RE: New Value Creation Initiatives Steemit - What I took away from Steemfest 2017
Dash Style Project Proposals
Could Steemit redistribute some of its emissions from witnesses, content creators and curators to revenue or value generating projects. Imagine if we could fund new projects with new steem. The community would vote on which projects got funded and the new steem would be automatically allocated to the project that the community would like to see implemented.
I'm strongly in favour of this. There are two ways it could be done.
- Split the reward pool (perhaps adjusting current allocations) like what was planned for hard fork 17. Different voting processes would be used for each pool, but both would consume the same 'voting power' we use today, that way users can choose how much of each voting process they want to be involved in. Either witnesses could set the total budget, or it could be a hard rule, or it could be based on how much voting power is allocated to ongoing projects. The comments reward pool was cancelled due to being contentious, but an ongoing-fund reward pool might be less so.
- It could be done by a trusted account, which raises funds for ongoing projects (perhaps is a witness as well), and allocates the funds according to stake-weighted votes.
I'm strongly in favour of long term Steem bonds as well, where you sacrifice rewards influence and make a long term commitment in exchange for higher return.
Elected curators sounds similar to what is done with elected moderators on Stack Overflow. If the largest whales support it, it could be done without any consensus changes. It's just a matter of organization.
Nice post! What will happening, if someone resteem your post?
@demotruk, great to hear this feedback! Excellent suggestions! I like the way you have thought of the nuances of delegation allocation, long term investment reward and how to split the reward pool should we end up allocating some to projects. I think it is important to be clear with people that this method of funding projects is NOT the same as eutopian and is a community driven directive. It looks like we need to spend some time together on these issues, rip them apart a bit and come up with several suggestions / options as to how these changes can be implemented. Additionally I know that u and @eroche had some other great suggestions for improvements. It would be great to find a way of capturing these into one place... maybe call it the steemit project funnel or something....
How about #project-funnel for ongoing projects and proposals and #business-platform for discussing Steem as a platform for running co-operative but for-profit businesses?
Edit: Or #business-blockchain, #bb
great names, tags already updated ;)))
This is exactly the sort of thing I would like for @minnowmentor and my new dev project for #promo-steem. (which I have spoken to Matt about in depth) which I am hoping will create an on-board for promo-steem (and potentially other things) with a clever guild curation system for ensuring that members can assign an amount of their voting power to upvoting posts which fulfil specific criteria (in this case, they are promoting steemit with a view to raising the price of steem). Using a kind of manual guild system, with a streemian type of auto-vote system, and a new way of visualising the promo-steem (or whatever) tags, it provides a solution for those of us who are wanting to put our voting power into places where it will ultimately support Steem and the Steemit ecosystem. I'm already on with the designs, which I expect to be releasing to the community next week, but what will really help me, and others, is something like this.
awesome, I am really looking forward to this!
Another way we could do ongoing projects, without requiring a hard fork:
A quirk would be that the project could get more delegated SP than it needs to fund the project. We'd need to determine what the right thing to do with any excess voting power the account has. We could make the excess power overflow into a 'Steem Bonds' fund, if such a thing doesn't happen via hardfork.
As long as we stick to the rule of never powering up the account, the project is 100% accountable to the stakeholders that support it. If/when such a project begins to misuse funds, stakeholders can remove support immediately.
Yes, this is certainly an option! Although this pushes it more along the lines of eutopian. Certainly a great suggestion for avoiding hard fork. Another way to fund would be to lobby witnesses to donate a certain amount of their rewards to this type of community driven project. This would get them more votes in the long run. I know Jerry banfeild would be interested in this type of funding solution