Quote from: iamnotback on February 25, 2017, 07:22:07 PM

Quote from: AusKipper on February 25, 2017, 06:19:45 PM

I'm new, as you know, so take with a grain of salt, as you will.....

1. The top 500 (random number, enter number there that you see fit) miners in the last 30 days or X blocks should be able to vote. Same people are the only ones able to submit ideas to be funded.

Their economic incentives don't always align with the best directions for the development of the coin. Also they may be deficient in technical understanding of complex issues.

Quote from: AusKipper on February 25, 2017, 06:19:45 PM

3. No end time on the treasury, ongoing.

Problem is it becomes a centralized resource to fight over. It eventually it will be controlled by those at the top of the power-law distribution. So it will be a "the rich collect rents and parasite" formula. So I don't think perpetual is a good idea. The centralized bootstrap should get out of the way and let the ecosystem fund itself decentralized as Satoshi did when he stepped aside.

How about decentralized voting by the token owners wherein they vote their stake in the treasury separately from the others, i.e. not monolithic appropriation?

Quote from: iamnotback on February 25, 2017, 07:36:23 PM

Quote from: Undermood on February 25, 2017, 06:18:18 PM

But after developers get this ICO money, it is down to them to use that money, how to use and allocate it, how to control the development process etc. I don't think there are any procedure to punish them.

An idea popped into my mind.

What if ICO coin buyers vote on each release of the budget. They only get to vote up to the value of the tokens they own. They can vote any fraction of their tokens on any budget release. Once they've voted all their tokens, they can't vote any more.

The approved releases are taken from the pool of BTC. Any of the pool not released after a certain period of time, is returned back to all ICO investors proportionally.

What do you think? See any flaws in it?

One flaw is that it means some ICO owners can hold the other owners hostage, by refusing to fully fund what the developer thought had been raised already. But I am not sure that is really a flaw. It means the devs have an ongoing incentive to perform. I am very sleepy so I might have a major flaw in this idea.

Wouldn't the ICO buyers just be another form of centralization? What about the people who want to participate in the voting because they like and idea? Because they didn't participate in the ICO for whatever reason, but own tokens, they don't get to vote? Unless these tokens are specific tokens identifiable as ICO tokens?

I guess now that I think about it a bit more, having everyone vote would almost lead to an issue similar to Bitcoin's current issue, no?