I wish I had spoken up about this sooner but for one I didn't expect this vote to pass and second I was kind of in awe that it actually did. I'm not sure active folders (i.e. the only ones who could weigh in on this vote) understood the kind of precedent that was set by this Yes vote and my hope is that it will be ignored as invalid for the reasons below. The recent vote grants 100M FLDC to the developers which seems like a good thing if you want to support the project. The dev team seems to be have a reasonable plan for spending these FLDC to pay for daily BTC distribution fees and for development.
When I got involved in FoldingCoin it was primarily because I saw FLDC as a way to invest to support others folding. I never had any intention of folding but I knew that buying some FLDC would indirectly support others. By keeping some tokens off the market, folding becomes more profitable and more folders should get involved. This seems to have been going well and the introduction of merged-folding showed that development continues to be interesting and productive.
Getting to the point...
I believe that by the rules previously adopted by the project and its participants, this 100M FLDC vote is invalid. My reasoning is as follows.
From the first vote, the following rule was included:
We should specify that a given vote's results cannot be struck down or amended for a calendar year. That way the results will have a lasting impact and preserve the value of the vote. Idea by @dgiors
That very first vote passed with yes, specifying that the distribution schedule should be as follows:
Once 500,000,000 FLDC are distributed change the daily distribution to 250,000 FLDC
Once 750,000,000 FLDC are distributed, change the daily distribution to 125,000 FLDC
Once 875,000,000 FLDC are distributed, change the daily distribution to 62,500 FLDC
Once 937,500,000 FLDC are distributed, change the daily distribution to 31,250 FLDC
Once 968,750,000 FLDC are distributed, change the daily distribution to 15,625 FLDC
And so on
Source:
http://foldingcoin.net/fldc-voting/Since selling 100M FLDC would require that this distribution schedule be modified at least as it appears on the calendar, that would count as an amendment which would not be valid. I can see how the wording above leaves open the possibility that some massive distribution of FLDC could happen at any time, the spirit and timeline would be modified substantially so I do see this as an amendment. It is also somewhat inconceivable that anyone with an interest in this project would want to see future distribution modified in any way that does not take into account every participant in the project (i.e. holders too).
I have a lot of respect for the dev team and Somebody needs to pay the distribution fees but I fear that this vote goes about it the wrong way. If the vote were to be honored, there is little one can say to assure holders that future tokens won't be distributed outside the previously-agreed-to schedule.
I think it's a clear mistake to pull tokens from future distribution to fund operating costs. My hope is that this vote can be ignored and future votes return to including all holders, not just active folders, for the good of FLDC's value and the mission of encouraging folders long-term. As the team has mentioned, there are solutions to the 0.015 BTC distribution cost that are possible and it's better that we discuss the options there than tinker with the fundamental economics of FoldingCoin.
Thanks,
weex
This is actually an interesting point. I am out and about right now but will be back home soon. Let me look further into this and talk with the team and I absolutely encourage the community to put their two cents in on this subject. So far right now since no guideline was set on when or how we are to handle the 100 million FLDC, we currently have them isolated and are not moving them until a solid plan is set.
I would like to say that blockchain voting is a new concept, and obviously we have discovered there are issues with the way the current voting system is setup. That is why i am glad that no vote is going on this month and disappointed that the vote that has just passed was not vetted more properly by myself as the points you bring up could be a potential conflict of interest.
Its still a new and exciting place, and to my knowledge no one else has done votes the way we are holding them, so since we are the first we are running into the growing pains that others would should they have been the first. SWARM and PETAMINE has attempted to do votes in the past and have actually discontinued them for now due to issues like this. I think though we are involving our community pretty well in this and having a controversial vote like the previous one is getting us to think about things more and more.
Thanks as always Weex, im glad your a part of this community
