Topic: [POLL] The State of Altcoins (and A Proposed Development Funding Model) (Read 3429 times)

I agree the dev should not be anonymous if they receive money. I wouldn't give money to any anonymous individual if I could avoid it. The risk of being scammed is too high.

I think in order for this to work the community who crowdfunds must receive some sort of long term share or stake in the idea they are backing with their funding. They are backing that idea with their money and in my opinion are owed a return which is worth potentially much more than they originally put into it because that is what attracts investment in the first place.

If they get exactly back what they put in then it's a no interest loan. If it's an investment then they should potentially get back much more than they put into it whether that be by dividends, or by getting a share of the profits generated, or by getting some of the coins.

My opinion is that every project which accepts crowd funding should treat the people who fund them as co-owners and shareholders in the idea itself. They should receive a founder badge and that badge should carry with them onto any derivative project as part of a social contract.

It means if you were a founder (crowd funder) of a very genius idea which turns out to be a brilliant paradigm shifting then that badge should carry a lot of weight in the community. Over time there will be individuals in the community who will have a lot of these badges and these people should be the first people to be hired for jobs, these people should be the first people contacted to invest in new ideas, these people people should have shares reserved for them in derivative ideas.

I think the model that protoshares is following with their DACs which spawn DACs is the right way to go about it. If you invest in protoshares then you'll have a 1:1 stake in anything that the DAC idea itself produces in the future. If you believed in the idea of a decentralized autonomous corporation enough to risk your Bitcoins to fund the idea then if the idea is successful you should benefit from all future iterations upon that idea.

This allows the community to collectively claim ownership of an idea without having a patent system. If you think of protoshares as the root node in the tree then from protoshares you can get Bitshares, DomainShares, and a bunch of other *Shares. The amount you get in these future products is based on the amount of protoshares you have. There are 2 million protoshares in total. This seems to be working as a proof of concept for Invictus Innovations.

I think we should extend upon this proof of concept and take it even further. If someone has an idea and has assembled developers then they should follow a similar model as with protoshares. (Idea)Shares can be mined or purchased, can be treated as a currency, can be used as a mechanism of buying and selling ownership of the idea itself and can replace the patent system by allowing people who have a good idea and developers to actually give the idea to the community where it can be turned into an altcoin which can have a mission and purpose.

This will allow the community members to choose the ideas they feel have the most promise and potentially get rich if they choose the right idea. This will create a market where anyone who has a very good idea and developers will be able to get funded if and only if they back their idea with some goods and services which bring the inherent value to the (Idea)Shares.

So if we have for example the idea to create a decentralized exchange and let's call it the Bitshares idea, we first propose that idea by developing a whitepaper. Once the world knows about the idea and is excited about it then create a prototype idea coin which allows anyone to mine or buy that coin while the Bitshares idea is developed into a product or service. Anyone brave enough to buy or mine that coin will own portions of the Bitshares in 1:1 proportion to what they owned in the prototype idea coin. Now if something branches from Bitshares then again you can transfer ownership 1:1 from the owners of Bitshares to whatever came from it. This basically would reward the developers, founders, funders and innovators together.

In my opinion the key to making this work is to treat the developers, founders, funders and innovators as the creative class and do everything we can to come up with reward mechanisms and incentives to attract funding to that class. We should take concepts which work well in the real world like shares, dividends, profit sharing, and adapt those incentives to a decentralized pseudo-anonymous environment.

We should include reputation by having badges. If a particular person has a lot of badges to their name then they are either a great developer, a great investor, a great creator of something, but you wont get a badge if you won't take a chance. You cannot be great if you don't take a chance on a moonshot idea which becomes great.  But we should do everything we can to reward the people who do take a chance on the moonshot idea, and reward the people who dream up these new ideas as well by giving them the recognition of having thought it up. Developers who have worked on various successful projects should also be known and receive recognition whether their contributions are perceived as large or small.

Then as a community we should give special status and rewards to these individuals. Discounts, prizes, status, privileges, dividends, points or whatever you can come up with to make people want that special status.
I'm okay with developers being pseudo-anonymous but they need an identity so we know their reputation and can develop trust. If we don't trust the developers then we don't even know whether or not the code has something in it. I'd prefer developers who give their names and addresses for accountability but in the situation where they cannot do this then they should at least have a persistent pseudo identity which we can confirm is them by digital signature. I think Keyhotee might offer the solution to the identity problem but also the Bitcoin identity protocol can do it. Basically there should be a way for a third party to be able to confirm that the developer we are dealing with is a trustworthy and legitimate person. The community does not have to know the real life identity of that developer but some third party we trust has to know their identity and vouch for them. If no one knows who they are then no one can vet them, and if no one can vet them then no one can trust them enough to run their compiled binaries or even trust that there wont be backdoors in their code. For situations where money and investment is on the line I would not advise anyone to give money to any anonymous person.

