First round of POA Core emission funds discussion, February 2019



I believe the community is very positive toward directing Emissions to cover POA Core Network overhead expenses as explained by @hashguide, and to building liquidity pools as outlined by @jflowers and in the other thread discussing possibe POA<–>xDai bridge. These are strong use cases - follow this link for other forum thread:

Liquidity encourages velocity, which encourages developer and consumer adoption that leads toward increased liquidity… sounds like an excellent step toward POA Core Network stability as outline in the white paper!


Where can we fact check the community is positive towards this?

If you believe so, what emission ballot parameters do you propose?


Regarding this specific suggestion, daily user metrics are easy to fake on a network with extremely low transaction costs such as POA.


There are services which are making money on faking activity for dapps like it is for Apple and Google App Store. E.g. of such service for EOS


Emission ballot vote is live!


I appreciate all the ideas above. Sounds like one thing we all agree on is that we want to see the POA Network succeed. It sounds like we are just trying to figure out the game plan for which focus would be the best for POA’s growth in 2019.