Other than that it's mainly intended to be an alternative funding program rather than a cryptocurrency (due to centralized control of distribution). It's running reasonably consistent to their stated goals (funding open source development) I guess, because I don't see too many complaints to its distribution model.
That's how I wrap my head around it. A portion of each block goes to miners so it isn't completely worth excluding from merged mining, but the vast majority are awarded through bounties. They are rather transparent about how things work, and I've managed to get paid.
The odd part compared to other cryptos that work off of a foundation is that rather than awarding a percent of the block or a fixed amount they pay off of a share of what each 4000 block round generates. Your address goes on a list one time for each share you have on a list. When a round starts each address gets paid as a block is solved round robin style until the round ends.
So the coins go to developers, musicians etc. Where do they go from there? Who would then take them as payment?
I don't think it matters for people to take them as payment. Developers/open source people receive their devcoin grant and trade it for BTC or dollars on an exchange. People wishing to support the grants can buy devcoins on the exchange as a way of keeping the value high enough for the grantees to get a good rate. So one could look at buying devcoins on the exchange as a way of supporting deveopment in the fields that devcoin gives grants to.
Pretty much. Vircurex is the easiest place to cash them in, but there is at least one Open Transactions Server exchanges Devcoins that offers a better rate. There are some nice Arbitrage opportunities for people who can get Open Transactions to work. I think at least a couple people involved are pretty excited about ripple because it might create some interesting new uses for them.
Ah ok! That makes sense. So you're saying it's a broad brush strokes way of promoting whatever projects the centralised committee/foundation is promoting at that point in time.
Intentionally that's quite a nice idea. I'm wondering what processes could be used to encourage the funding away from opinion/reactionary based methods of selection and toward scientific and evidence based selection… always a problem with committee driven policy.
The big bounties I know of right now involve developing content for the Devcoin wiki. There's probably others. I'm not really sure about the selection process.