Haven't we seen what happened with Labcoin and other scams to know why this is a problem?


I propose pseudo-anonymity. I'm going to take a stance against complete anonymity. Pseudo-anonymity would mean you can come up with any alias, screen name or pseudonym you like. That pseudonym is like a currency in itself, it has to be backed by something or it's worthless. If you have no one who I know who is willing to vouch for you and say you're legit then I will not trust you. In order for this to work there must be a way for a third party to do vetting of developers in a decentralized way.

Here is one way it could be done. Every developer should have to be a real life person who goes through an in person vetting process. If they pass that process then they'll receive a key known only to them and no one else. After receiving that key then they are a developer trusted by the community.

The reason I think vetting is necessary is because anyone who is in a position to write code to manage other people's money should not be trusted by default. They can be anonymous to the wider community and use only a pseudonym but someone or some protocol has to be set up so that someone knows their real identity.

If there are anonymous developers involved then if they do work on writing code I would say you'd need several trusted developers who can look after them and audit the code that they write. Ultimately we will require trusted developers to develop anything truly important so any plans on making things anonymous also have to solve the problem of trust, reputation, and accountability. Mask your email address, mask your identity from the community, but someone has to be capable of unmasking you and locating you in person so basically we'd need a trusted middle man person who would speak on your behalf and say we can trust this anonymous developer, that the anonymous developer is our friend, and that I know the identity of this person and you can hold me responsible for any damages caused by this anonymous person.

Gee thanks
Features for users
#1 stabilized units of value tracking major world currencies.
#2 temporary txn reversability (to allow retrieval of stolen funds in some theft scenarios)
#3 zero confirmation transactions (txns backed by security deposits against double spending)

Repeating this in txt form:
I envision a future where you can hold and pay in USDcoins in the US, EURcoins in the EU, YENcoins in Japan, and CNYcoins in China. The basic coins would be equity backing these stabilized currencies. The price of the basic coins would be volatile like a stock price, but offer higher expected returns for risk tolerant investors. I also see USDcoins earning some positive nominal interest while sitting in your wallet much like a corporate bond. I see people retrieving most stolen funds through self-initiated chargebacks. I also see a future where people can pay for groceries or a computer at a retail store without waiting or exposing the store owner to risk.

Anonymity is an excellent feature, but it is not nearly as important to joe average as 1) can I pay/receive USD instead of blow stamps? 2) can I protect myself from theft? 3) can I pay at the store without an awkward wait?

Back-end:
I think the backend needs to include a mixed proof of work / proof of stake system. However, I do not think people will buy into a coin because of an abstraction like this. They need to see modifications that promise to make their daily lives easier.
The goal of the backend is to allow for stability, speed, long-term sustainability, and scale. People can't see these thing directly. They aren't even necessary or worth offering until the coin has a chance of supplanting bitcoin. Do the sexy features you can put in advertisements and newspaper articles as a first step. Figure out how to keep the system from collapsing under its own weight as a second step.

Note: probably best not to reply to this unless you are the OP. It is his thread and a series of offtopic replies could easily derail it.

Hi Cunicula,
First, I just wanted to say that I enjoy your posts. Personally, I'm willing to fund netcoin regardless because even if I don't believe it is perfect enough (see my wishlist below), these small optimizations/fixes/improvements are such that they could eventually be imported into an even better future utopian crypto coin and thus save everyone the development time in the future. As such, netcoin will get some of my donation $$.

On a slight tangent, I was wondering if you could possibly share with us your thoughts on which worthwhile "radical innovation(s)" that benefit end-users could be?

