First round of POA Core emission funds discussion, February 2019



Hello POA Core validators, we have the first round of emission funds distribution coming on Feb 18th, 2019. Please review the Wiki: Managing Emission Fund. Let’s discuss the distribution and vote details here.


I don’t know what exactly to say - so I’m just going to unload what I’m thinking. Everything here is just my opinion…

We (validators) really need to be transparent, open, and truthful. Truthfully, I reached out to the foundation asking if perhaps this task could be offloaded to a dedicated individual there. I didn’t get a response, and in all honestly - I didn’t really push it nor did I go into great detail.

Why? Well, there are so many questions. Some of the easier ones center around ‘how’.

I think that the core dev team is doing a great job at pushing out open source code - this is without question and something that has garnered praise in the larger decentralized community among developers (without question - this is the primarily reason that this project is where it is at present).

These devs need to be properly compensated in order to continue. I think we all agree to this.


I know of a few of these people, but do I know everyone in the team? Probably not. I might have met/talked with a handful of these folks - what about those working behind the scenes? Etc… But assume that we could know everyone’s name.

Again – How do we ‘pay’ them?

I have my ID/info out there ( and have a bitcoin addr (even with my name in it) so one could, in theory, send me whatever… Getting this information would be the next big hurdle. I suppose we could start a spreadsheet with names and then get POA addr (using a variety of channels to ensure that we have the correct information)…

And I’m only focusing on current POA Network Dev Team members. So I’m not even considering the complexities around determining what tools are being built even. I’m just assuming that they’ve put in the work on software that benefits the POA Network. I am somewhat confident in this statement given the givens:

I.e. The amount of POA that we are talking about at today’s per coin price is such that I suspect is not so great as to be over compensation for this type of work. But then again, I don’t know - I don’t know the exact nature of their current payment/compensation structure(s).

If we had to weigh in on the actual softwares that are to be funded (which I think we might in the future) - it gets a lot harder. I would like to put at the top of the heap code that directly adds value to the POA Network’s main chain and not the various sidechain projects that are underway. So you can see how it get messy rather quickly…

(These are the easy questions I have - my brain hurts on the more complex ones rolling about).

I just want to not have a NEM repeat - what a hot mess.

Whilst walking about Costco today, I had a thought that I’ll share. It is out there. I know… I was revisiting the idea of the Foundation taking over this task, as I believe that they present managers have a deeper understanding of the present dev team and have been rather successful in managing the project thus far.

What if we validators reach out again, but we need to acknowledge the real cost towards performing this job. There’s a little over 20 of us. I was thinking that if we contribute 5%(or so) out of pocket - perhaps that would be enough to have the foundation justify performing this job. Maybe not forever…

To keep everything in perspective we are earning roughly $600/mo (much less after taxes and node costs - so 5 or so % is not too great) - so this individual that the foundation would assign to this job would be paid this amount… from most of us. <- I was thinking about how many folks might try to get a free ride, and even then I think it would be ok.

I’m just throwing this out there, see where others are at.


A second issue that I would like to present here, and this was (I believe) first brought up by Walter - we need to have a clear understanding of the whole process. And I don’t mean how to setup a potential ballot, rather - how we arrive at a ballot that has the best possible chance of success.

For me, and I suspect others - without a working and workable protocol, I will be highly hesitant to approve any ballot. I realize that holds the great and grave potential of slowing down the flow of open source software, the hallmark of this project. However, I’m much more concerned that poor outcomes due to a lack of understanding could have an even larger damaging effect on the community.

Imagine if we, validators, fund (in the future - after the cove devs are properly paid up) project X. Project X fails (this actually happens all the time believe it or not) and some sub-set of validators (due to community pressure) voices internal and external angst. This would be terrible optics all around.

I do believe that we won’t (nor should we) have perfect 100% votes - but we must at least feel that our voices and thinking have been heard properly. So when this happens, we, as a group, can stand up not to the actual ballot but rather stand tall to the process. I strongly feel that this requires great communication and can only take place in public spaces…

So communication. I have, for some time now, been highly critical of the ‘private’ Core Support telegram channel as a mechanism of communication. I find telegram to be difficult due to the lack of meaningful threading (or rather ideas so interwoven that trying to follow a topic being nearly impossible) and the fact that this is behind a private wall. Some wish to have private discussions, sure - I understand. However, I think that having our thinking put forth in the public eye has so many advantages that we are missing out on.

I realize that this may be considered out of scope of the current thread, but I think it actually applies: Recently Jim mentioned the idea of a private forum channel here in which discussion could be made, and then after some time, making this thread open. The thinking is that these private discussions would result in higher quality information that would better frame our thinking for others in the community and the future to understand - basically increasing signal to noise (and at the moment, in my opinion, the telegram channels are nearly impossible to understand due to this noise).

