[SUPPORT] Block Reward Initiative and First On-Chain Governance Vote


Can i vote with Tokens that are in migration Phase2?

A lot of drama in this post

Yes, you can @Marv21


I like the democratic approach which I think is mandatory for a long term success.


Yes I see what you mean now. I you look at it long term, it might be good.


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?


This is a good choice.


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% .


There are already too many coin reserved when ICO. Many other successful projects have not so many coins for the team. It leads to centralization.

I am against the idea to get some tax for development.


I agree. It is too many coin hold by the team. The team is greedy and will make AE token more centralized.


Thank you @xiahui135 and all of you for expressing your opinion. Our main goal is to have a healthy discussion :slight_smile:

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 :slight_smile:



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 your opinion.



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:

  1. Reduction of the supply of tokens in circulation, since the AE tokens are accumulated in the BRI.
  2. Improves the self-sustainability of the project, enabling a source of constant resources to be dedicated 100% to development.
  3. 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”.


AE already make a mistake about the mining inflation. Why not think twice before actions.
Many other projects have experts on currency and economic of the coin. I guess AE never thought about the economic ecosystem as a whole, including transaction fee, supply.


Vote can not be abused. It should not be a tool to harm the community’s benefits.
The proposes need to be limited, never include the modifications of supply and tax. Or we will see a centralized team control the system, not better than a centralized country.


I hope that what the team gets from the miners can be used for community ownership and promotion awards in addition to technology development, ok?


airdrop same of the net coins to the main net, can make people more positive hold ae


Dash does it this way:

45% of the block reward goes to the miner, 45% goes to masternodes, and 10% is reserved for the budget system

I would really like Aeternity to have a distinction between nodes and Oracles - or a switch to turn a node into an oracle. To be able to earn AE by answering oracle requests. Since the code is already in the blockchain, maybe it can be done.

So even if 20% is quite a lot, at least some amount is needed to keep development going, or do you think some people will do development for free?

also, some stacking would be nice and would also allow the network to be more secure - not withstanding that it was part of the promise since the start.