how should coin developers be remunerated?

[Este Nuno]

But a pre-mine where the developer slowly gets access to it over a 3 year period, that's only profitable if the coin is a success - the developer only profits if a lot of early adopters profit and continue to profit.

A tax per block does the same thing.
A Transaction fee tax has the greatest incentive as the rewards only come when people actively use the coin It forces the development team to do everything they can to encourage adoption.

Yeah, if you think about it that way it is pretty much the same thing.

And it's good that it's distributed slowly over time rather than a lump sum all at once.

[AliceWonder]

But a pre-mine where the developer slowly gets access to it over a 3 year period, that's only profitable if the coin is a success - the developer only profits if a lot of early adopters profit and continue to profit.

A tax per block does the same thing.
A Transaction fee tax has the greatest incentive as the rewards only come when people actively use the coin It forces the development team to do everything they can to encourage adoption.

One potential issue with a tax per block is that transactions that happen off the block in major web wallets wouldn't be subject to it.

e.g. when Mt. Gox was still around, a lot of transactions simply weren't in the blockchain because they went from one Mt. Gox account to another.

So people who did not use the major web wallets would be subsidizing those who did.

[Este Nuno]

But a pre-mine where the developer slowly gets access to it over a 3 year period, that's only profitable if the coin is a success - the developer only profits if a lot of early adopters profit and continue to profit.

A tax per block does the same thing.
A Transaction fee tax has the greatest incentive as the rewards only come when people actively use the coin It forces the development team to do everything they can to encourage adoption.

One potential issue with a tax per block is that transactions that happen off the block in major web wallets wouldn't be subject to it.

e.g. when Mt. Gox was still around, a lot of transactions simply weren't in the blockchain because they went from one Mt. Gox account to another.

So people who did not use the major web wallets would be subsidizing those who did.

I think in this case the large majority of developer remuneration is coming directly from the newly generated coins from each block as opposed to transactions. That is until the the block rewards reduce themselves over time as is normally the case.

[AliceWonder]

If it is largely coming from the reward then it isn't incentive to make the currency used because block rewards are paid even if there is no activity.

[YarkoL]

If it is largely coming from the reward then it isn't incentive to make the currency used because block rewards are paid even if there is no activity.

The tax could be base amount * number of transactions in a block.

[Este Nuno]

If it is largely coming from the reward then it isn't incentive to make the currency used because block rewards are paid even if there is no activity.

Well a useful currency will drive demand which will naturally increase the price of the currency if the supply is limited.

It takes a long time for a currency to mature fully in to one driven entirely by transactions. We're not even really close to that with Bitcoin yet. It's a long term thing and it's good to have devs that are in for the long term.

[Este Nuno]

If it is largely coming from the reward then it isn't incentive to make the currency used because block rewards are paid even if there is no activity.

The tax could be base amount * number of transactions in a block.

One problem with that is how to prevent someone just spamming transactions. Not that we would expect a dev to do that. But someone could do that and then people might blame it on the devs gaining the reward causing problems.