Vote here the VAULTZ percentage (Community Fee)


#1

This is the second part of the Community Fund.
Please choose the ideal percentage for the funding of our Community VaultZ

If lower or larger percentages are the winners , we will have a second round.

  • even lower than 3%
  • 3%
  • 4%
  • 5%
  • even higher than 5%

0 voters


#2

Here are the daily, weekly, and monthly amounts of BTCZ that would be raised for the Community Fund at various fee rates (tax rates) on the current creation pace of 7.2 m BTCZ per day.

49 voters already, but no discussion posted yet at all about how much value is in play at 5% (or any %). This suggests to me nobody is referring to the numbers and asking what those numbers will or will not mean in the real world.


#3

In the spreadsheet above I’ve highlighted in green the 14% line.

This would put just over 1,000,000 BTCZ per day into the Community Fund.
At today’s approximate value of 1 BTCZ = 10 satoshis of BTC, that’s .1 BTC per day, or @ $640 per day.

That’s just over 30,000,000 BTCZ per month, or 300m satoshis of BTC per month, or $19200 per month.

I suggest thinking along the lines of this being the minimum amount to raise - not a soda straw (too little), not a tsunami (too much), but perhaps a fire-hose of decent strength that can be pointed where it will be highly useful, again and again.

I have voted for “Even more than 5%” because I think a higher percentage would have the optimal best effect for the coin and all it’s participants.

IMO, taking 1m or even 2m per-day (out of 7.2m) off of the exchanges will have strong dual advantages of

a) lowering daily supply-to-market (lowering total so-called “dumping”) enough to at least assist a rise in price from the supply/demand POV

b) providing a Community Fund of substantial enough size to really get some things done!


#4

I also believe that this proposal, as written, suffers from anchoring bias, with the anchoring bias point set at 5%. I’ve explicitly suggested that the determination of percentage be voted on in a way that avoids such bias. I would consider the vote to be much more indicative of the best thinking/decision of the community if it were conducted w/o the anchoring bias shown here.

As it is, I can only encourage people to vote for “Even Higher than 5%” and along with their vote comment pro or con on how that “Even Higher than 5%” could be arrived at without the process itself being biased.


#5

As phrased here, the question is whether

360000 BTCZ / .036 BTC / $223 per day

is enough to accomplish our purposes (e.g. a) and b) above).

No one has yet argued that it is.

I do not believe that it is, and I am at least attempting to show that it is not!


#6

IMO, the real risk here is to do too little, not to do too much.

To those who are inclined to “go small”, I ask you please to think about whether 5% or less would really provide enough purchasing power to make the difference(s) we want to make with the Community Fund.

Consider costs of:

Design
Marketing
Advertising
Development
Infrastructure
Things not even yet forseen

Can all these costs be paid with funds of

360000 BTCZ / .036 BTC / $223 per day ?

This represents not even one person-worth of effort per day.

With this do you expect to succeed in a worldwide campaign to establish a stable, superior, and enduring new form of value and payment?

I think it will require more. I see the bare minimum requirement to be 14% (and higher would be better, IMO).


#7

C, whatever you say (again and again copy pasting the same things everywhere) rely on a strong assumption that the price will stand still. Do you really believe that? And if yes what makes you think that the markets will just keep watching?


#8

This sheet (yes, as previously posted!)

reflects an assumed value of $.01 per BTCZ, far above the current market.

So no, I have not assumed the price will stand still. My arguments are based on both current and potential future value, and I have associated some numbers with them for consideration.

I have not attempted to post every possible permutation of those numbers, as the permutations are unlimited. The permutations I’ve posted inform my thoughts, and might serve to do so for others.

Anyone and everyone is free to (and encouraged by me to) post whatever numerics/permutations inform their thoughts.


#9

You have associated nothing. You just put numbers in an excel and say the same things again and again without reasoning, without research without anything that stands in logic.

And what is this then, C?

Isn’t this a strong assumption that the price will never move?


#10

And please fix this.

300 million BTCZ does not cost 300 sats. And I hope that never will as y refer.


#11

The dollar result was correct, but the satoshi number was not (lost my “m”!).

I’ve edited the referenced line to now read:

30,000,000 BTCZ per month, or 300m satoshis of BTC per month, or $19200 per month.

Thank you for pointing this out.


#12

My friend , in this proposal you cannot consider as anchorer solution the 5% percentage .
The 4 could be considerer so , because it is exactly in the middle as we have the choices : 3,4,5 , even lower than 3 and even higher than 5.

We must always have in mind that the chosen percentage should be balanced in order to keep everyone happy and not lose much hash power in the network.

Let’s see what the Community will decide.
Anyway , the most important thing is the fact that we agreed for the need of a new fair and equal for all funding mechanism.


#13

Ah, but how many people have stated here that a Community Fund rate higher than 5% will cause them to stop mining the coin?

So far, no one!

I’m a miner, and I don’t intend to leave.

So how about it miners? What rate would make you leave? ( be honest! )


#14

Nor has anyone argued that 5% or less would

a) lower daily supply-to-market (lowering total so-called “dumping”) enough to at least assist a rise in price from the supply/demand POV

b) provide a Community Fund of substantial enough size to get the following done:

Design
Marketing
Advertising
Development
Infrastructure
Things not even yet forseen

Who wants to make that argument? Anyone?


#15

This is not just about you sj1. And it is wrong to associate the now (at which this change has not yet implemented) with the future. The assumption that no miner has left the network yet does not mean that this will continue to be the case in the future.

Also, if this vote is biased over something, this is over the “even higher than 5%” choice, because the under 5% outcome is split into 4 other choices decreasing the strength of the voters that picked something under 5%.

In order for this to be totally unbiased there should be a vote of different percentiles at start and then another one with the exact percentages of the firstly chosen percentile.

For example the 1st voting could have as choices different percentiles as these: 0-5%, >5-10%, >10-15% till lets say 50%. And then there should be another vote with the exact percentages of the previously chosen percentile.
By following this, the procedure would have been totally unbiashed. But we are good as it is today also.


#16

Also sj1 and as referring to a:
this proposal is not about lowering the supply. We have come out of this at previous proposal.

As referring to b:
It is not an argument that 5% will not be enough. Our community already does all these with zero community fee.


#17

I would also set a hard stop to the fee at some point in the distant future - perhaps within 5 years at block height XXXXX, the community fund fee disables, and is no longer - This may make it more palatable to the naysayers who are against a fee


#18

I like the idea of some sort of horizon being established from the beginning, and I think the horizon could be related to any of: time passed, block height, market price.

Offhand I wouldn’t think the horizon would be an automatic trigger for the fee to disappear (i.e. a pre-programmed sunset), but rather a trigger for the fee to be revisited by the community. Revisitation might mean elimination, but could also mean adjustment up or down.

The idea here is to go from stability to stability in an orderly fashion, while allowing for changed circumstances to be addressed by a changed set of participants.

Between the beginning and the first revisitation, the issue would be considered as temporarily settled and allowed to work out it’s results as it will.