(edit: In addition to wishing more coins would copy Gatra's soft-start approach to block rewards used in Riecoin, more coins should copy Zoidberg's 1% ongoing dev fee from BBR. The incentive difference between a 1% premine and 1% ongoing revenue is HUGE. The premine invites a fast pump and dump; the 1% ongoing revenue motivates continued long-term development.
Heck - XMR should add this so the team has food on their plates. :-)
Duly noted and implemented.You keep finding a way to write something so important that I feel compelled to reply.
I see some motivational advantages for this idea also versus a premine, but unfortunately it is insufficient. For any coin that does not have Monero's catastrophic design error of rapidly declining the block reward, the 1% will be insufficient when it matters most at the early stage where all the critical work is done before inertia and vested interests prevent further radical improvements (e.g. Bitcoin).
The rapidly declining block reward is a design error because the early hodlers lock up the coin and the rate of velocity of money and adoption decelerate (e.g. Bitcoin and Monero).
Another problem with the developer fee: it is a resource to fight over and it can fund the development of a bureaucracy, e.g. the MEW foundation (just see what happened to the Bitcoin foundation and you can be sure the same will happen to the MEW despite the best intentions and will of the current participants due to the
Iron Law of Political Economics aka Mancur Olsen's treatise on the
Logic of Collective Action).
Also it does give the appearance of being a corporation instead of an open source project.
The best funding model is still (as it was for Bitcoin) for the brilliant creator to take his stash and run after he has made the coin so popular that no one can refuse nor fork it.
Great thing about a premine is all those who obstinately won't buy the coin until AFTER everyone else does. I love that.
I normally appreciate your posts but this one is wrong on many levels.
Designing a model of distribution, and that is what basically a block reward is, is a social contract. it can by definition not have catastrophic design errors, because no one is forced to sign this social contract. it basically does not matter if the block reward halves, doubles or does whatever it likes as long as people see the social contract as valueable.
Designs like monero or bitcoin give cash a store of value function which is probably a first order condition for money. I cannot imagine a system in which you would see a velocity without value.
hodling bitcoins or monero is neccessary for giving it value. the argument that they are hodled forever is wrong, because every person will find a point where he is willing to sell. the only argument against this fixed supply design is volatility.
I have to admit that I like bitshares idea of using a token to create a derivative which maybe has a somewhat price stability and is more useful for spending and using, but to call the design of bitcoin and monero a catastrophic design error is wrong.
regarding the idea of voluntarily giving 1% of mining to development I would strongly suggest doing it. the argument that miners do not profit from development is also wrong.