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).
I’ve seen a few other suggestions that I liked, but originally think it’s a good idea to disperse among a few different matters. Such as, paying for POA network costs that (not on the validator’s side), maybe setting some in smart contract or different multi-sig to disperse small amount towards an exchange fund, that would please the community some and I, also like the idea of using some of the funds to help bring in new Dapp developers to deploy on POA.
I know that the ballot doesn’t allow for multiple addresses, so there would have to be a contract developed and most likely audited, not sure.
As an option, calidators can distribute EmissionFund in full to their multisig and decide areas of spendings later.
POA Games Fund looks like a good use case to utilize emission funds.
Dear Core Validators, tomorrow Feb 18th, 10 AM Mountain Time the Emission Funds Ballot will be available for creation. I propose a ballot with the following parameters:
Description of the ballot: To increase adoption of POA Core Network by new DApps through POA Games Fund - Introducing $50,000 DAI POA Games Fund
Address of funds receiver: 0x517F3AcfF3aFC2fb45e574718bca6F919b798e10 ( POA R&D multisig)
Please comment on the proposal and verify the information.
Good idea for adoption!
I have a thought, which comes from a thought piece I wrote about managing shared escrow accounts for real estate, which points out that development projects are hard to scope and decide upon all upfront, and thus should be broken down into smaller steps rather than a large chunk.
Is there any documentation on how the governance of the Game Fund will be managed? I have seen the google form for current submissions that asks various questions that will be considered before choosing a project to fund, but there are other questions like if it’s a “pay the project upfront” vs “half on start, half on completion” type of a thing to avoid paying for something that never actually ships. Maybe have milestones in a project so that payments are divided through the life of the project? Is there a single person responsible for making these decisions or is there a board/group? (which brings me to my next thought)
As I think Jeff Flowers suggested, management of the fund such as getting this idea out in front of game devs, combing through submissions, following up with chosen projects to see that they are fulfilling their proposals will require work and thus I think we should pay someone directly to manage this process that acts on the behalf of the fund/validators that is required to report back. It doesn’t need to be a full time job, but having a single point of contact is important. Someone that validators can reach out to in order to get a status report on the effectiveness of the fund (useful for when we have another emissions ballot for a similar idea and we can retrospectively say “how effective was the last one”)
Sorry for not posting sooner. Thoughts and comments appreciated.
- grants distribution details will be publicly available
- EmissionFund will be liquidated to Dai to protect GameFund from volatility
Could you unpack this? I talked with https://kyber.network/ a while ago - and they would list POA, just needed ~30 ETH’s worth. I initially thought that they wanted 30 ETH to cover costs, but nope - just to create a marketplace and one would get this back in time. I reached out to the Foundation, as I didn’t think it would be proper for me to do this myself.
would this be an idea. The funds would not be ‘spent’ but locked up to provide this service.
Also, I recommend we go super slowly. This is a touchy subject for many - I don’t need to explicitly unpack this I think.
RE: Game dapps - I have some concerns. I remember game “dapps” from my youth, but we called these video games and they were reachable via a network of decentralized arcades here and there.
You’d go in and select the ‘program’ you wanted to run and then paid for that privilege using a token/coin.
Games that were the ‘best’ were always the hardest to get access to, due to network constraints. Well, we have a much more robust network presently ( I think) - so game programmers wouldn’t have these bottlenecks. The real issue for me “you get what you incentivize”.
A dapp developer creates a game such that as more people play it - the network gets rewarded but also themselves. If they have already been paid, there is no incentive for them to properly respond to the market. They could (out of the kindness of their heart - but…) Whereas, the dapp developer that makes a game and gets paid (or not) via actual usage – I think is better aligned with the whole network/marketplace.
UPDATE: Going through the foundation provided information. I’m a bit warmer to this idea. They are creating the process, managing, and tracking - but most important for me: this is being publicly announced to the whole community and inline with the project’s overall vision.
Personally, I’m not totally convinced that this is the ‘best’ route - however, it hits enough of my ‘needs’ to feel ok. I would like more information and/or see what others have to say about this.
