we have the community fund, the node fund, and companies that need investment and that will pay dividends.
stakes go to community fund. community fund invest in companies and the "tokens" for the investment get put into the node payout fund. the dividends from the newly acquired assets would extend the longevity of the fund and once the amount received in dividends is greater than the amount being payed to nodes the excess gets returned to the community fund for reinvestment which will in turn acquire more assets and more dividends.
this would cause a positive feedback loop that not only benefits nodes, but also funds projects, and increases the velocity of money greatly whilst also replenishing the community fund.
this would also boost the positive effect of the stakes now and leave behind a legacy effect that could maintain the growth in nodes for years to come due to the dividends being payed to the node payout fund. the ecosystem would directly and indirectly benefit from this process.
Just to be clear: you are suggesting that the community fund pays out to companies and that the companies pay dividends to assets that everyone holds?
Just to be clear: you are suggesting that the community fund pays out to companies and that the companies pay dividends to assets that everyone holds?
not so much.. it would be more like paying dividends to the node pay out fund. and the node pay out fund then pays nodes. excess goes back to community fund. just did some catching up and saw that the investment fund is out the window so perhaps this isnt the best idea.
Ah, so the idea is that companies that get money from the community fund then pay some of the profits back to the node payout fund?
Ah, so the idea is that companies that get money from the community fund then pay some of the profits back to the node payout fund?
yup. companies supporting nodes. obviously investing wouldnt be the only thing that the community fund would do.. plus, if the companies were paying enough dividends to the node fund after say, one year, to cover 100% of the node pay outs for the remaining 2 years, the remaining 66% of stakes that were already in that fund could be transfered over to the community fund so that the stakes can be put to better use while the dividends cover the cost of the node payout fund. also if the remaining 66% gets put in community fund, that could replenish the capital that was used to invest in the companies and allow for further investment/bounties/grants/etc etc
The problem is, paying that would just be an honor system, so I don't think we should build systems in crypto that require trust.
The problem is, paying that would just be an honor system, so I don't think we should build systems in crypto that require trust.
ahh.. taken down with a single line.. damn lol
lol
However, I like the basic idea. We should think about this a little more.
I am really interested in running the community fund as a decentralized organization that everyone is a part of. It'd be very interesting to make that sustainable.
I was listening to this podcast and I found a very promising model for the community funds handling of money. http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-161-the-mine-and-the-pick
The way it works is a proposal is submitted to the committee. If a project is approved then all funds are put into a multi-sig account. The project manager will have one key, two arbitrators will have a key. A set of milestones will be set up and along the way and when/if each milestone is achieved then funds will be released according to the progress. I think this could help to solve the bluemeanie problem.
For accounts that are much more serious a 5 party multi-sig account can be made. 1 signature can go to a very trusted person in the community, and another signature can go to another very trusted person in the community that otherwise won't be involved in the project unless something goes wrong. That leaves 3 signatures and that means under normal conditions that the developer who will have 1 signature and the two arbitrators will all have to agree unanimously for money to be released at each milestone.
The basic point though is that there is multisig control over the accounts, and money is only released upon milestones that have been pre-agreed upon.
However, I like the basic idea. We should think about this a little more.
I am really interested in running the community fund as a decentralized organization that everyone is a part of. It'd be very interesting to make that sustainable.
I really like the general idea too that somehow money being paid back to the community fund would help to support Nodes. Not all of it, but a percentage. The rest of the money paid back to the community fund would be used to replenish the community fund and get more projects going.
I really think there should be no "committee" at all, but just have everything run as a decentralized organization.
I really think there should be no "committee" at all, but just have everything run as a decentralized organization.
Interesting. I am having a bit of trouble visualizing that. It sounds good but can you give an example?
No need to have a committee of people when everyone is the committee. Just make everything rule based and it will be manageable. Countries should be run that way, too, IMHO. In fact, I want to propose NEM as a digital country, but I don't want to get ahead of myself ^_-
No need to have a committee of people when everyone is the committee. Just make everything rule based and it will be manageable. Countries should be run that way, too, IMHO. In fact, I want to propose NEM as a digital country, but I don't want to get ahead of myself ^_-
agree 100%
I think there should be some kind of bonus to companies that accept NEM as a payment method. Quarkcoin did such marketing and it worked like a charm.
I think there should be some kind of bonus to companies that accept NEM as a payment method. Quarkcoin did such marketing and it worked like a charm.
Companies will gladly accept NEM, but the harder side of the equation is getting the customers to use NEM.
I think there should be some kind of bonus to companies that accept NEM as a payment method. Quarkcoin did such marketing and it worked like a charm.
Companies will gladly accept NEM, but the harder side of the equation is getting the customers to use NEM.
The customers will gladly use NEM if this would be easy and if the goods and services that they would pay in NEM would be 5% to 10% cheaper than paying in FIAT. I mean if the customers would get better deals by purchasing in NEM than in FIAT slowly they will migrate to use NEM. The thing is that this companies that will accept NEM have a key role to spread it further by making this better deals for customers like I described above.