A new protocol-level funding programme is being discussed in the ITA community with the aim of creating more stable sources of funding for public goods, infrastructure and research projects. Designed as a proposal, the certificationer may decide whether to allocate a portion of the pledge incentive for ecological construction up to a maximum of 10 per cent.

More than 51 per cent of support is implemented on a web-based basis

The programme, entitled “Validator Redirected Revue”, was proposed by Clement Lesaege, a researcher in the Ether. According to the proposal, the problem of “free-riding” persists in the Taifeng: many projects provide value for the network as a whole, but few sustain the support.

It is envisaged that the certifier may vote on the transfer ratio or choose to maintain 0%. Once more than 51 per cent of certifiers support the non-zero ratio, the eventually selected rate will no longer be a voluntary option but will be applied uniformly to all certifiers.

Funding sources do not involve growth

The proponents of the proposal argued that the pressure for financing public projects for the development and ecology of the Taifung core was rising, while the certifying officers themselves had the incentive to support the expansion of the network. As chain activity increases, the demand for ETH may rise and the amount of destruction may increase, thus affecting the overall value of the pledged assets.

  • Current pledge size is approximately 35 million to 40 million ETH
  • The annual pledge is about 700,000 ETH
  • If 5 to 10 per cent is transferred, the annual funding scale is approximately 50,000 to 70,000 ETH

The proposal estimates that, if 5 to 10 per cent of the incentives are transferred to the ecological support pool, approximately 50,000 to 70,000 ETHs could be provided each year to support the development of the Ether Workshop without the need for new tokens.

The certifier will also decide where to go.

In addition to deciding on the transfer ratio, the certifier will express his preference for the recipient of the funds. The proposal plans to consolidate these options through a “splitter” contract and then automatically allocate funds to the counterpart project or organization.

The authors would like to make this mechanism a relatively simplified long-term arrangement, reducing the burden on the certifying officers to participate in the financing of voting on a case-by-case basis, and allowing them to continue to support ecological projects after a set-up.

The programme is still at the stage of discussion and has not yet entered the formal EIP process. The author states that the next step will depend on community feedback.