Monero Funding - Brainstorm Thread. Lets fix it.

[rdnkjdi]

This thread is dedicated to resolving the Monero funding problems.  Please note - if you would like to spread FUD (please keep it high quality) - see this thread

This thread is about how to solve a problem - nothing else.

Healthy Ideas
1 - Transaction fees.  Even with the .01 transaction fees - I believe this figured into roughly 400 - 500 XMR per month.  I believe this is a good source - but not an end all.  

2 - Bounties on projects.  After thinking about this - I feel very strongly about it.  I believe the core developers should put bounties on at least both the database project and the GUI project.  They will know between themselves who has done what work.  Before releasing these projects to the public the bounties must be met.  

If they want to spend the bounties on funding future projects, pocket them or a combination of both - it's fine with me.  But if nothing else - view it as a way to fund your project with your progress by holding your progress for ransom.  This matches progress with funds.  I feel progress without funds can be just as detrimental as funds without progress.  Who knows - Zoidberg said he planned on copying this - maybe we'll get some BBR donations

Developers - please PLEASE think about getting an escrow and holding bounties for the database work and the official GUI.  Escrow holds funds until those are released then they release the funds to you.  If the items are not complete - they go back to the contributors.  

Hell - tell me how much you want (make it high) for those two features.  I'll go find us an escrow.  When people ask "when will it be done" you can say "when the bounty fund is full"


3 - Look for crowd funding/donations outside of crypto for an anonymous currency.  I'm not really sure how to go about selling this and have my doubts as to if it would work.  Essentially people are paying for progress that early adopters who hope to gain by more adoption should be paying for.

4 - MEW.  Monero Economy Workgroup is headed up by Risto.  I haven't heard much from them - but they helped pay the bounties to Anonymint.  This functions similar to the bitcoin foundation except ... not.  



Undesirable ideas

5 - Setting aside 1% of ongoing mining to development fund.

6 - Taking the tail end 1% of Monero's to be distributed from mining and auction them off now to fund development.

Please chime in with ideas.  

[canonsburg]

1. Creation of the MEW Online Monero Gambling site, with net profits going towards the development of Monero.

2. The MEW Monero Lottery, where weekly draws are held and net profits go towards Monero development.

3. The MEW Monero Options Exchange, a exchange where options contracts based on Monero can be bought and sold. Net profits towards development of Monero.

[ArticMine]

5) Some ideas I like Personal and / or Business hall of fame, straight donations to the development fund.

6) Donation of hash power by solo mining to a development donation address.

7) Opt in and or opt out donations in client and mining software.


Some ideas I do not like.

Business specifically set up to raise funds. This adds the issue of competing with independent businesses in the Monero economy space. A much better solution is to encourage business donations.

Printing money for a "good cause" Whether it is from one time special blocks,  taxes on mining fees etc.


For possible discussion:

Migrate the software to a strong copyleft. GPLv3+ or AGPLv3+ Most users would not see a difference; however distribution on closed propriety platforms that require additional restrictive terms, such as IOS, Windows 8.x RT etc. would require a separate license. This license can then require payment. In the IOS case Monero apps on iTunes would have to be paid apps. Those wishing to run Monero in IOS for free would have to jailbreak in order to have GPLv3 / AGPLv3 compatibility. This effectively "fleeces the iSheep". Note:  A platform such as Android or Regular Windows is not impacted since they permit GPLv3+ / AGPLv3+ software.

Edit: AGPLv3 would require a pool or an exchange to either pay a fee (to waive the Network requirement) or effectively make their internal software available to their customers under the AGPLv3. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html, https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

[fluffypony]

For possible discussion:

Migrate the software to a strong copyleft. GPLv3+ or AGPLv3+ Most users would not see a difference; however distribution on closed propriety platforms that require additional restrictive terms, such as IOS, Windows 8.x RT etc. would require a separate license. This license can then require payment. In the IOS case Monero apps on iTunes would have to be paid apps. Those wishing to run Monero in IOS for free would have to jailbreak in order to have GPLv3 / AGPLv3 compatibility. This effectively "fleeces the iSheep". Note:  A platform such as Android or Regular Windows is not impacted since they permit GPLv3+ / AGPLv3+ software.

Edit: AGPLv3 would require a pool or an exchange to either pay a fee (to waive the Network requirement) or effectively make their internal software available to their customers under the AGPLv3. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html, https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

We moved from the MIT license to BSD 3-clause for various reasons, but we wouldn't ever move to LGPL precisely because of the difficulties we'd encounter in putting anything directly using the code on an App Store. It's not just Apple, the Windows App Store is also problematic for GPL/LGPL licensed software. There's no value I can see in moving licenses anyway, it just complicates things later on and cripples our ability to deploy to walled garden environments.