This actually was the original intent behind the ‘private’ Core Support telegram channel many moons ago. So I’m all for this (but it must be made open - and I’m not going to back down like I have with the telegram channels. I did only due to my understanding that this was too great of a technical challenge to accomplish). As this feature is not presently supported, I believe, though has been discussed we might wish to really dive deeper into making this so.

In the meantime, I think we ought to put out thinking around this ballot here - warts and all.


I totally agree with Walter’s idea that we need to have clear protocols and this will, in my opinion, require that we have better lines of communication. In the meantime, we need to populate this thread with our thinking/thoughts.


If validators decide to send funds of EmissionFund to R&D purposes of POA Network for Roadmap 2019 and maintenance of the network they could send it to POA R&D multisig

Let me know if you have any questions


As a POA validator and token holder, I am fully committed to operating in the best interest of the network and its token holders. I would like to get a couple clarifications before we decide to spend all of the funds to support the core team Roadmap 2019.

Things that are worth supporting but would benifit from a brief summury on the strategy how to achieve so:

  • Increase adoption of POA Network by new DApps. Check DApps on POA on State of the dapps
  • Help DApps from Foundation network to scale on POA using TokenBridge

Things that are cool but have an unclear impact on the value of the network:

  • Develop support for a new client on POA Core. At the moment, POA supports Parity We plan to introduce POA governance model into Mana-Ethereum client


I propose finding a way to spend first round of emission funds on supporting different teams to build some new DApps on POA and/or teams who are willing to migrate their existing games from ETH to PoA. This support should increase the adoption of technology and the overall value of the network. I am also up for supporting those Github contributors who aren’t a part of the core team but have decided to dedicate time and effort to improve this awesome open-source project.

To keep everything in perspective we are earning roughly $600/mo (much less after taxes and node costs - so 5 or so % is not too great)

I also like @jflowers proposal to support validator node operators.
Hence, as a challenge to learn more about Solidity, I have made a contract which will distribute deposited funds among all core validators.

Here is source code:

Please, all validators make sure you have correct mining address where funds will be sent out to.

I sent a tx to distribute 0.000000000000000020 POA (1 wei) to all core validators


As a game DApp developer, this feels right on the money. The Tron Arcade initiative got a lot of attention in the DApp gaming community, and many developers made the jump to take part in the contest. POA has great potential for games, but is virtually unknown in these circles. Getting one popular DApp like EtherGoo/TronGoo to port over would bring hundreds of daily users.


Perhaps I ought to unpack and/or clarify a bit. I’m for us Validators to get on bended knee and pay the foundation out of our own pockets to take this role away.

This responsibility is one that I’m not sure at all about, and I believe ought to be handled by a more capable individual within the foundation itself. The paying out of pocket is to recognize and honor this person’s time.


Dear @jflowers,

bended knee

Jeff, many people respect themselves here and will never bend a knee for any kind of situation(Except proposal to a woman). If that’s your preferred way of doing things in life, I don’t think others have the same way of treating themselves
I feel it’s disrespectful and insulting to all validators to call for getting on a bended knee.

This responsibility is one that I’m not sure at all about

You are not sure about it, but you are ready to bend knee for it. Ouch.

believe ought to be handled by a more capable individual within the foundation itself

Is there anything special in people within the foundation? Feels like other people are not capable of doing things.

The paying out of pocket is to recognize and honor this person’s time.

To do what exactly?


I only speak for myself and my cats (only because they cannot). For everyone else, that’s on them…

Having a member of the Foundation perform this task (which is highly administrative) will require that we honor their time. If I cannot (or do not wish() to perform a task, then I feel that one ought to pay to recognize this fact.

In the end though, I’m for staying 100% lock step with the roadmap (as published) and with the POA Foundation. I would still like to double check the multi-sig wallet addr using different channels and perhaps even via a signed message and such (to be certain that the information is what we think it to be).

Hope that clarifies my thinking and position on the matter. :slight_smile:


@jflowers could you please elaborate a little bit more on what exactly this task actually is?


@jflowers in your last comment you mention that:

However I somewhat agree with @rstorm that your suggestion:


might come across as a sign of weakness and desperation projected on other Validators and I can see why @rstorm and others might feel insulted by that notion.

While everyone’s thoughts are welcome and encouraged here, perhaps you could be more specific in identifying the problems and providing concrete solutions to them to avoid unnecessary guessing and misinterpretation.

The way I see it, the current problem is as follows: during Feb 18-25 Validators will have an opportunity to initiate and decide on how to vote on the EmissionFunds with 2 concrete suggestions with working solutions provided above for the distribution option.


Even an index fund carries a small fee…

Since I’m of the opinion that we stay completely lock step with the POA Foundation, one could say that the ‘administration’ is minimal. Still though, there’s the verification that the multisig address that is being used by the Foundation to execute the roadmap is actually correct. This will take getting this information from more than this single channel, and also having the sender digitally sign the information as to attest to its correctness. This of course assumes that you’ve performed a key exchange via trusted channels.