Here's my utopia list:

Price Stability - This is almost like asking to see God, but maybe there's a few clever economists out there that could help out with a short-long term strategy. Bitcoin severely lacks price stability, this makes it a very poor choice for the masses to use as a currency for daily transactions - Aside from it being too confusing for sub 100 IQ humans to understand and keep up with, imagine employers trying to figure out how much less you should be paid every 2 weeks than the previous 2 weeks, or how much less to pay their 3rd party suppliers. Further, as already witnessed with bitcoin, aggressive deflation is likely to cause extreme speculation which results in massive mis-allocation of capital (aka. bubbles) and excessive savings impacts spending, which impacts employment stability, which impacts technological innovation across all sectors. Possibly, the most important negative is that it would allow for a massive disparity in rich vs poor mid-long term, which is the trigger for many civil revolutions, or in this case migration to another coin. Thus, I do not think this would allow for a stable economy mid-long term. Deflation is a clever trick to attract a lot of users initially, and I am ok with that short-term, but not mid-long term. I'm thinking we need something along the lines of: first 2 years: medium aggressive deflation (1/3 of bitcoin aggressiveness? 50-100%), years 3-7: low deflation (target 5-15%), year 7-20 (1-2% deflation a la Fed, but with deflation not inflation). Starting year 7, deflation would be measured not against the USD but against an SDR-like basket of currencies: 20% EUR, 20% USD, 20% Gold 20% Silver, 20% G20 stock indexes (or some such variation). Some time after year 20 this new coin should have achieved global reserve currency status or at least very wide spread adoption (primary currency usage by many countries, at which point, the SDR-like measure could be dropped and a mathematical formula could be devised to attain near price stability  (0.5 deflation to + 0.5% inflation). In short, I'd like to see math replace biased central bank interest rate policy guidance to attain real (not CPI re-defined) price stability. From the average person's perspective, not only is price stability psychologically required, but it would hugely contribute to 'ease of use'. Systems that are simple to use are more widely adopted, faster.

Limited Government Taxation - I believe some capitalism is required for innovation to foster, but capitalism lacks a moral high ground like socialism or some other egalitarian political philosophies. Specifically, pure capitalism = full privatization of all sectors = rich get richer, poor get poorer. My point being, I don't believe everything should be privatized and I do believe there is a role for "government" to play, specifically in funding basic social services: Hospitals, Police, Fire Fighters, City infrastructure, Courts of law, Disaster Relief, Welfare, Waste Management, Defence and Policy makers (likely I missed a few here). Bitcoin can and will be used for tax avoidance by the citizenry. Governments today can enact laws to tax businesses using bitcoin, but taxing of clever individual citizens will be near impossible due to anonymous laundering systems. I see bitcoin laundering to eventually be automated with an app for every transaction, thus nearly all citizens would use it. As such, IMHO bitcoin will ultimately be crushed by government(s) before it gets too big. An utopian coin should use math to set aside a per transaction fee or some kind of yearly allotment that can only be collected by government officials of each nation. Further, dynamic math formulas built into the coin should be used to allocate budgetary capital for nearly all government departments as opposed to corporation lobbied/corrupt politicians allocating the capital. The justification to the solution that should be implemented for this is the stuff of not mere Phd thesis but likely voluminous books written by genius economic philosophers that ultimately will have to be translated to code. I'm thus officially naming the coin of my wishlist "utopia coin".

Balanced Mining - Assuming we can't come up with a more clever replacement for the concept of mining coins into existence, at present I see two possible extremes of which netcoin is one of them. Bitcoin allows for easy ASIC mining, thus in another year or two we'll end up with a dozen or less organizations that control 90% of all the mining, thus allowing for centralization of money creation. Netcoin might be going too far in the opposite direction by wanting to implement too many protocols to severely restrain ASIC mining. The problem created by severely restraining ASIC mining is that it will allow for a problem that is just as severe, the centralization of coin creation by use of botnets, which is worse since it is less energy efficient and illegally/immorally uses other people's computer resources without permission. So how do we achieve a balance here? I think the answer is something along the lines of use algos 1,2 & 3 for say 2 years, and then at the start of year 2, algo #1 gets replaced by new algo #4, such that now you have algo 4,2,3. Then in another 2 years, you replace 2 with 5. Whilst arguably environmentally wasteful from a PCB lifecycle perspective, this would severely restrain any one ASIC company from having long term coin creation control, as every 2 years the race begins anew. From a botnet perspective, botnet mining would be restricted to the time period from when the algo is reset to the time period that FPGA code could be implemented which would likely be a short window period of 2-6 months, which shortly after would be replaced by ASIC mining again until the next algo reset. Or probably even better would be an algo phase-in approach, such that hackers/botnets don't sit around waiting and slam the coin on X day of the reset.