I like the idea of incentivizing adoption through game or dapp bounties. Even if this 50,000 DAI is already funded, I think we can also put emission funds toward this as well. At current market price emission funds only amounts to around 43-44k USD. This can easily be liquidated over a longer period of time which will not affect the price. I also feel like this could be used as sponsor funds for exposure during developer conferences such as the one recently at ETH Denver. The ETH developer community is very large, yet only a small minority of developers have even heard about POA or know about an alternative network to deploy to. The ROI in my opinion on adoption will be much greater than simply burning the coins.
I would be much more inclined if we just dropped any strings attached.
What do I mean: The wallet address that we are talking about (0x517F3A) is the R&D Fund and not a dapp/game/bounty/etc Sub-Fund. I’m guessing - please someone at the foundation correct me if this addr is for X Fund and the “General” Fund is actually Y. Lastly, I’m using the word ‘Fund’ in a chart of accounts sense - just to be explicit.
So transfer of network resources currently under our stewardship over to the Foundation, which has proven to be capable of managing in the past, is a solid position. Placing any ‘strings’ however muddies this way forward for me.
What ballot parameters do you propose?
Well, I’m of the opinion of keeping this super general.
“To support the continued development of the project and advance the overall public vision as laid out by the Foundation - we believe that network resources are best managed by this team…”
Honestly though, think this ought to be word smith’ed still. I mispell a lot, and so perhaps we could have Peter give it a polish?..
How do we know the overall public vision?
At this point in time, I would like to propose a somewhat unpopular and one might say radical solution.
The entire emission fund could be split equally among all of the validators. We as validators can then choose how to spend those funds based on our own preferences and desires. This way emission funds faith possibilities are endless:
- donate 100% of money to foundation, GameFund or any other POA related initiative
- cover operational expenses and/or taxes and the donate the rest to POA
- burn all of the allocated tokens
- HODl, etc…
This solution will allow as act Autonomous without a burden of persuading others.
Great idea! If we all can’t agree on how and what initiative to fund, this way we each can decide and execute truly autonomously.
Mira, I am concerned that your suggestion will immediately trigger taxable events for all Validators (Emissions become ordinary income to Validators) and can look very bad to the POA and larger Ethereum community. It may appear to be a ‘cash grab’ organized by Validators. Also, a Validator may leave voluntarily or by being voted out after an emissions distribution, so no value would transfer to the POA Network for positive community impact.
I don’t believe we should directly or indirectly reward ourselves with Emissions funds since we are already rewarded as Validators for running Validator nodes; it would be against the original White Paper intent.
Mira, I would have to agree with Jim on this topic. I strongly believe in using the emission funds to pay for network costs which with POA currently covering all those costs (which not only includes a good portion of bootnodes, but also costs of hosting the netstats pages, blockscout, token bridge, etc. which should be getting expensive every month.) I just think that the Token Sale funds should be used towards the R&D and the network pay for itself through emission funds.
There was also the thought of putting up some of the funds towards new Dapps being developed on POA, but had a another thought about this recently and Jeff actually brings it up in a previous post.
Maybe, instead of offering this round of funds to Dapp developers, we can propose a challenge to them. After this round, POA and/or Validators can make an announcement that developers have until the next emission fund date to deploy dapp and choose the best 5 dapps in that three months time to split funds equally, based on their StateoftheDapps.com rankings of most daily users or gain since the beginning. Doing the developer fund this way will encourage people to not JUST build a dapp on POA and forget about it, but to advertise their own dapps for usage.
If we support the POA team with this round of funds completely, hopefully it will help make it through the next one without worrying about the network costs.
Jeff, just curious as to what you mean by marketplace being opened up? Would this fund be locked up to allow POA on Kyber’s token swap and allowed as a payment option for their payments solution? I just gave their website a quick look-over, but don’t know enough about their services to make an accurate opinion on this. How many Customers/Businesses use thier payment gateway and token swap services? Do they have analytics about any of this or not?
I would still support the idea of distributing the funds between POA network costs and towards an exchange fund (or some other service, I guess like Kyber.network). I just feel that we should hold off on a Dapp fund as of now and seriously think of rewarding something like that based on their daily user base over a period of time.