For more about this, my friend Christopher Allen can talk all about the whole web of trust and the old fashion key exchange parities that perhaps some of you recall. There’s better ways today to do this… so you don’t have to get together physically (though this is always much more fun.)

This is not too exhausting, but one would still need to document all of these actions and then have proper document control. Again, this could be accomplished by putting this all out in clean and clear sunshine - i.e.: on a shared document outlining your efforts and reasoning for belief for all to see (and I mean all). Maybe not right away, but have it opened up after a set (and communicated) amount of time.

As for the issue around a fat finger f’up hopefully would be taken carry of by the fact that we have to all then vote. Should an error have happened, we each should be verifying everything.


In the event (that I’m not at all for the following) that staying lock step with the POA Foundation is not what people want to do… Grant administration is a HUGE pain in the butt. I can’t even fully explain the shear amount of work necessary. The paperwork is immense, and a must have as to ensure that every action is legally defensible. Please reach out to a trusted individual to unpack this.

As for my use of “bended knee” - I only speak for myself, but yeah. I suppose when I was writing that statement, visions of Camelot were in my mind at the time. Hence the slight misuse words. My sincerest apologies if you felt that I was trying to put words in your mouth and/or your mind. I have always tried to communicate the notion that we are independent individuals and speak for nobody other than ourselves.

And as for the whole “Camelot thing” - what was I thinking… That’s being deleted from my mind as we speak. Putting that one into a mental box and placing it next to some other childhood trauma boxes that I can push deep down into my psyche. :stuck_out_tongue:


Jeff, you have done an excessively great job on identifying and describing the problem, but, most importantly, are you able to provide the specific working solution and deliver on that? If yes, I am eager to see the plan and any applicable tools, if not, who specifcially would you suggest to take care of it? (keeping in mind there is one week left before the EmissionFund is unlocked)


Jeff, I apologize but I have a very hard time to comprehend what problem you are trying to solve here, what exact steps we need to take to solve it are, and why we need it. Since you offered validators to pay for it out of pocket I must pass.


Apology accepted, @jflowers.

I am sorry but I’m still confused on what the solution is.

As far as roadmap goes, I personally don’t support it which is also why I separated from POA project. That my 5 cents.


I would like to stay lock step with regard to the POA Foundation and their publicly published roadmap. As such we have had an individual from this organization that has provided the multisig addr that this organization uses (purportedly)…

  1. Do we actually know that this person (Igor) is who we think he is?
  2. If we do have confidence of this person (Igor), how can we know that the information provided wasn’t compromised?

The first issues centers on identity and can be somewhat addressed using public key cryptography. This is trivially easy, except for the key exchange. One method is that we post our PK far and wide, perhaps using tools like:

Then using other channels, such as: LinkedIn / Twitter / Github / Facebook / Grindr / Social Network …post fingerprints of said key(s) for one another. This helps build up confidence that the keys shared are what we think that they are.

This begins to address #1, as for how can we be certain that the information posted is correct (i.e. #2) - ask the person sending the information to then digitally sign their message. This will then allow us to feel somewhat confident that the information wasn’t compromised in transit.

I would ask Igor to re-post his message along with a digital signature of. This would then at least allow us to believe that the multisig addr is somewhat correct (sure he could be pulling our chains and providing the wrong addr, but I really don’t think he would - still, this is an assumption that I’m willing to take…full disclosure).

With this information, along with the above assumption, we could then disburse the POA under our stewardship towards the roadmap that the community has already been told of.

The person that creates the ballot would, in my opinion, need to still collect all of this information and present it in a manner that can be reachable to others. The paperwork detailing our thought process(es)/intent/reasoning(s). Could be a simple:

“The roadmap as outlined by the POA Foundation has been publicly shared with the community and one that supports the overall vision of the project. As such, the validators of the network believe the best use of these POA coins is continued support.”

Walter was spot on regarding process (had a long and productive phone call over the weekend - about a lot of things.). I think that we really ought to nail down a process that we can all stand behind and one that is defensible.

I really hope that others would contribute to this discussion, this (in my opinion) points to a larger concern. I hope for this grand experiment that moving more discussion back to the forums will help to rebuild the confidence each individual has in their power and place within the project.


:slight_smile: You know I :heart: u man.


Hash: SHA512

If we do have confidence of this person (Igor), how can we know that the information provided wasn’t compromised?
Version: Keybase OpenPGP v2.0.80



Good idea. Please PM me your needs to deploy on POA.


Thank you Igor, I wish to confirm verification using gpg2. He and I exchanged keys in a manner that I believe to be secure. Furthermore, I see that one could use Keybase’s GUI interface as well the fact that a number of other validators are following him as well. In the future, should we need it, I feel confident that we can securely communicate all necessary information (such as addresses). :cat2: