Not true at all, if you vote no to a project it will not get done. If an initiative that is initially funded is not going as expected then funding is retired and it stops. The basic principle is the masternodes as a group decide where to invest the money to develop the ecosystem as a group and it does not go to an individual like with foundations. Yes you do have to reinvest into the ecosystem, but that creates value that is good for everyone. How is it OK for miners to share with Masternodes and not OK for everyone to support the network? What is the alternative? To become a Litecoin or a Dogecoin with no value created and doomed to fail, the price comes from the innovation, added value features and adoption and that requires funding.
My point is that the money is gone either way... It's like a tax. The money is taken no matter what. What if every proposal is voted down? Money still in "escrow?" It's just gone? There is no real "no" vote here... What if there's nothing to spend it on? What if the decimal point moves 4 places to the right an 1% is more than needed?? This is worse than dealing with a government... If there's nothing to spend it on, why doesn't it come back to those from whom it was taken?
100% of the block reward goes to people who made a contribution to the function of the coin. MNs and Miners. I agree that Devs are left out of that, and they deserve something. But we're basically going to mine 40% into their "escrow" no matter if there's a job for them to do or not? No matter the exchange rate? When I decide not to fund a kickstarter project, guess what; kickstarter doesn't just take my money anyway... That's what government does. That's a tax forced upon you whether you like it or not. The money is taken by force and even if there's no need, they make some shit up to waste it on... Why bother voting no "on" a proposal if the funds are gone anyway? May as well vote yes cuz you're paying either way...
The vote doesn't actually do anything... I agree a plan SIMILAR to this is a good idea, but compulsory extortion no matter how you vote proves this is a false choice... Voting "no" doesn't actually defund anything, so why bother to vote "no?" This goes too far and ends up negating itself. So maybe no projects get funded. Nothing to pay a dev to do... But the money is still sitting taken and sitting in a supposed "escrow" waiting for some pork project? What if there's nothing left to do? This is a problem we already see in government. There's this budget that will exist no matter what, so better come up with some bullshit way to waste it and justify their existence. The option to do nothing needs to be on the table. The only realistic way to achieve that is to allow a no vote to result in retention of the funds by the node. Maybe there are interesting projects on the table, but none of more value than simply keeping the money? Not everyone sees it the same way.
A forced contribution to a giant collective pork barrel no matter how you vote, negates the concept of voting no. Why does the pork barrel keep growing with every block when there's nothing to spend it on? We need a "do nothing, keep the money" contingency, not a dev who steps in to re-write it when that bridge comes to pass.
I like most of this idea, but it's a bridge too far as tabled.
This also ignores the fact that time passes... Funds could build up. What if 49% vote no on a proposal, the 51% aren't enough to fund it, but guess what, there will be another block, and that 51% who want it just keeps building up until they can afford it.
If there's nothing to spend it on, why is it being taken anyway? If the exchange rate varies wildly, does not the percentage need to change, or does the "escrow" become a giant pork barrel? This smells really bad. Money not needed should go back where it came from or you risk all the same problems that government already shows us will happen...
Devs and Foundation-type activities need to be funded, no doubt. I'm not arguing against that. I want it! But behaving exactly as failed governance we already have... I think the up sides of this were considered, without thinking about the down sides. It's not a real "no" vote if you still have to pay for it either way. If I don't want a Beanie Baby, guess what? I don't buy it, and I KEEP MY MONEY. The concept of declining a thing, and also not paying for that thing, are inseparable. If you're going to be forced to pay for a thing no matter what, then, uh, it's a false choice. You're paying for the thing no matter what, so where's the vote, really? What if there's no need to pay for anything because there's nothing to do? What if the exchange rate goes to the moon and there's way more money than needed? Just invent bullshit projects to waste it on? A bunch of make-work jobs to pork up do-nothing devs and do-nothing projects? Why is the money still disappearing anyway? Who controls the giant pork barrel it is needlessly being pumped into? If you take a bunch of money and have no use for it, give it back. Or better, don't take it in the first place.
100% of the block rewards shold go to people who are DOING something to support the network. Devs are not a constant, but they do deserve something when they do something. Taking a percentage for them, whether they do anything or not, is horrendous. Why not just mine right into a random strangers' wallet for no reason?