I just reread you proposal. Your ideas would help a lot.
@jabo38s idea 1.
We should not compare a NEM community fund voting with country leader votes. First a leader vote is way more important for the people, second its way less often. So the motivation to take it serious and use that ONE day to vote is much higher. And still a lot of people don't vote 
-> So no, a "very short time" (like 1-3 days) for a NEM community fund voting is not good in my opinion.
The other ideas are all about the time when a POI score is counted:
idea 2:
POI score at the time the poll is created
idea 3:
POI score at the time the user pre registers for a specifig poll
idea 4:
POI score at the time the poll ends
@idea 2:
This would mean we have to store a database somewhere (yeah this is p2p so at everybodys node? lol) with all the POI scores of the accounts for that time. I cant think of another possibility to realize this.
@idea 3:
This leads into problems. Small example to show why:
We have 3 Users on the network. Bob with 50% POI, Alice with 30% POI and Carol with 20% POI. Bob now pre registers for the vote. A little later Alice pre registers too but her POI increased by 5 % in the meantime and finally Carol pre registers but her POI increased by 20 % in the meantime. The vote now sums up to 125%.
If we don't count the votes but the importance to decide about the proposal, its obvious why this cant work. (Abuse possible)
@idea 4:
This is the easiest way and probably the best. Only problem: People could get frustrated because they "voted with 0.4% POI" but at the end of the poll their POI had dropped to 0,3%…
But yes, I can't think of a better way than idea 4. How could you abuse that, jabo?
So, it seems that we should decide a schedule for proposals/voting.
Originally I proposed the following:
[font=verdana]Regular Voting Schedule[/font][font=verdana]It is expected that there will be many proposals over time that need to be decided on. Rather than doing voting ad hoc, it should be done regularly. Every week from Monday until Wednesday proposals will be collected for the next vote. Ratification of proposals will be done on Thursday. Voting will be done from Friday until the end of Sunday. Then the veto period is Monday and Tuesday. If a proposal has passed voting and is not vetoed, then funds will be distributed on Wednesday.[/font][font=verdana]
could voting be done every two weeks instead? seems like we would need more time to research a debate.
The problem with voting every other week is that it is easy to forget if there is a vote or not. A regular schedule is a lot easier to remember.
And voting should only take about 10s. It is just casting a vote. That is why even national elections are just 1 day and not several weeks.
Perhaps a longer period between proposing and voting might be better, but extending the vote doesn't help.
To encourage people to participate in voting, I think we should make it so that those who don't vote will not be eligible for node rewards. Any thoughts on this?
The problem with voting every other week is that it is easy to forget if there is a vote or not. A regular schedule is a lot easier to remember.
[...]
Perhaps a longer period between proposing and voting might be better, but extending the vote doesn't help.
To encourage people to participate in voting, I think we should make it so that those who don't vote will not be eligible for node rewards. Any thoughts on this?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=881230.msg10272124#msg10272124
This is what happens when the people that are actually working on the project don't have any funds at their disposal. They have to go begging to the community most of which don't give a fuck and certainly no money.
This is why simply giving stakeholders more is the worst possible move.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=881230.msg10272124#msg10272124
This is what happens when the people that are actually working on the project don't have any funds at their disposal. They have to go begging to the community most of which don't give a f**k and certainly no money.
This is why simply giving stakeholders more is the worst possible move.
The problem with voting every other week is that it is easy to forget if there is a vote or not. A regular schedule is a lot easier to remember.
[...]
Perhaps a longer period between proposing and voting might be better, but extending the vote doesn't help.
Ok, I was mixing up "proposing phase" and "voting phase" in my head. I think you are right, the vote process itself should be short.
But still I have one question: Will there really be so many votes that there will be votes once a week?
To encourage people to participate in voting, I think we should make it so that those who don't vote will not be eligible for node rewards. Any thoughts on this?
As already said @ telegram, there will be 3 main reactions on that:
1) Start to participate in a lot of votings, because of interest in the node reward.
2) Start to random vote (maybe even with bots), because of interest in the node reward but no interest in NEM development.
3) Shut down harvesting/running a node, because the voting seems to be too much work.
Especially for people who have more than 1 account with a certain importance score (yes that can make sense) the linkage of voting <-> harvesting reward would mean that its too much work for them to run several nodes (vote with every account every week).
Conclusion: I suggest to lower the node reward but don't set it to zero, if people don't participate in votings.
How about setting it zero, but after like a certain number of votes. And If you vote on all of them, the importance stays/rise. And after that certain numbers of votes the importance get lowered the percentage you didn't vote.
Still too complicated for coding?
Also, after 6 years, node rewards will be gone, so we probably need a more sustainable way to get people to vote instead. Any ideas?
Maybe we need a better reward model.
One thing in the plan is that NEM rocket to the moon in 6 years, should we still be giving huge amount of XEM as node reward?
We should do it like BTC's exponential decrease providing. Change node reward periodically so that we're never off.
6 years, if 100,000 NEM per day (we increased from 4 billion to 8.999999999 billion
Fair enough comments. Any idea how to convince people to vote?
Though complicated, one other idea I had was to issue colored coins that are fungible for transaction fees (1 coin = 2 NEM, but only for transaction fees). I don't even want to think about implementing that, though…
I mixed up block reward with normal fees.
If the people who dont vote dont get the rewards which are paid from the "reward fund" but continue to get the normal transaction fees out of a block, then its alright I think!
I mixed up block reward with normal fees.
If the people who dont vote dont get the rewards which are paid from the "reward fund" but continue to get the normal transaction fees out of a block, then its alright I think!
The block rewards are paid for the first 2 or 3 years, right? I think if we don't have a pretty big user base (and an active development interested group) till then, its senseless anyways.
The block rewards are paid for the first 2 or 3 years, right? I think if we don't have a pretty big user base (and an active development interested group) till then, its senseless anyways.
Voiting must be simple
I think it must be Asset Feature Exchange. It is looks like AE (NXT) but everyone can to invest some of amount Colorcoins equivalent of their real Nem (but for the each vote must pay a fees)
So if project was relize everyone voters get the dividends from block reward and a little part of real asset of the project equivalent of their investing Colorcoins. So when time is gone (3-6 years) voters wouldn't get dividends from block reward but only assets.
In this schem (AFE built in Wallet NEM) i think we can see more then 5% activity, because it's simple to use such as AE, profitable because ColorCoins doesn't needed to buy (only Nem fees).
Voiting must be simple
I think it must be Asset Feature Exchange. It is looks like AE (NXT) but everyone can to invest some of amount Colorcoins equivalent of their real Nem (but for the each vote must pay a fees)
So if project was relize everyone voters get the dividends from block reward and a little part of real asset of the project equivalent of their investing Colorcoins. So when time is gone (3-6 years) voters wouldn't get dividends from block reward but only assets.
In this schem (AFE built in Wallet NEM) i think we can see more then 5% activity, because it's simple to use such as AE, profitable because ColorCoins doesn't needed to buy (only Nem fees).
Dividends from block rewards...huh ?...How would that work ?