10% Commission for Tools

[ilgooz]

This proposal suggests transferring a 10% commission to tools from the lifetime earnings of realms and packages. The goal is to incentivize Gno tool makers (e.g. GnoIDE) to create better tools for realm/package development.

• The "Addpkg" transaction type should include a new field to designate the receiving organization (tool maker) for the lifetime commission.

• All organizations must be registered and verified by a DAO to prevent malicious entities.

• If the receiver organization is empty, the commission will be transferred to the community pool by default. This is to prevent authors or individuals in the middle from attempting to remove the organization to bypass the commission.

[ilgooz]

@MichaelFrazzy

[moul]

I like it, because it brings a new kind of contributors to be paid: the ones building infrastructure and tools, offchain.

Tentative splits:

• 70% for worxDAO members, covering their contributions and involvement.
• 20% for validators, covering expenses related to physical infrastructure, electricity, and SRE work.
• 5% for contract and library writers, with the amount decreasing based on the depth of the import. This allocation aims to support the development of high-quality libraries and contracts.
• NEW: 5% for whitelisted tools (or charities?), with any remaining funds going to a community pool. This allocation is intended to support external entities, particularly those not involved in validator infrastructure, such as tools.

By the way, I was considering implementing similar changes that would allow users to "stake" on writers or contracts. This could potentially create a platform similar to Patreon, but specifically for contract writers or contracts.

[MichaelFrazzy]

Thank you for getting this written down! I love the idea for the additional verification step, are you thinking KYC for every package/realm creator or some other method?

I envision this staying as a parameter that is able to be changed through a governance proposal, probably within a specific range (10 or 15% max?). At this 5% starting value, that'd likely leave contributors with 70-75% and validators with 20-25%.

I'll need to do some modeling to ensure the validators stay net positive no matter what, but that sounds like a reasonable split to launch with. While leaving it possible to pull more fees in the future without wrecking any other party.

[MichaelFrazzy]

@moul we're on the same wave length, within 2 minutes of each other too haha. I've been really liking the "staking" conversations recently too, or I guess "bonding" may be the more accurate term.

So are you thinking stakers/bonders earn a % of that builder's fee split? Or from a % taken from elsewhere?