Full Anonymity by default - Not just interacting/dependant on coinjoin, or use of Zerocoin with adverse/trade-off effects. I know, I'm a seemingly conflicted individual: I want some capitalism, some socialism and unquestionably some liberalism and *gasp* some anarchism. By solving the government taxation issue above, anonymity should be *less* of an issue for current elected government officials. Whilst terrorists, drug lords and pedophiles will be theoretically aided by this, one might argue that there should be less terrorists if every country on Earth were playing on an even economic playing field with a global crypto coins vs heavily manipulated fiat currencies. The major crux to implementing anonymity within the coin from day 1 is that it may actually prevent legal wide-spread adoption by brick and mortar merchants as governments would decree it illegal because "oh think of the children!". Without brick and mortar adoption, the coin could never reach wide-spread adoption. I'm thus conflicted at present as to how this dilemma can be resolved.

Network Security - I've said it before (NSA/Snowden issues), and I'll say it again: Whatever new utopian coin is created, it should have either embedded network security or a quick migration path to it after deployment. By this I mean, no reliance on a single TCP port 8333 that can be easily blocked by governments at Tier 1 ISPs. Further transaction security/encryption is required.

Global spot price - With the implementation of miraculous 'price stability', eventually and in theory we should be able to get closer to achieving a global spot price for utopia coin meaning that 1 utopia coin at an exchange in Russia has the same fiat currency / SDR-like value at any other exchange. Or do we still need some radical innovation to achieve global spot pricing. Can there be a peer to peer exchange protocol created such that it tracks the 'value' of all transactions and arrives at a dynamic average spot price that is periodically (1 min?) reported to all client/exchanges? Or should we just forget this idea and leave local supply/demand to determine utopian coin value?

Decimal points & Ease of use - How many decimal points most human brains can easily deal with is arguable. I believe we have all been taught/conditioned to handle 2 or max 3 with current currencies and the metric system. This is not to say in 2 or 3 generations from now, 8 decimal points for currency won't be easy to handle. Still, I believe simple is better. Utopia coin should include some kind of embedded code such that when the fiat or SDR-like value of the utopia point reaches a certain height, a currency conversion holiday occurs; meaning your 10.423 utopia coins are now 104.23 utopia coins. If this is done for all users or specifically across the entire public ledger, then nobody loses out and simplicity remains eternally. Tada! No more need to worry about dealing with 0.49258852 fractions of a coin. Arguably all external systems to the coin that track the coins value require Y2K like updates, unless they were coded to deal with this from day one - and they should be if this feature was included from day one.

Pool Voting Centralization Avoidance - I am not familiar enough with the under the hood workings of how BIPS feature voting in Bitcoin works, but I have read that pools essentially centralize voting power to the pool operators. If this is true, clearly this needs to be resolved.

I can see why you are doing this, but could not support it because it is all essentially orthogonal to the needs of every day users.
You seem to be optmimizing the back end. There is a time and a place for this type of stuff, but i think it makes more sense to devote resources to radical innovation. Cryptocurrency is too young for it too be worthwhile making many small optimizations in an altcoin.

I should mention that this is a very valid point. The level of funding is likened to a dependent variable in a very anecdotal study in the context of this project. It's dependent on anonymity. Although we can't control for things like exposure, it would provide some data on anonymity outside of technical systems. Personally, I think that's interesting and important to look at. Who knows if one day you'd have the freedoms you enjoy today? Anonymity is part of the freedom family.


Another point I agree with. Relying on pure donation without any kind of return is unlikely to fund an experienced developer for very long, which is probably why a lot of altcoins are a bit watered down in relation to Bitcoin (no offense, but I'm drawing a comparison between net innovation in code bases). Even though the project can't make any claim as to the value people would assign to this "return" aside from assuming it has no inherent value (to do so would be unethical without real data), the fun part about all of this is getting some coins to use the features you want and support. That's what makes the whole thing exciting and moves development forward for everyone.

there are some really good innovations out there that need funding!!



Proof of Storage is the next great innovation in the crypto economy.  It is analogous to proof of work.  Consider how bitcoin unlocked your computer's processor as a money making device, but it left your hardware's potential locked up.  Proof of storage will allow for mass storage of information in a block chain that will become a "timeline of claims."  It will allow for the replacement of the USPTO the way bitcoin replaced the need for the Federal Reserve.  

Please consider funding this project.  

