From what I have heard Boolberry features a 1% constant dev-mine:
Developer Bounty: Up to 1% (Controlled by miner's votes)
I understand that the miners can turn this off, but it will just be reassessed retroactively at a later time. I apologize if this has been asked before, and if so please point me to any comments where this is explained/justified. It seems thinly justifiable as a dev fund, and paints the entire project as more of a commercial endeavor rather than an altruistic one designed to create a worldwide private ledger. I understand that everyone needs to eat, and even Aeon's primary dev Smooth has inherited a small treasure hoard of coins to use for support & development. It's the recurring, non-voluntary nature of this that makes me cautious. And I am forced to extrapolate that if it makes me cautious, it will make others cautious too down the road.
So I'm reading over your ANN topic and some of your other materials; if you have anything to add to my thoughts, I'd love to hear it.
I am going to assume you have an issue with the FORM of the developer bounty not the amount, because Aeon has already donated a development bounty (over 400,000 coins) far in excess of the bounty that the current Boolberry dev min reward will generate for the entire lifetime of the coin.
crypto_zoidberg has done more than enough to earn his bounty so far and I think he should be paid more. The same way Aeon may be forked to add perpetual 0.8888% emission, Boolberry could fork to eliminate the dev mining bounty. Instead we could collect donations for certain benchmarks which IMHO should be for more than the current perpetual 1% reward.
Do you agree that the dev bounty amount should not not be in question (or is probably too low)?
I agree with you that a new incentive structure would be preferable and it should be created if we can reach a consensus.