sayings that have no relevance don't win arguments.
what pays bills ? getting a job.

or i guess by finding a way to take money by force from victims and scam supporters on endless digital ponzi schemes.

show me one fucking coin here that a guy deserves to be paid for .

So you would never donate to a developer who worked hard on a currency that you like?

Lots of open source developers now contribute to their projects for a living. Because people who use the software see the benefit in enabling full time development which will progress the software.

Where would Linux be now without being able to pay professionals to work full time? Donating to something like the Linux foundation is clearly in the best interest off lots of large corporations which is why we see lots of them donating large amounts of money on a yearly basis.