1、there are 45 million coins held by the team, these should be spent firstly.
2、AE should reduce the coin spent on development, and increase on promotion to make the marketcap bigger. (imagine marketcap 10 times or 100 times biggers, develop fund will not be problem)
3、too many coin held by the team, leads to centralization. This will not make the marketcap bigger.
And a 20% percent fortune for development is ridiculous. It should be mostly used in promotion.
ETH manage to succeed with a much lower percent of coin. Why not lock the 45 million AE fund to release in 100 years? Or just spend it on marketing and development. If AE can succeed, AE price should be 100X， 1000X， 10000X from now. To achieve that ,the coin need to be more decentralized.
Increase the marketcap is the only way to make AE survive for long time. In current condition, AE can not survive forever even the team hold 100% of the coin.
In addition to technical development, community development is also very important, they need to reward，Really hope that the team can to Attaches great importance，please
~
My opionion is: to have good governance that first there should be a voting about what should be voted for!
For example, if anybody wants to put up a governance voting it should be presented to the comunity if they want such a voting. The time frame for voting should be long enough, (not only a week!) so that many comunity members get aware of this - a month or two at least. And the announcement shouldn’t be a few days only prior to voting!
For example the question could be:
“Do you want to vote for a ‘Block Reward Initiative’ now?”
_ Yes — No_
If the comunity decides ‘No’, because it’s too early, the voting could be brought up again in a year or two.
If nobody or only a few vote at all, this would sort out senseless votings.
Thank you. We will have this in mind for the next community votes. It is a learning process - learning by doing.
Best,
Vlad
TL;DR: BRI initiative is a bail-out of AE team funds from a damage caused by inflation which they introduced at the expense of all the other token holders. Instead of focusing on creating a sound crypto-currency with a sound token-economy, they started to act like a central bank, playing with monetary policy (inflation) and bailing-out themselves when required. They should realize there are many other innovative tokens with no inflation at all (via a constant token base or a staking rate that incentive holding).
Is it true that the First On-Chain Governance Vote, the historical one is about bailing-out AE-team funds (probably called a “community fund” next)? Seriously?
I totally agree with xiahui135. I am against BRI as the real cause is the centralized decision of introducing GIGANTIC INFLATION. It was not a forward thinking decision as the condition of the crypto-market and enormous competition in terms of technology and token-economics increased. Some project abandoned inflation at all (Waves). Some of them introduced it later (Lisk).
When they act honest, the token price increased reflects increased level of confidence. Only the most honest projects will survive as the development of protocol and ecosystem of these projects accelerates the most and left behind the others. At the end the only source of value in crypto-economy is confidence and trust/trustlessness.
The BRI initiative is driven by a first big mistake - HUGE INFLATION which caused nothing but destroying a value of a token for nothing. And as the price imploded so the dev-stake (20%). AE team tries to repair that mistake by sucking more money, but first they have to admit that they never asked community regarding inflation rate. Why they want to have a support for BRI now, when they didn’t care about burning all initial AE stake-holders and value of the token?
I personally think the AE team decided to introduce a huge inflation to get the initial money from mining for themselves, but when it failed and destroyed a value of token, they want to “ask a community” to support BRI initiative to get back what they plan to, moving the mistakes to that community (which they promise to care of) with destroyed value of tokens.
Of course it leads to CENTRALIZATION:
This is kind of immoral to do this in such a short time, doesn’t build a confidence at all. The watering down initial investment of ICO participants, but want to bail-out (increase) their own stake. We should bear the consequences equally and then, in the future, BRI initiative would be an interesting idea, but only after they (AE team) gain confidence and take the responsibility of their actions and not only bailing-out themselves.
I should say, before they ask for more money to so-called dev-fund they should fix the effects of their solely decision of introducing huge inflation, but it can’t be done. Unbelievable. They wish to have (or build) a mature community, but only resort to them when things are going wrong.