Nemesis is a crypto anarchist cipher-space hosting corporation.  It uses an algorithm to continuously generate and sell a fixed number of type A shares through a proof of work equilibrium.  Type B shares are continuously generated and sold via a proof of storage equilibrium. 

anonymous developers create an accountability problem - just look at the TrueCrypt project, where neither of the lead developers are identified and whether the software actually encrypts properly is a legit question. when ppl are anonymous and in a position of responsibility, they are not incentivized to behave like normal people.

it is fair to point out that most altcoins have made limited variations on bitcoin. this is due to the amount of effort and energy it takes to make modifications to the codebase. funding is an issue in terms of making significant modifications happen, e.g. 1 man year of work from a very smart person would be sufficient for most of the previous altcoins happen. in terms of making more substantial modifications, i estimate it would require over USD 200K for any altcoin to have what most spectators consider "significant" changes. note that this assumes devs are being paid more-or-less market rates.

Below is an application of Heilmeier's Catechism to the project, as suggested by cunicula, in an effort to give more general information and promote an understanding of what it proposes. Please note that this is a recursive process, and more information will be added where questions arise.


As a general summary, some of the limitations of current practice in Bitcoin include:

• Should someone achieve 51%+ long enough (not as long as it was intended to be), Bitcoin can have its history rewritten.
• Pools can be cheated and forced to close by witholding valid blocks. It may be possible to determine a block's validity in part with coordination known only to the pool.
• Pools can (and often do) keep miners in the dark about what they are mining.
• Miners can be disinterested and mine blocks without keeping track of any transactions. The proof-of-work can require a proof-of-transaction-consideration.
• Addresses can be reused often without immediate harm to the re-users. This causes long-term harm to the whole network.
• CoinJoin requires additional coordination work, when it can be done without coordination.
• Should problems be found in Bitcoin's secp256k1 EC curve, it would require a hardfork to add support for new digital signature algorithms. The use of RISC scripting means a system can be generic enough to support many different algorithms from the start.
• Lost coins permanently bloat the UTXO set. They can require a 1-2 year refresh to avoid expiration.
• The fixed-supply, which helps adoption, also works as a disincentive for people to spend Bitcoins. The long-term use of spending is important because a fixed-supply makes it easy for wealth to accumulate in the current generation at the expense of future generations.

The current plan is to have a public escrow review panel check the developer's work every month. which requires input from the panel members, to decide whether to continue funding the project, refund investors, or perhaps hire another developer instead of the project's lead developer should the situation warrant change (e.g., a life emergency where the developer cannot continue development). Such changes will be put to the community and panel members will make decisions through the community's input and voting on these issues.

Very interesting.

Glad you like it. I'm really quite a tame rabbit if you treat me kindly.

That's actually really helpful. Some of the predictive questions would be more complex, but it is definitely not a bad approach for a more detailed examination of the project (even if it is anecdotal and would have to be tweaked a bit). I appreciate it! Thank you.

Aww...  

Apply the Heilmeier Catechism to your project and I may change my mind if you have persuasive answers.

There's the cunicula we know and love. There is no question about whether you would fund it or not. The question is directed at those who are interested in contributing to these types of projects. Your feedback is always welcome, but please at least try and put some thought into explaining what you say. I mean that in the most productive way possible.

I would not fund this. There is no obvious value proposition for basic users.
It looks like a misallocation of effort to me.

Quick note on the technical features. If you're interested in further information, or some background to what they represent, have a look at the Hardfork Wishlist and gmaxwell's Alt Ideas. I'll summarize and compile all of the notes made here about these features for easy access to take into account during the development phase. Thank you for taking the time, or if you plan to take the time, to comment on the technical details. It actually does make a difference and will feed into development.

I have a few thoughts; specifically, I think the easiest way to go about this in terms of anonymous development is to make the first step: create the fork, and add some incremental feature which doesn't require enormous input or modification to do. Then, for this feature, ransom it to the community. If nobody likes the direction, nobody ponies up. If everyone likes the direction of the project, then everybody ponies up. If you have a mechanism and public set of addresses corresponding to featuresets, you could even as time goes on, allow this to become a prioritize-by-money mechanism where direct bounties or ransoms (depending on the developers interests for example) based on developer estimation and performance in fulfilling past estimations becomes the primary driver of the project going forward.

In my experience with namecoin, watching the merged mining process have its impact on the namecoin project was astonishing--and virtually unpredictable. Without a significant proportion of the entire Bitcoin hashrate crushing along on the altcoin as well, it is wide open to another party majority-attacking it. But that's kind of the beauty of public valuation of worth: if people find the idea has merit and think it would be good to incubate it, the ones in charge of the truly overpowering hashrate will leave it alone, IMO, and adopt a wait-and-see attitude towards it.


