Quote from: David Latapie on March 26, 2014, 10:00:54 PM

Hi,

I pondered the idea behind Mintcoin Fund/Project F and I believe it is fundamentally broken.

I don't care about Mintcoin. I don't care about Blackcoin, DogeCoin or whateverCoin. I don't care about any particular coin (save for getting rich quick) and I believe you should not either.

What matters is "does a coin, a project, bring something worthwhile for the society?". This is not about mintcoin, this is about the planet. Mintcoin is just a mean (a useful one, still). But other coins have good ideas too. Promoting only one coin would be very individualistic - "we are right, you are wrong". Let alone duplication of efforts (deadmanwalking was vocal about Mintcoin doing the same as Leafcoin, for instance).

That is why I am considering extending Project F to encompass more than mintcoin. Introducing the concept of Value Added for the Society, of VAS (an obvious pun on VAT).

If a coin brings something useful for the society, it should be promoted. Otherwise, it should not. Granted, one may argue "who are you to decide what is right and what is wrong"? Well human beings, and human being are imperfect, but they keep trying to get better. And so we will.

The basic bylaws won't change much - this is mainly the name and the object (article 2) that will change.
It is of very important to be able to stick to verifiable, factual criteria for promoting a coin. Here how it will go:

- No ressource intensive (be it for mining or for transactions).. Bitcoin/litecoin/dogecoin are out. Mintcoin and Blackcoin are in. Peercoin is out because, despite having PoS, its PoW phase is way too long. NXT if in, of course, like any pure PoS (like faircoin). A hypothetical "lightning-fast PoW" (no more than, say, two months of PoW) would be eligible
- No premine. Yep, not even for country coin, even it they have the best of intentions and they actually deliver (like Auroracoin did yesterday)
- other criteria as you see fit.

There would be two kind of criteria: mandatory and facultative. Mandatory criteria are stoppers, other just orient the decision. I'd say ressource-intensivness and premine should be mandatory.
The boundary of a criterium should be written clearly, to avoid as much arbitrary decision as possible.

Now, what would this fund do?
It would raise awareness for a coin, because said coin is expected to have Value Added for the Society. For instance (and now I am back to mintcoin), the fund could host project related to mintcoin's ideal, like sustainable development. It could be financed in a lot of different way: premine, collaborative donation (doge4water did not need any premine to work for instance). The technicalities of the tunding are up to the coin. The fund will host project, like an incubator for projects.
Of course, since the first "hosted coin" would be mintcoin, mintcoin would have a greater visibility than the other coins (at least in the beginning).

Now, I need your input:
- first, do you understand my vision (whether you agree or not)?
- second, if you agree with it, who would like to be part of it?

Thank you for reading

This all makes sense, but I am a bit disappointed. I was hoping that this project and foundation would benefit Mintcoins and be another reason for people to get interested in them. It was a selling point in my mind. This idea, while probably smart, will absolutely dilute the focus on any individual coin. It sounds more like a new and separate project divorced from Mintcoin, to me.