Zcoin Governance and Development past 4 years

yes polling is merely indication of interest while voting has binding consequences.

1 Like

If we give a % of rewards to the developers. Are you guys also going to be responsible for everything in development of zcoin?
I’m talking about not just marketing and developer salary. For example dash community has their news team, Venezuela team, YouTube team. All done by the community based on proposals and votes of course. I think dev team will have their hands tied with developing and marketing. We need more community involvement and involvements needs to be funded.
Maybe we can dedicate a % to dev fund but also a voting mechanism for other developments. If voting per se is bad for legal reasons, then let’s pick another way to obtain consensus like polling. Or sending a small amount of zcoin to polling address.
Zcoin is not a nation so don’t really need a over complex governing system.

3 Likes

That’s an excellent point. I think one way is to have a community fund where we contribute some of our spare dev fund to a public address and people can apply to utilize it for grants.

On a side note, I was thinking if we were to have a development fund of 10% of block reward (which should be less than what we get now since it’s 6% of pre halving figure), until Dec 2021 while we decide the best way to do this.

2 Likes

55/30/15. No dev funds means no future

4 Likes

It sounds good, but the state is ahead of you) This is a tax, though in your explanation there are mostly pluses, but there are none in the tax at all …

Yes, a tax is a theft of the state of the people, no more …

1 Like

I think that one zcoin one vote is a good idea. Let us say we set up a central development fund in zcoin. The fund is is made up of block reward (2% from each block) and user contributions. Users can contribute to discussions by sending a zcoin attached with a message to a specified address. All the messages will be collected onto a noticeboard moderated by a bot to prevent spam. The more the user contributes, the more zcoin they need to spend, and the bigger the development fund is. The user also gain more reputation points by participating in the discussion. Only those users making at least one post is able to vote. During the voting day, the weightage of their vote is higher because they contributed more to the discussion.

Therefore, we have avoided the problem of democracy where lobbying and vote buying tactics can have an upper hand due to lack of voters education, and also avoiding the big holders such as whales, miners, and znode holders from influencing the decision making process. This also makes disincentivize people to create multiple addresses to rig the voting process because with one account with good reputation is better than multiple newly created accounts that only have one post. It is because an address with two posts will have two reputation points to vote, while an address with one post only have one reputation point to vote. Therefore, it is a waste of time to create new accounts.

The noticeboard should have an automated feature to summarise the main points in a discussion so that new participating users will immediately know what are points and questions raised without going through each and every messages. A moderator or an automated programme can be used to do the fact checking with citations so that everyone can make sure a statement is a fact, rather than a rumour. Therefore, this will maximise the chances that every voter is making an informed decision.

Just my 2 cents. Any opinions are welcomed! :slight_smile:

Yes, but for the state this is a huge income, although we pay to our state and not to someone, and this is the only plus.

Hello bro…
Any progress ?..

Yup i’m posting something soon :smiley:

1 Like
1 Like

This is still an ongoing discussion which doesn’t seem that easy to solve.

Eth has been talking about quadratic voting but as it requires identity it’s a bit of an issue with privacy coins.

Masternode voting is totally messed.

For the moment, I am of the opinion that we should maintain the status quo for another 1 or 2 years while we explore how effective other more informal governance works for e.g. the ZCS, open community discussions and transparency as detailed in my post above. Especially if we are having a development reward still (which is what we are trending towards), this makes sense.