This is a little worrisome. I disagree with this point insofar as the pressures to expand or contract the block finding target period could be unanchored to actual usability. That is, some amount of work has been done to simulate useful block convergence in Bitcoin, and it turns out (IIRC) that Bitcoin target speeds of 10 minutes is useful in terms of encompassing the Moon. It is an earth-moon compatible system, which makes sense since the planned block reward system is built with an eye towards another 100+ years or so of operation. That's plenty of time to get installations on the moon hashing away, or at least satellites.


I really like the notion of semi-pluggable, user-controlled cryptographic primitives. At the moment, Bitcoin is a rigid, controlled mechanism which would need a hardfork in order to replace some of its cryptographic primitives with alternatives in the event of a break or catastrophe. Long-term, I think composable functions would be helpful in weathering catastrophic breaks in one or another form of crypto, regardless of the storage constraints involved, and while miners may not necessary be known for their cryptographic prowess, a consensus as to sanctioned cryptographic primitives would be an interesting way to form liquid network rules.


The first one (cross-chain exchange) is pretty sexy. The exponential inflation is problematic in the sense that the planned deflation resulting from mass-adoption of Bitcoin has been one of the primary drivers of early exponential adoption. Get involved now, and first-mover advantage rewards you with growth in the future. It is almost a hack on the human psyche that this exists: if actual "return" (if you can even call it that) was purely a function of how much effort one put into it, rather than the seductiveness of tricking people into thinking they were clever enough to spot the potential early on and profiting thereby, then growth will probably be much fairer, but slower. On the other hand, it'll be much less scammy.

I think Bitcoin almost seems to have been designed to withstand early governmental pressure in the sense that it is not actually anonymous, but can be made much more anonymous by simple future tweaks in the client code.

I personally hope that these great ideas make it into any potential altcoin. I personally would not like to be involved in the development nor funding process, but I imagine if you made it semi-anonymous in terms of feature voting, or ransoming features, it would make participation in the process much more intriguing to Secret Santas.

It is a pity that DeVCoin does not seem yet to have taken hold or taken root as it was intended to, because the kind of useful, innovative new code proposed is just the kind of thing that DeVCoin was supposed to make possible.

Basically a coder such as the described anonymous developer, being a person who already naturally contributes good useful code to good useful projects, should be on the DeVCoin recipient list, receiving DeVCoins automagically so long as they continue their lifestyle of being a habitual lifestyle free open source code developer working on good useful free open source code.

Thus what was supposed to happen was people who want good free open source code such as the stuff in this shopping list of features to be develioped would be buying DeVCoins, which would make the DeVCoins all the lifestyle free open source developers automagically receive be worth more, which would enable and encourage them to spend more of their time working on free open source projects, hopefully resulting in a snowball so that this anonymous developer would have no need to go through this project proposal this thread is about because their steady stream of DeVCoins they would already be receiving due to their lifestyle of naturally contributing good work to good free open source projects would be going up and up in value as more and more good work such as that proposed in this thread was implemented by such "tenured developers"...

I hope that at least the anonymous developer referred to in this thread is already a "tenured developer" in the DeVCoin system if they are as it seems already a lifestyle contributor to worthwhile free open source projects...

In short, such developers should not have to come begging for financing of some specific project outlined in advance like this, instead they should already be well paid simply by the DeVCoins they naturally receive already anyway, having already been recognised to be a lifestyle free open source contributor that puts out good stuff. Putting out good stuff like the stuff proposed ought simply be the kind of thing such developers naturally do just because it is what they do,  without worry about money because they already get DeVCoins steadily and DeVCoins naturally keep going up and up in value as the community of such developers keeps putting out more and more good stuff thus motivating supporters of good free open source stuff to buy more and more DeVCoins thus motivating more and more lifestyle contributors to free open source projects...

Notice in the original post the implication that this stuff is stuff the developer wants to do. DeVCoin's idea is/was basically to provide stipends for such people just because they are such people and thus naturally produce such great stuff thus should be freed from needing to worry about how they will get paid to do such things so they can just go ahead and do them without wasting time energy effort worry etc etc on all this campaigning and politicking and such simply to be "permitted" to go about their lifestyle of freely contributing great free open source stuff to the world.

-MarkM-

I like the principles thanks for the informal contact, ill look over these things and hopefully can contribute : D

I agree, very well written, sounds interesting.

Or you could find some reputable member and work with him and let him publish it here