The following are three models of permanent developer funding. Permanent developer funding is essential for a long lived and robust ecosystem of growth.
1. 80% miner reward. 10% developers and development. 5% community funds (split between army and advertising). 5% charity.
2. 80% miner reward. 15% developers and development. 5% advertising. (this effectively removes community funding).
3. 75% miner reward. 12% devs and development. 7% advertising 3% army Z and community tasks 3% charity
Once voted on, one of the three or a new addition will be implemented by modifying the Canopy upgrade to the BTCZ existing code.
Notes on the distribution models:
Models one and two allocate the most to miners. This ensures that miner rewards are robust enough to continue to incentivize mining and reward them sufficiently for their work.
Model 2 removes charity and community funding and instead focuses more on the communities core needs. Community needs will still be met with donations and through robust development. Higher developer funding will enable faster chain development, leading to overall growth. Investing heavily into developers will be better technology to the chain which will attract more users.
Advertising is in all three modes. A complete advertising campaign along with permanent budgeting will allow us to advertise to all sectors, mining, community, and of course development. This allows for continued growth. Specifically model 2 has the highest advertising rate. A high advertising rate allows us to reach a broader market and allow more growth. Advertising could further be used for specific sectors, such as advertising for developers, advertising for designers. Etc.
Model 2 and 3 have the highest developer rates. With model 2 being the highest. This again follows the former statement about focusing on our current needs.
Model 3 has the most diverse set of distributions, this is allowed by cutting into the mining rewards by an extra 5%. Note that this model continues ArmyZ funding and would need further leadership on behest of the community for distribution. ArmyZ should have a clear concise vision and mission going forward. This would put ArmyZ on the forefront of community outreach and engagement. And should allow for a structured approach with ranks and awards. ArmyZ can lead the way in community outreach. Finding charities. Adding love and compassion to the overall crypto ecosystem. And bring in new and innovative ideas to the project.
Charity. Charity is included in models 1 and 2. The addition of charity allows for the project to have a direct connection to the larger global community. We can use these funds to donate to other organizations whether in crypto or not. This sends a positive message about the project and the community behind it.
Why the 80/20 or 75/25? Because anything less than 80 or 75 percent will cut too deeply into miner revenue, potentially threatening network security.
The final votes would be set upon by the community itself. A should require a near majority of all master node and seeder node users. This proposal will be available in the BTCZ forums.
Finally, these even after being voted in and set into code would not necessarily be unable to be changed. In the future, if need be, these percentage values can be readjusted as long as they fall into the base framework. However, if added to the white paper, a full community revision and re writing of the white paper would be required. This would follow the same voting and node operator approval approach as the first time this is implemented. These models should be looked over yearly to make sure they are continuing to add the value the community seeks to the project.
Please look over these three proposals and addend them as necessary. Let’s all work together to provide a strong clear path forward.
We encourage every member of the community to carefully consider these proposals and provide feedback. Together, we can ensure a stable, prosperous future for the BTCZ ecosystem.
Your voice is essential to shaping the future of our ecosystem. Review the models, engage in discussions, and make an informed decision when voting.
- Model 1
- Model 2
- Model 3
0 voters