If the percentage is taken only by authors to focus on programmers then it is denied to the account of marketing and writers and the whole system can fall.
The funding system should not be viewed as focusing on programmers. It MAY provide funding for programmers, but it can also provide funding for marketing or even authors (the latter would require either an automated off-chain distribution process or a further hard fork to allow funding proposals to pay into the social reward pool, but both are absolutely feasible).
The proper way to view this (funding system) is as an alternate method of voting for rewards that is structurally better suited to potentially larger and/or longer-lived projects than 7 day post payouts.
I realize this is somewhat radical but my own opinion is that 100% of the social reward pool (author+curator) should go into the funding system first, and then stakeholders can vote how much of the inflation budget goes to these forms of marketing (which is what they are) as opposed to other forms of marketing and/or other uses of the budget (such as blockchain development).
Your "radical" idea is actually a simple and brilliant solution to the issue I was pondering of how to allow the relative inflation parameters to be voted on dynamically (it could be applied to amounts of the other inflation sources too). It probably is too radical for many people at the moment, but I'd support the idea.
I think we could consider moving to it if and when the funding/budget system is proven, including shown itself able to fund a variety of useful value-add for Steem. Once that is demonstrated then it makes a lot of sense to look at social rewards in such a context.
Applying it to witness rewards is more problematic because of the circularity/bootstrapping problem. Without reliable witnesses you don't have a secure blockchain on which to conduct the voting or operate the budget system. Some blockchain projects have and are proposing to allow the substructure to be mutated by stakeholder vote, and this could be okay, but it is far more complex and riskier.
I think that's a great idea! And agree that transitioning to it after the WP system is proven would be a good decision.
Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface
Imagine 15% to go on affiliate in the future....
Affiliate payments can be voted via a budget system, as well as funding to develop code for it, if that's what stakeholders believe is a good use of funds.
I reckon that there are a couple kinds of potential funding that may be beneficial to stakeholders. Some endeavors are essential and unavoidable to the entire community, and these might be budgeted from the inflation mechanism you propose. There are also less critical matters than infrastructural development, and amongst these items may be affiliate marketing programs, marketing itself, and etc.
I suspect that a mix of funding solutions will prove ideal, with some things being comparable to roads and defense in a national budget, and others comparable to welfare or education - less fundamental to governance - and more appropriately funded via donations, or mechanisms less unavoidable than simply taking a cut of all inflation.
I would like to see more proposals over time, and expect the community and particularly the @steemalliance working group to put more forth as folks give more thought to these issues, and am confident ongoing discussions and polls will be requisite to successfully determining our eventual course(s) of action.
Initially, I believe we can expect donations from @steemit (and possibly other stakeholders) that will be adequate to get the ball rolling. At this time I don't think we have adequately considered these issues, or have nominal data to examine regarding proposals, to effect long term solutions.
I look greatly forward to your own considerations along these lines, and believe the cut from overall inflation will be necessary to effect core infrastructural development in exactly the way you propose. However, the community has demonstrated various voluntary mechanisms of funding developments, and while such purely organic, voluntary devices certainly should continue, we would probably benefit highly from hybrid mechanisms that more formally potentiate folks regularly contributing to systemic developments of less critical infrastructure.
I also agree that witness funding should remain separate from either type of funding mechanism, in order that any problems with funding the security of the blockchain aren't obscured or complicated by the novel mechanisms we are here considering.
Thanks!
Step by step
amazing