I have no doubt of your good intentions when you say this 100%. What worries me here is the use of the word “temporarily”. History will show that what we mean to be temporary when it comes to reward reduction will end up being permanent.
This is way too polarizing and not true in my opinion. This reads as if the proposal would abandon the community fund and the people we care about, which is clearly not the case nor the intention. It does neither turn the cap off nor mean that ‘we cared enough’ about the community.
It is 100% polarizing as this proposal is very polarizing. I get it’s not what you intended when you wrote it, I really do. But here, we are looking at the proposal as it is. And what it’s doing is a 80% reduction in the Community Fund for reasons that are very premature as this network is 1 year old.
This would buy some time to come up with a better, more sustainable long-term solution. At the same time it intends to emphasize the importance of the community and the opportunities with its rewards, but that there should be a shared understanding or plan on how to use these funds to justify the overall downscaling effects on other rewards they currently have.
I’d like to see an alternative first before anyone proposes modifying community fund allocation. At the moment, it’s very vague. “Temporarily”, “better, more sustainable long-term solution” are vague keywords.
On this quote: “but that there should be a shared understanding or plan on how to use these funds to justify the overall downscaling effects on other rewards they currently have.” I respectfully disagree because it sounds like we are trying to add conditions on the Community Fund when there weren’t any before. The Community Fund is a netural party, it shouldn’t be the one participating in a “shared understanding”. The community decides what it can use allocations of the fund for.
Validators will still validate as long as there’s a profit. Currently the profit margins are very high for them. They’re service providers for the network and they’re rewarded for their service.
I don’t think that as of now there is a clear understanding in the community on what to use these funds for and how to allocate them, please correct me if I’m wrong here.
I think this is a premature judgement to make. The community is still growing. Celo is still growing. It doesn’t matter if your proposal moves it to 1 million CELO a year “temporarily” until “better, more sustainable long-term solution” are in place, I guarantee you that it will never be temporary and the whales and validators will get too comfortable with the way things are and after that they’ll resist moving the dial back. Imo, 5 million CELO per year isn’t enough if we are to bring prosperity for all from a grass-roots movement, but that’s another debate. 25% allocation for the community fund is perfect and we will energize the community to use this fund and make our own proposals as well.