I am personally in conflict about this first on-chain governance vote. I think it is important to ensure ongoing development of the protocol and therefore I tend to support the proposal. generally this is the right approach.
unfortunately there are some points and questions that tell me this proposal shouldn’t be accepted at this stage of the project:
I really love this project and I think we can be really successful. I also think it is a good approach to support development around æternity and ensure the development-funding by giving a reasonable percentage of the mining-rewards to the developers. I just think it wasn’t thought out well, not discussed beforehand and therefore it is not the right time to vote for the proposal.
@marco.chain the issues with ledger should be resolved, when working on the voting aepp we did try using Ledger Nano S to vote using either Aeternity Mainnet Tokens via Base-Aepp or using Aeternity ERC-20 Tokens via Metamask multiple times.
Also Voting using AirGap Vault, while keeping the privatekey in coldstorage will be supported.
Hello everyone,
I would like to inform you that the Telegram AMA dedicated to the BRI will be held on:
> May 6, 6:00 PM CEST
Best,
Vlad
我同意，早期代币持有者因为采矿通胀被深深伤害，现在又要社区来支持他们，而且只是给他们自己储备，为开发技术，却从未认真考虑社区代币持有者，如何壮大社区提升ae价值，ae价值提升了，社区壮大了，技术员和开发资金自然更充裕，它们完全是相辅相成的，如果团队都能考虑到，我完全支持投票。
I agree, early scrip holders for mining inflation was deeply hurt, and now to the community to support them, and only for their own reserves, for the development of technology, but never seriously considered community scrip holders, how to strengthen community promoting the value of ae, ae value enhancement, community enlarged, natural more technicians and development fund, they are perfectly complement each other, if the team can consider, I fully support the vote
NavCoin has a similar mechanism they call the community fund. It has a vote up front to determine what to work on and then a vote on the back end when work is done to disburse funds. This also means anyone can do the development not just the core team. It seems to have worked well. Something similar might be a good approach here.
支持空投一部分给主网币持有者，早期投资人损失太大了
I think the consensus needs to account for the volume and impact of the decision. It is not the same to pass a proposal with 20 votes that decides to spend 10AE than to pass a proposal with 20 votes that decides how to spend 40 million AE.
I am still really hurt from learning that my hard invested AE fund was done nothing by a few blocks of the incredibly high reward of 400 coins… and how it would be worth half by just 1 year because of inflation.
I was also baffled by how “in promptu” the launch of mainnet was, with no realy tools working yet. Literally at mainnet launch there was no explorer, baseapp didn’t really work, all SDKs were broken and not upgraded, airgap didn’t allow coins to be sent. That’s like getting a car and they telling you: “Here, your car is ready” while they hand you just the Engine.
And I really want the development to continue, I do. But you still have 40 million AE with centralized decisions, and propose a new decision on how to get more funds instead of using it to allow the community to decide how to spend the current funds already allocated? That seems really greedy.
I think this 0.1% - 20% is not needed right now, sure it will be needed in the future. But whatever percent of the remaining inflation curve? I won’t be surprised if the second vote is to normalize the mining reward… which in my personal opinion should have been done since day one. We really didn’t need to incentivize miners to mine.
I’m really conflicted with this.
And this why AE marketcap dropping against others.
Increase marketcap is the only way to make sure AE survive, and AE hurt it once. Now it is the second time.
Hurting token holders is the source of bad fame. That is why Initial token holders not recommend AE to others and why the community not strong.
I suggest AE team think about it.
Strongly agree with you.
I don’t think the announcement of the BRI vote has had any effect on market cap, especially in relation to other projects. aeternity has stayed around top 50 for weeks.
Can I kindly ask where is a video tutorial how to vote?
The blog post (æternity’s First On-Chain Governance Vote: Decentralization 2.0 | by æternity | æternity blog) stated:
Hey @drag0x and everyone,
Please find video tutorials on how to vote using the hybrid voting æpp here:
No matter whether you have ERC20 AE tokens, Mainnet AE Tokens or you have just migrated your tokens in Phase 2, you can vote 
Tell us if you have any issues
Best,
Albena
It was online on aeternitys YouTube Channel. The videos are linked and embedded in the top post and @albena.chain just above mine here.
Thank you @emin.chain for the guide with AirGap, a small guide from our side can be found on our Medium.
Also AirGap Wallet 2.4.0 is now available for download on Android and iOS.