So I spent a couple of hours yesterday morning picking through the debris of the 'Hardfork/ Power Down' drama of last week. One of the posts that caught my eye was by @blocktrades. The post floated the idea of creating a Workers Proposal System (WPS) on STEEM.

I admit, at first I was lukewarm about a WPS. More complexity to have to explain away to new users! Also don't we have a rewards pool that can effectively be used in the same way? However on further reflection, I'm coming around to the idea.

Dev funding on STEEM

The history of funding development on STEEM can be best described as haphazard so far. For the most part development funding has been shoehorned into the Rewards Pool with mixed results.

Overpaying for headliner grabbers

During the bull market, particularly the 'STEEM first payout bull market' in the summer of 2016, many 'projects' or ideas or MVPs were wildly over-rewarded. This wasn't unusual, pretty much every trending post was over-valued.

However I'd argue that the means by which a platform like STEEM would want to incentivise it's end users, ostensibly 'Creatives' (for want of a better word) aren't necessarily the same as those you'd use to incentivise it's 'Developers' (I use this to not just include coders but marketers etc).

Large stakeholders can make a strategic decision to over-compensate Creatives. In many ways, the Reward Pools is a daily competition with the prize value fluctuating based on the STEEM token price. In that sense it's a bit of a lottery, however it isn't purely chance as large stakeholders can sway the reward distribution.

The Rewards Pool makes sense for Creatives on STEEM. I'd argue that the Rewards Pool is structured to incentivise Creatives that make short term, catchy, 'throw-away' content.

We can argue whether we want these kind of Creatives on STEEM. I don't necessary have a problem with this. There is an audience for consuming and producing this kind of content particularly in this social media age. The challenge for STEEM is attracting the right calibre of Creatives (and their audience) off of their existing poison of choice (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Youtube etc) and onto a STEEM interface.

Where the Rewards Pool makes less sense is in remunerating Developers. What the last (almost) three years on STEEM has shown me, is that during a bull market, Developers will produce enough of a Proposals or even a MVP to write a headline grabbing post and (provided it makes the right noises) get rewarded handsomely for it. The follow through on actually growing and delivering a Product however seems commensurate to the likely Rewards further posts will garner.

As a consequence STEEM has literally hundreds of Apps/ Projects in varying degrees of completion/ abandonment.

Underpaying the committed

Given the current incentive structure, it is understandable why Developers interest in STEEM wanes during a bear market. Whereas Creatives might stick with STEEM for the engagement or the social media aspect (after all STEEM is just another means of connecting with their audience), there is a real opportunity cost for Developers to hang around on STEEM when they could be getting appropriately compensated elsewhere.

It makes sense for Developers to treat STEEM as a side project that they devote more time to during a bull market (to get over-compensated) and less time during a bear market (when they are under-compensated). This may work out okay for a Developer however it doesn't work for the continuous growth of the STEEM eco-system.

Payment by Witness proxy

Another way of de facto funding development, has been rewarding Developers with Witness status. I've subscribed to the view that Witnesses should go above and beyond running a reliable node and implementing changes by additional value (whether it is building apps or supporting the community).

One draw back of this, is that some Developers go on a journey. They get well compensated for building apps or running a marketing campaign during a bull market, then (riding the wave of support) fire up a Witness node and get elected as a Top 21 Witness. The Witness Pay then effectively acts as a means of incentivising them to continue developing.

While some have continued to offer value as a consequence of becoming Witnesses, others have not, and have simple enjoyed rewards, content to rest on their laurels.

On the flip side, where during a bull market it may have made sense to run a node, actively develop and engage in the community, the converse may be true in a bear market. Particularly as the blockchain continues to grow and the cost of running a node increases.

Better Reward demarcation

For me, having a WPS enables a clearer demarcation between Content Rewards, Witness Pay and Development Remuneration.

Content Rewards can be looked at as incentive for 'Creatives' to create Content and Engage on the STEEM blockchain.

Witness Pay can be looked at as compensation for securing the STEEM blockchain, implementing code changes to a high standard and being stewards of the chain.

The WPS Funding Account can then be used to fund well-specified development proposals.

And that is the hope for me.

That a Workers Proposal System will incentivise fully costed out and well thought through Development Proposals. With a realistic expectation of what the renumeration will be. It will enable the Community to hold Projects accountable and even set milestone upon which further funding may or may not be given. It should work as a more appropriate means of funding development rather than purely relying on the Reward Pool or the benevolence of large stakeholders.

I also see other benefits.

Signalling Steem blockchain

One of the gripes I have seen recently has been with Steem Inc's control over the core development. It is common with core devs across many blockchains. The core devs hold the keys to the Github, they decide what pull requests ultimately get accepted/ rejected. One of the challenges for any decentralised community is how do the community as a whole signal their will to the core devs?

Short of having a EOS style Referendum portal, I believe having a WPS could work equally well as a transparent way to signal to the STEEM core devs (i.e. Steemit Inc) the community's will on blockchain changes.

If the community shows strong stake-weighed support for a change to the core code (even minor ones), it will be hard for the core devs to ignore and keep credibility.

Incubator for STEEM Apps

WPS can also be used to incubate STEEM Apps. One of the issues with STEEM apps is that often the "end goal" has been seen as getting a large delegation of STEEM from whales or Steemit Inc. In reality any delegation should be looked at as a quasi incubator that will assist the App to mature and grow. Another issue with delegation is that it has often been given on the basis of an MVP with no signal on at what stage it will be either decreased or withdrawn.

I envisage App developers that require seed capital applying to the Funding Account. For me, this will work as a more effective solution to the current wild west delegation of SP (and ultimately depletion of the rewards pool). App developers will be forced to think about how and by when they will monetise their Apps as funding will run out and they will likely need to show results before further funds will be forthcoming. It's more transparent for everyone.

Where should the money come from?

On the @blocktrades post there is talk about potentially raising the SBD issuance (e.g. by 1%) or decreasing the Rewards Pool and/ or Witness Pay to fund the Funding Account that will ultimately be funding proposals .

I have no problem if the funding comes from a decrease in the Rewards Pool provided it is understood that the Rewards Pool is primarily there to incentivise end user content and engagement. What would be undesirable is for Worker Proposal projects to both land funding from the Funding Account and also cream off the Rewards pool by posting updates etc to the blockchain.

In conclusion

Having a Workers Proposal System would help un-blur the lines between how STEEM funds development and how STEEM incentivises end-user engagement.

The experiment that has both funded from the same Rewards Pool has had mixed success. Lots of short term wins during bull markets, coupled with long term frustrations with those looking to provide value over a longer term.

Ultimately however the success of the WPS will come down to how it is implemented and used, that includes the front end GUI that users will need to be able to easily navigate and understand.

Thinking bigger picture, what will also be critical is that there is a coherent strategy that informs what Proposals are accepted and when. Just implementing a group of ad hoc Proposals simply because the sound good in isolation, might leave a warmth fuzzy feeling inside but ultimate may not result in the growth intended.

Indeed, how a decentralised system devises an effective and dynamic strategy for growth, without becoming centralised will be THE challenge for STEEM (with or without WPS).

It's a challenge for Public blockchains as a whole.

---

Join my Patreon:

Do you like my content or would you like to earn cryptocurrency rewards?
Join now: https://www.patreon.com/nanzoscoop