How should the STEEM blockchain development be funded?

in #dpoll5 years ago (edited)

How should the STEEM blockchain development be funded?


While participating at The State of Steem Forum #2, the question came up as to how should the STEEM blockchain development be funded?

Choose from the answers below or comment and suggest.


  • Steemit Inc.

  • Utopian.io Ideas, Tasks & Development posts

  • Automated daily post to fund a treasury with a dApp voting portal

  • Implement a governance portal with a proposal voting system in the blockchain using inflation to finance the treasury

  • Fundition.io Campaign

Answer the question at dpoll.xyz.

Sort:  

This post has been included in today's SOS Daily News - a digest of all you need to know about the State of Steem.



Other:

It shouldn't need to be funded, it's supposed to be open source.

Are you suggesting for the software to be developed solely by volunteers?

Voted for Implement a governance portal with a proposal voting system in the blockchain using inflation to finance the treasury.

Fundition.io Campaign

I'm not sure which of these involves not needing to sell STEEM to keep the wheels turning, but this one sounds the closest to that at least being a possibility.

Bottom line, I think the approach should support development without requiring continual downward pressure on the price of STEEM and vulnerability to periodic market lows.

Voted for Implement a governance portal with a proposal voting system in the blockchain using inflation to finance the treasury.

Only after premined stake that was set aside for dev is removed.

Voted for Fundition.io Campaign.

Better all of the above.

Voted for Utopian.io Ideas, Tasks & Development posts.

Voted for Implement a governance portal with a proposal voting system in the blockchain using inflation to finance the treasury.

Voting for "self-funded", not listed in the options above.

Can you elaborate?

it feels to me that if we used inflation to finance a treasury, that would be self funding.

There's two sides to this. One side in my view consists of two aspects: 1. if we somehow pre-fund any projects, we will be have that funding exploited and sub-par work produced. 2. if we fund net-# then we can be rest assured that only quality work will be supported (or no funding will be released).

The other side consists of the fact that we want to get away from the notion that "someone else" should always pay for all development. I have to fund my projects and all my contributions. So do others. Their hours on Github don't get funded. Do we want to say that that time and effort are of lower quality and value than potential future contributions that would "require" funding?

Let me think about my answer here for a bit. I'll put up a post if I can figure something out.

Hi @helo!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 6.294 which ranks you at #214 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 227 contributions, your post is ranked at #1. Congratulations!

Evaluation of your UA score:
  • You've built up a nice network.
  • The readers appreciate your great work!
  • Great user engagement! You rock!

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.25
TRX 0.11
JST 0.034
BTC 63419.30
ETH 3101.79
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.94