[iCEBREAKER]

rdnkjdi has some things backwards, here is the correct version.

Healthy Ideas

 - Setting aside 1% of ongoing mining to development fund.  This fixes the current situation where the devs give away valuable code and miners thus subsidized enjoy excess profit as free riders.  It is analogous to a consumption/sales tax on blocks, which is held by free market economics to be the 'least worst' kind of tax.  This approach has been successfully demonstrated by BBR.

 - Taking the tail end 1% of Monero's to be distributed from mining and auction them off now to fund development.  This fixes the currently broken social contract where costs are (at best) commonized while profit is privatized.  As a flat wealth tax, it is perfectly fair because the larger one's stake and potential gains the more they are held responsible and accountable for the coin's future.  This approach has been successfully demonstrated by VIA.


Undesirable ideas

 - Transaction fees.  Fees discourage use, which is fatal to young coins because of the reverse network effect leading to a downward spiral.  Although a proven option for a coin which has reached critical mass, only Bitcoin and Litecoin enjoy tx volume sufficient to make fees a viable funding source.  XMR does not have a monopoly on CN technology, so tx fees only create incentive to use BBR or XDN instead.  Like an income tax, tx fees discourage and prevent beneficial productive commerce.

 - Bounties on projects.  Already rejected by devs for Reasons^TM, such as not providing for continuing care and maintenance, or emergency response, etc.  Also suffers from free rider problem, where everyone profits but only a few (altruistic suckers) bear the costs.

[NarC]

Idea 9: Just flood bitcointalk with stupid threads till enough people see it and buy the coin

edit: sorry i didn't realize you guys were already doing this

[ButtcoinEXpress]

Idea 9: Just flood bitcointalk with stupid threads till enough people see it and buy the coin

edit: sorry i didn't realize you guys were already doing this

hey -  I hate monero because of all their threads!  how about if i go to page 5 and find one to bump to the top & tell everybody how much i hate it!

[Spoetnik]

I don't get it.. what is this "Funding Problem" you speak off ?

[papa_lazzarou]

I'm thumb-sucking numbers, don't take these guesstimates as anything actual or realistic.

- Embedded DB solution/implementation - 6 man weeks is a pretty solid guess, so I'll leave the $14 500
- Convertion of C-code - it's not as simple as this. Apart from this specific item, there needs to be an incremental audit and refactor. Just because the bug was lurking in a piece of C code with this doesn't mean there can't be a bug elsewhere, it's just easier to obfuscate it in C. Holistically this is an active, ongoing task, that will likely end up costing in the $80k - $140k range over many, many months.
- Finished (official) GUI - assuming all the other pieces are in place, then dEBRUYNE is correct - anything from $15k - $20k.
- C++ version of the I2P router (IP obfuscation) - this is already making rapid progress: https://github.com/PrivacySolutions/i2pd. To get it to a point where it's usable and implementable as submodule / library I'd imagine is easily a $50k job, but I'm guessing at what orignal's hourly is.
- ... (blockchain bloat issue?) - not really an issue, and I'm unsure as to what we'd consider "solving" it. A linear reduction? A lightweight access methodology that heavily reduces the need for local storage / bandwidth? The amount of experimentation and research needed here to find a cryptographically sound "solution" makes it hard to pin a value down.

Just quoting fluffypony's post so that we may have some context. Maybe the dev's could make a revision if it is in order.

The first two items in the list are the most pressing, IMO. So we have (1) a short term goal of $14 500 for the embedded DB and lets say (2) about $10 000 per month for the code conversion.
How can we achieve number (1) now and how can we plan a steady income for number 2?

Does our community have 1000 people willing to donate 15$ now? Personally I think we will only find out by trying and am with Nekomata regarding the crowdfunding initiative.

Any thoughts?

[xulescu]

Note that "crowdfunding" and "bounties" have been somewhat mixed up. There are two disjoint scenarios to consider:

1. Bounties where devs cut the red tape, everybody chips in, and anyone can claim it -- this suffers from Reasons(tm) that I generally agree with.
2. Crowdfunding where devs cut the red tape, everybody chips in, and only the devs can claim it -- this does not suffer from Reasons(tm), it might just fail.

I still believe we should attempt (2) with perhaps both Anon's escrow for cryptos and a Kickstarter/etc for fiat and larger exposure.

I agree with iCEBREAKER that a sales tax is better than an income tax. I believe both are worse than (2) above. I disagree with him on the effects of the transaction fees but agree that it is at best a supplemental source of funds.