You do have a point. There shouldn’t be a “Trusted Guardian” for a cryptocurrency. That’s too much like the corrupt system we have now. I’m not saying Vandar can’t be trusted, but a trustless system should be developed. Anything can happen in life; private keys to community funds can be lost or anything could happen which would cause a percent of the mining community’s funds to be misplaced an inaccessible forever. With a vote from a few, to put a few in control over something that is supposed to be decentralized isn’t logical. Like you said HarryArms, there were 60 YES votes in the first few days (I don’t know, I haven’t verified the amount of votes). I do know that Hydra had been discussed for quite a while before the voting began. I know I voted YES immediately after the proposal was mentioned in the Telegram/Discord channels. That would explain why there were so many immediate YES votes in the beginning, followed by some NO votes later on. Maybe people voted NO weren’t active in the community and didn’t know of Hydra or who was making the proposal in order to trust a “Trusted Guardian”. I think voting should be mandatory in order to use the BTCZ ecosystem because community voting is in the whitepaper. Voting should be verified by a trustless system, but there’s really no way to verify each vote is from only one community member. The white paper is all about community voting, so if the community votes for someone to be a “Trusted Guardian” for a particular wallet, the community can just as well come together with a proposal against it. With that being said, it is up to the community to come together to make a trustless voting system/ community funds manager.
We should work for a better voting system , at least from the requirements view for someone in order to cast a vote etc.
However the “Guardian” or “President -like” role wss necessary like in the most Democracies: There is a parliament (you can see as a mini parliament the 5 Community Managers ) and there is a President who has to approve everything that the parliament is voting, because something could be harmful.
In our case , our open structure is leaving the Community vulnerable to bad actors or a team which could hypothetically come and try to take over the project, changing its initial approach (for example trying to half the rewards faster with a speculative and narrow -view or letting ASICs in etc).
This is why a Guardian/President is necessary even more in our case.
Cryptorex was the choice for this position in this proposal because he is the oldest and more stable member, a part of the core team and extremely active through time.
- A proper page for voting on selected projects should be created.
- no one should have private keys to vaultZ.
- in order to reward miners for the loss of 5%, they should receive something similar to the VoteCoinZ sewn into blockchain BTCZ during extraction.
- by voting on the appropriate page, votecoinZ would vote on the projects voted on here.
- after the vote, coins automatically come out in the indicated amount to the address indicated.
- I have no idea what it would look like from the technical side
your idea is a bit overcomplexed.
Giving out coins from nowhere is something what Whitepaper clearly says out as NO.
Its an untrusted scammish behaviour.
Every miner can decide if he/she takes the loss for the community’s advantage for faster improvements.
Amounts at VaultZ if noone has a key, it means its completely lost. The system how it is now, VaultZ has more keyholders and be only to transfer funds based only on votes and it needs a certain transaction approval to move out (Multisignature).
Community voted projects by a community driver coin is Decentralization itself. Hydra is just an Overwatch.
Any new improvements can be devoted.