npub1xf3hga0vqft0h4652udw4ffv232vn0teldavtwvl2wuxel9e2faqfu852x
hex
badd4a5f3263a0316e06880f460dcae2a14c44204f48bc096036704c482ff04bnevent
nevent1qqst4h22tuex8gp3dcrgsr6xph9w9g2vgssy7j9up9srvuzvfqhlqjcprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsrycm5whkqy4hm6a29wxh255k9g4xfh4ulk7k9hx048wrvlju4y7sce6cgmKind-1 (TextNote)
Every band I have known eventually has the same argument about the door money.
The bar pays a cut of ticket sales. The band splits it. Then somebody proposes taking ten percent off the top for the sound engineer, because when the sound is good everybody plays better and the room comes back. What follows is never a debate about sound engineering. It is a debate about who is now getting paid less, and whether they keep showing up.
Networks have this argument too, and the technical costume hides how ordinary it is.
Here is the setup. In Bitcoin, whoever seals the next page of the shared record gets paid two ways: new coins the system creates for that page, called the subsidy, and the fees people attach to their payments. The subsidy is the larger piece today and it is cut in half roughly every four years by design. Right now it is 3.125 coins per page. In under two years it becomes half of that. Eventually it runs out and only fees are left.
That schedule guarantees a recurring conversation. Every so often somebody proposes carving a slice off the reward for something worthy: a development fund, a research budget, a treasury. The proposal arrives dressed in mechanism. Percentages. Governance procedures.
My claim is that you should read it in the other order. A redirection is a distributional question first. Ask who receives less, and ask what those people stop doing once they receive less. Then look at the mechanism. Doing it the other way around is how a room full of smart people spends six months arguing about a percentage and never once counts who walked out.
Here is the argument I have the most trouble answering. Some work will not get funded by anybody acting alone. Code review, testing, the boring maintenance nobody wants to sponsor. That is a coordination problem, and voluntary funding has a thin record wherever it has been tried. Waving every proposal away as distributional is a way of never solving it. If the work stops, the people who kept their full share end up worse off too.
What would change my mind: a redirection that funds real work for several years with no measurable drop in the security it was paying for, and no visible exit by the people whose income fell.
Until somebody shows me that, I read all of these the same way. Follow the pay cut first. The mechanism can wait.
if this gave you a way to read the next proposal, Zap ⚡
原始 JSON
{
"kind": 1,
"id": "badd4a5f3263a0316e06880f460dcae2a14c44204f48bc096036704c482ff04b",
"pubkey": "32637475ec0256fbd754571aeaa52c5454c9bd79fb7ac5b99f53b86cfcb9527a",
"created_at": 1787859802,
"tags": [
[
"r",
"wss://nostr.wine/"
],
[
"r",
"wss://relay.damus.io/"
],
[
"r",
"wss://nos.lol/"
],
[
"r",
"wss://relay.primal.net/"
],
[
"r",
"wss://nostr.mom/"
],
[
"imeta",
"url https://blossom.primal.net/2e2dc7253f02e286b7a64697386934fc1b617be199d7017df2b2a294182156e3.jpg",
"m image/jpeg",
"dim 1200x675",
"service nip96"
],
[
"client",
"Primal Web"
]
],
"content": "https://blossom.primal.net/2e2dc7253f02e286b7a64697386934fc1b617be199d7017df2b2a294182156e3.jpg\n\nEvery band I have known eventually has the same argument about the door money.\n\nThe bar pays a cut of ticket sales. The band splits it. Then somebody proposes taking ten percent off the top for the sound engineer, because when the sound is good everybody plays better and the room comes back. What follows is never a debate about sound engineering. It is a debate about who is now getting paid less, and whether they keep showing up.\n\nNetworks have this argument too, and the technical costume hides how ordinary it is.\n\nHere is the setup. In Bitcoin, whoever seals the next page of the shared record gets paid two ways: new coins the system creates for that page, called the subsidy, and the fees people attach to their payments. The subsidy is the larger piece today and it is cut in half roughly every four years by design. Right now it is 3.125 coins per page. In under two years it becomes half of that. Eventually it runs out and only fees are left.\n\nThat schedule guarantees a recurring conversation. Every so often somebody proposes carving a slice off the reward for something worthy: a development fund, a research budget, a treasury. The proposal arrives dressed in mechanism. Percentages. Governance procedures.\n\nMy claim is that you should read it in the other order. A redirection is a distributional question first. Ask who receives less, and ask what those people stop doing once they receive less. Then look at the mechanism. Doing it the other way around is how a room full of smart people spends six months arguing about a percentage and never once counts who walked out.\n\nHere is the argument I have the most trouble answering. Some work will not get funded by anybody acting alone. Code review, testing, the boring maintenance nobody wants to sponsor. That is a coordination problem, and voluntary funding has a thin record wherever it has been tried. Waving every proposal away as distributional is a way of never solving it. If the work stops, the people who kept their full share end up worse off too.\n\nWhat would change my mind: a redirection that funds real work for several years with no measurable drop in the security it was paying for, and no visible exit by the people whose income fell.\n\nUntil somebody shows me that, I read all of these the same way. Follow the pay cut first. The mechanism can wait.\n\nif this gave you a way to read the next proposal, Zap ⚡",
"sig": "4a7c84be0b93443cd904e8eeb1385d48ee4a12fcab02927a03ccc89ae5f779f7b81474227368fb9e197d9d89c6a7cc4e28b9cc2087e67ced1c4c9412e682a619"
}