You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Growth Idea - From Crowdsourced #Growth-Ideas to Crowdfunded #Growth-Projects
Steem itself has the resource-allocation model by collaborative governance. I understand your point of "earmarking" rewards, but I think it can be less efficient with fixed amount.
Instead, IMHO, what we need is UI. This can have how much the project aims to get funded, and how much the goal is reached via tips and rewards. Users can check each project and its funding status at one page, and they can decide whether upvote or not.
I like both ideas. I think it's a good conversation to be having
Agreed, there is no need to separate the pools. I do think a hard fork could make the process smoother, but we can allocate our stake towards such projects effectively as it is now, although the UX will be clunky for ongoing funding without a hard fork.
Yes! Building this UI would be wonderful. Not only would it fulfill the needs of our governance model, it would also then be available for completely independent uses. It would be the foundation for a decentralized, fee free KickStarter killer, an application the blockchain is perfect for.
I think this suggestion makes good sense.
First of all, I don't think single posts are able to collect all the funds required to power most projects. So this is exactly the reason why #growth-projects participants should post multiple updates to their projects frequently enough to communicate about their projects and get the community involved.
So do we need an interface that only shows certain "greenlighted" projects, since anyone can pretty much populate the #growth-projects tag with any nonsense and "unapproved" projects? In this sense, it would seem that "earmarking" rewards like DASH's proposal governance may make things easier, though it may end up like what you've mentioned - less efficient with fixed amount.
Something in the middle?? (Actually, re-reading your comment, it seems to be in the "middle")