Thanks Rob for your POV!
I want to stress it again - I don't think anyone is against paying the Devs. It is the lack of communication of, for example, what you wrote here and the surprise doubling of the rate that I and I think most people find irritating. When the Foundation was created it was decided that the community should decide over the funds, and a surprise poll is not the appropriate way for the biggest financial decision we ever made.
Maybe I myself are overrating that, but to my defense I want to say I have learned accounting and I am for several years the "eye of the basis" for finances in my states Pirate Party - controlling that only money gets paid that was decided on, no errors happening etc. If our treasurer had acted this way, he would have been shitstormed, to put it friendly ;)
Talking about your cap - that is more then 100K a month. Foundation has 11mill GRC. So at this rate it wont even be a year until it is dry. (currently 4500$)
~32 million in foundation
That is what I thought, too. But then somebody posted a 11mill address as the foundations wallet O.o
maybe that is Robs? :D
Change addresses are not linked if it has never staked as a resesrcher.
This is probably it. I think I posted a 22m, but there are other early investor addresses that still have high balances. The explorer only knows two addresses as foundation wallets. I totally forgot about change addresses, which are not really trackable after branching when not staking / CPID / Linked.
100,000 per month = 1,200,000 per year.
11,000,000 / 1,200,000 = over 9 years, or did I miss something?
You missed that GRC != $ ;)
32mill GRC = 2 mill $ at current prices. Would mean 2 years if the cap would be payed.
Setting up Foundation expenses as a percentage of the current funds, as I have proposed in the 2018 Budget thread would keep funds from drying for many years.
That percentage has a big problem: The oszillating price of GRC. And anyway I think you are taking it from the wrong end, waving the dog with the tail.
You put out "money to use", but shouldn't it more "tasks to be done"?
No, not at all.
GRC price volatility is there and we will not run away from it. It concerns Rob's proposal or anybody else.
In fact percentage proposal just puts a hard max cap for money available in a given period, so treasury doesn't run out of funds next year. You can't fill a cup from an empty jug.
Well, it's not different to what we have now; how money would be spent is another topic.