This is a complete paradigm shift in crypo and I personally think it is brilliant. I totally see crouton's point about a "tax" being unfair, but I view it very differently.
Bitcoin got a lot of things right, but one thing they got wrong was allocating every single coin generated to the task of mining (e.g., securing the network). I read an article yesterday that pointed out that the computing hashing power of bitcoin's network is now 100 times the computing power of Google. Suffice it to say, bitcoin is plenty secure with 1/100th the current resources devoted to this "securing the network task". Meanwhile, their development team is destitute, their foundation is broke, and the number of full nodes keeps dropping. We ALREADY HAVE PROOF that voluntary contributions don't work to support the network development. Think of the billions of dollars that early bitcoin adopters have made, yet no one is donating. Not early bitcoin adopters, not venture capitalists with bitcoin-based ventures, not charities, not miners. They are destitute.
Bitcoin SHOULD HAVE allocated those resources to where they are needed... yes, SOME for securing the network, some for incentivizing full nodes, some for development, some for other functions or yet undreamed of capabilities. We have already solved the issue for full nodes. And guess what? We will have the decentralized governance to change those allocations over time or add new allocations to solve future problems or go after growth opportunities.
What about lonecrouton's argument? It it "fair" to "tax" masternodes? Well, here's a few things to consider:
1) Masternode owners will decide the tax rate
2) Masternode owners directly benefit from the expenditures or at least will have to believe that the benefit outweighs the cost (or else they wouldn't approve the spend, right?)
3) This makes the entire funding process more efficient, which thus makes the entire team more productive
4) Is a "tax" more or less "fair" than a system in which only some pay and the rest of the "free-riders" benefit?
5) The one I think is most important... it should make the entire system more efficient by
- Making the cost/reward positive for more projects (imagine you are a MN owner considering a project. To get it funded you need x coins. There are 100 MN owners willing to donate. The benefit of the project per MN must be at least x * 100 / (total MNs) before you would rationally donate. If all MNs are forced to donate equally, it will exponentially expand the universe of positive return projects)
- Making the team spend less time crowd funding
6) It allows us as a community to remain independent
7) It isn't really taking ANYTHING away from current MN owners. If the reward schedule continues up to 60%, the result will simply be more nodes (which we need less than we need development funding now), NOT more rewards per MN. More nodes is a huge unnecessary expense right now... we have plenty.
So, if it is proven that donations won't work and are inefficient (do we really want the core team spending 20% of their time begging for funds?), why not try something revolutionary? Bitcoin already has a "tax" on every single holder of the coin in the form of dilution of his holdings through the creation of new coins. Just like a company issuing new shares of stock dilutes other shareholders. It's just that their protocol allocates 100% of this "tax" to miners.
Dash in contrast is essentially saying "look... we don't think that's efficient or desirable. We think "taxes" should go to where they are needed. Need more MNs? Allocate more "tax" to those owners and more will spring up. Need development more? Reallocate. Need more network security, allocate more to miners. Bottom line is this is going to make us the most efficient crypto network, hands down, and the most adaptable to needed change. It is brilliant.