I don’t understand the logic behind this. If the AirDrop goes to Mainnet AE users only and it is proportionate - the large AE holders will have more AE. I am not sure how this helps. Maybe clarify.
That’s an interesting question. My personal opinion is that the BRI tokens must not be used in future voting, but only for [product] development.
I think reducing the inflation rate is something that could be put to the vote in the future, possibly by the community. How will miners vote there though? The BRI vote provides a signal that aeternity development will continue in the long-term, by there being a source of constant flow of tokens.
That’s exactly one of the points of starting this. Blockchain governance is super hard. But you can better by practicing it. Few do. aeternity is one of them.
I believe that the reduction of the token amount will not affect mining in the medium-term. There could be an immediate effect, but I think reducing the number of tokens going directly into circulation will counterbalance that. We will see. I would say that “there is never a right time for this”. The sooner it is done, the better.
Here is the part of the blog post that describes this:
The Block Reward Initiative: Use of the AE tokens
All AE tokens from the Block Reward Initiative will be dedicated exclusively to æternity’s technical development.
Initially, the AE tokens will be held under the governance of the æternity Crypto Foundation, a 100% charitable foundation established in Liechtenstein, which is supervised by the corresponding regulatory body.
A technical council will be consulted for the allocation of the AE tokens. The technical council assures the knowledge transfer between technical experts, æternity developers and the board of the Foundation.
In the more distant future, with the goal of further decentralizing the decision-making processes, the possibility of a DAO-like structure for the BRI AE token allocation could be introduced and subject to another community governance vote. However, among other variables, such profound changes have to be thoroughly tested and rely on a maturing progress of the protocol and the development team.
Ok, I want to propose an amendment to the proposal:
Add that all current funds collected for and by developers not yet dispersed/distributed will be moved to the foundation and that a voting mechanism will be in place as to allow the community (stakeholders) to decide how to spend such resources.
In this way if you want to keep control over the funds you already have and keep doing the unilateral decisions you vote NO to the X% for development.
But if you really want the X% then you vote yes and lose control of the funds and grant it to the community, since the miners are being taxed for this vote.
I think this sounds really fair.
What do you think?
Hi guys , I think ae tokens holders should all support BRI , it’s very import to expand aepps ecosyems now and we can’t wait anymore ! Aeternity makes a big mistake when mainet lanch , they set a very high mining inflation which is too generous to minners but hurt all others, first ae tokens holders lost massive money and leave the community , aepps developes couldn’t have enough users , and the team didn’t considers continuous reward stimulate to aepps develops who have little intersting in developing aepp.
Now with BRI , if aepp developers could have token rewards to develop aepps , maybe could bring new users to aeternity , this will make ecosyems better and better !
I suggest much more reward at the beginning , ie . first year 30% to develops , second year 20% , third year 10% , and then keep under 0-5% .
Thank you @xiahui135 and all of you for expressing your opinion. Our main goal is to have a healthy discussion
Whether you’re Pro BRI or against it, we are looking forward to seeing you vote and we’ll consider it a great success if a large part of the community actually cast a vote
There are some basic rules, which should not be changed by anyone.
It is troublesome for us to do the vote. Why team has the right to require a vote? The commnunity even do not know there is a vote. Only a small part of token holders in the forum and telegram, and you even do not want to let everyone know mainnet is alive.
There are many token holders who can not get the info about mainnet. vote, and how you spend the money(star fleet), all important info are not listed on the official website. You guys can do any thing with right to start a vote. You guys can start a vote and win it by limit the info to only a small part of people.
Yes, maybe you are not thinking like this. But there is risk that AE to be a centralized project. How can we belive the rules when the rules can be changed easily and the team is gready.
This has been on the website for years. Also in the whitepaper. It has been presented as an advantage of aeternity for years. I can’t understand why you are surprised.
The information about the BRI vote is shared and pinned in all communication channels. Newsletter was sent. There will be an AMA, more newsletters, more shares in all channels. Please refrain from ridiculous statements.
The team is greedy for continued protocol development, you are correct. The team thinks about the future of the project. The team wants self-sustainability. If you can’t understand why this vote is being proposed, then you are more than welcome to formally provide opinion, by using your token weight during the voting period.
Thank you for the suggestions! Yes, a positive vote will bring long-term self-sustainability of the project, positively affecting all AE token holders.
Less tokens going to the miners, does not necessarily mean less value. Directing 10% (or whatever %) towards the BRI results in:
Reduction of the supply of tokens in circulation, since the AE tokens are accumulated in the BRI.
Improves the self-sustainability of the project, enabling a source of constant resources to be dedicated 100% to development.
If a percent of the miners decide to stop mining AE (I think this may be a short term effect), the difficulty will fall, and the rest of the miners will become as profitable as before (if not more profitable).
@marion and the board of the Foundation are the only ones that can provide an opinion on your proposal. I will add it to the AMA questions.
what if bitcoin developers want 17% of total supply of bitcoin, and then require a 20% tax from mining?
A 20% wealth for development is ridiculous.
Zcash want a 20% tax only for 4 years and they have no ICO. And Etheruem reserves some coin for development in ICO and no tax after that. AE is the first one to require both.
AE will never succeed. Because if it succeed, the society can not burden 20% tax and wealth to be held by “the team”.
