Evergreen Funding
Preface
I'm an advocate for voluntarism. Evergreen Funding is my first concept for funding of development proposals that is entirely voluntary, responsive to developing information, and potentially nimble. It has so far not been specifically discussed elsewhere, although many posts I have read have considered how better to reward evergreen content.
Since the structure of funding proposals informs the structure of the foundation effecting them, I believe it bears discussion at this time.
I have been struck by how Steem can potentiate voluntarist governance, and that is exactly what @steemalliance has been tasked to effect. Here's one way that I think @steemalliance can source funding that is not a tax, provides granular control over fund expenditures, and funding that extends to the entire duration of a given proposal.
Executive Summary
Accounts vote to deliver rewards from inflation based on their stake just as votes are accounted presently (folks that recall any of my comments lately, regarding funding based on inflation, will note that this has not been my preferred option). However, presently such votes deliver their payout in seven days.
For the purpose of funding development, I propose that such votes deliver funds daily. After a donor votes, each day stake-weighted rewards are drawn from the pool available and delivered to the target developer(s), for the specified duration of the specific proposal being voted on, until completion, as needed/spelled out in the proposal, or otherwise, as follows.
Given that new information develops as effort is undertaken, donors may find it preferable to change the weight of their vote, or discontinue it, at will. This serves several purposes important to development. Should the dev(s) be not meeting the expectations of the account providing funds, or discover new information that significantly changes the endeavor, both devs and donors can instantly act to respond to that event.
Purpose/Benefits
This holds devs feet to the fire, making them accountable to donors, and also enables them to demonstrate fiscal responsibility by providing guidance on new information as developed.
Many who are uncomfortable with directly selling their stake to provide funding (as Stinc has been doing) will not need to do that, as all funds will be drawn from the extant pool of inflation that provides rewards now. No new inflation is necessary.
Neither is anyone's VP or stake taxed against their will and better judgment to fund endeavors they don't want to. They are also able to provide more or less funding as they are able based on the rewards generated by their stake to reflect their level of committment to the particular endeavor they are funding.
Rather than limiting the funding to a one time sum, the daily payout enables funding to match the development timeline precisely, either as specified and estimated up front, in the proposal, or per actual completion, whether sooner or later than estimated.
This mechanism enables @steemalliance to simply be a vector for proposals that need not undertake extraneous management of funds, schedules, or personnel. As a result of the minimal burden on @steemalliance, the various organizational parameters the solicitation for #foundationproposals seeks direction on may not be necessary to resolve further, or at all. My skillset is not heavy in corporate governance, so any omissions folks may note require resolution are appropriate and welcomed for further discussion.
Certainly, other funding mechanisms may more necessitate organizational concerns and specifications.
Additional Considerations
I note that there has long been tension over the compromise that the seven day payout period represents between need to keep fresh content coming, and creating incentive for content that is more or less evergreen. Should this mechanism be potentially considered useful to generally be used to reward ordinary content, devising and implementing the mechanism to fund development will make it trivial to do so.
Many have sought mechanisms to reward evergreen content, and this does that. Additionally, daily payout also reduces uncertainty regarding incoming funds for content creators, and dramatically curtails the potential of last minute curation to impact payout. Last minute flags suck, and more than one user has been deeply discouraged by such manipulation.
It does not decrease incentive to produce fresh content, and instead would be likely to increase incentive to create content daily, to create a steady income. Votes will only persist until that VP is better used elsewhere by the voter, so it is likely that most VP will not persist for long, and but little for extended duration.
Some will be though, as some content definitely merits it and is only able to be via workarounds at present. Making such support more instant, reliable, and durable very simply would be a positive boon to the community IMHO.
I'm not a coder, so the need for a HF to do this, and the difficulty of implementing this change, is outside my skillset. I assume a HF is necessary to effect this mechanism, but that it would not be particularly difficult since only minor changes in payout period, and implementing a preset for voters to specify if the vote is to be recurring, for how long, and means to cease or modify the vote weight at will, would be necessary.
I note that biweekly rounds are envisioned for proposals, and that this does not conflict with that device. However, given that this is an entirely voluntary funding mechanism, I see no reason that 'freezing' would be necessary, or that folks shouldn't be able to start providing funding from the moment they are informed of the proposal, since that provision is able to be withdrawn instantly, at their sole option. It is possible that some folks might find they have funded proposals they later regretted, but it would also enable devs to begin implementing proposals immediately, rather than delaying for six weeks while awaiting consensus.
No consensus is necessary for this funding mechanism to be employed once it is available. If only one dev and one donor agree, and adequate funding can be supplied, the endeavor can commence. Lastly, Evergreen Funding does not exclude any other potential funding mechanisms.
I hope this proposal informs further discussion of @steemalliance and funding for development, at least. Any comments, and especially criticisms which can enable us to better understand or improve it, are very welcome.
