I think this would be difficult to implement from a technical perspective.
So, they don’t give us the small players a % back for our deposits even if we don’t have ANY chance of winning this damn game, but, you want to give 2% for charity? What is the point? Does your money grow on trees? not jking… see no point.
I would not be for that neither
yeah thats fair, maybe my point was not thought out very well. donating to a list of orgs is maybe a bad a idea.
However, being a gitcoin grant contributor has shown huge benefits - not to mention the visibility you get as a project. Donating to projects on gitcoin grants specifically helps grow the underlying technology that the dapp is built in on - that is beneficial for everyone - I see that as a better option. If this proposal is to go forward in any way… just a suggestion on the idea of this proposal - I would totally agree if the community shot this down as you are right @DontMakeWar - money does not grow on trees…
i see donating to gitcoin grants as a calculated risk as far as return goes - so many retroactive airdrops, etc for supporting the ecosystem - who knows what will come of having your contributions on the chain when ethereum has really solved some of the scaling problems and is infiltrating multiple industries around the world. anyways, just my thoughts.
I also love this. The more we offer similarities to “real-world” counterparts the easier it is for PoolTogether too be understood by outsiders (not unlike me a few months ago).
I think maybe instead of it coming from the prize pools though, maybe it comes from a portion of the interest earned from the proposed reserve. At least at first. That way new members don’t feel like their prize is getting “stolen” from them?
the gitcoin contribution is a better idea than the charity contribution
I really think that we all should receive a small part just for keeping our contribution. I mean, having my tickets with a low chance of winning is making those big whales win even more, because they fit the chances of winning. What I’m really trying to expose is that earned capital (from interests) should be more divided into community, doesn’t matter if you win the game or not. You should receive a part, because you’re making others win too, even with low chances of winning, sometimes even a joke.
I also like and agree about the git contribution part, part of another division as I said.
You automatically receive POOL for holding a deposit which is much more valuable than any interest.
Which in my case, total POOL isn’t even valuable for 0.10 USD. And even the case that it would be more valuable, I’d use it to vote for proposals. I think you are misunderstanding the utility of POOL token.
So, I think the POOL token actually does serve the purpose you looking for. If you saved $1000 in a regular savings account you’d be accruing… maybe $0.20 a year. as of right now you’d easily accrue at least 1 pool a year (honestly, much more at the current POOL APY) which is about $19 USD.
If you want to use that to govern you can, or if you want to sell it you would get the value from participating in the Pool without having won any of the lotteries. I know it’s not the same thing as getting straight up money, but in some ways it could be potentially even more valuable than a simple %. Admittedly, it could end up being even less valuable, but that’s part of the risk in Crypto, right?
At the end of the day you have still managed to save some money in an account and not touched it, You’ve earned some “interest”/participation winnings in the form of a sellable POOL token, and—obviously— potentially winning a lottery.
I like it in theory but I think it is fraught with issues because the lottery is global in nature. How are you going to pick a charity or charities. And if you say put it up for a vote that really risks not being meaningful either as a handful of users will hold sway UNLESS it is one user, one vote. Even then I struggle to see how you narrow down the charity choices.
I think we’d have to have the community come together and find charities to support. Toss them all in a big multiple choice poll and then rotate through them. We’d also need to review that list to add new ones as needed, and remove ones that may fizzle out of existence. There’s certainly some overhead to this item.
I like how you guys say “potentially winning a lottery” when actually the reality is that you need lots of dollars to be able to win DAI’s lottery. (Check history of winners).
It’s like a bad joke, pure marketing that sounds good when reality is another totally different. I do still like the project but I find that prizes should be at 1:1 winning ratio, or even decreasing the ratio, setting a maximum ratio, etc… doesn’t matter how much you deposit. This wouldn’t be unfair as like you say, the more you deposit, the more that you generate in interest.
In other words, separate what the lottery is, making it fair, from the “staking protocol”. Until then, I will not and can’t recommend this application to any of my friends, not everyone in this world is rich and thinking that we all are, is stupidity at its maximum expression. This has converted into a WhaleGame, like it or not.
I have not seen Spendless before - looks cool!
I also like this, but perhaps we could start smaller. there could be a certain cap before it works out or we have a real big TVL. Done quarterly - given to a different project every quarter. I probably have minuscule chance of winning, haven’t won and I’ve been on Pool for over 2 years. But the idea that some of my compounded money goes to charity is a good feeling overall apart from winning anything if I do.
I would fully support this idea.
Although, I can see from the different posts that there is a lot of negative feelings around the fact of giving out money that doesn’t grow on trees… And maybe the issue lies there. I don’t think that lotteries are for poor people only, and most national lotteries I know of, give back a huge chunk of their benefits to charities or scientific research. It’s a mechanism to give hope of huge gains on one side and to fund initiatives on the other side (I’m speaking of European lotteries, as these are state managed and are not meant to make profit).
I see three ways forward to this:
Create a funding mechanism at protocol level, either by using the reserve pool and dedicating part of the reserve to fund a pool fully dedicated to charity (e.g.: 5% to reserve, x% of that reserve automatically goes to a ‘charity pool’, payout timing to the charity would then need to be decided upon);
Same as above, but we make use of existing mechanism and the x% taken out from the reserve are automatically sent to Spendless (which is really an amazing project that I had never heard of).
We create a pool fully dedicated to charity. This would avoid having people complaining that their potential gains are given out.
I would totally be in favour of a fully charity dedicated pool, where ALL interests go to a charity, or a pool of charities (to stay thematic).
NB: a bit off-topic, but UNICEF has launched a cryptocurrency fund that invests back in blockchain startups that use blockchain for good. They obviously accept cryptos as donations and everything is transparent (here: https://cryptofund.unicef.io/)
Another idea would be to donate to an organization like CoinCenter. Or some other organization that fights for the fair treatment of cryptoassets by governments/regulators.
These guys are doing God’s work and definitely deserve support.
Boa tarde! Concordo com isso. E gostaria que a instituição a receber, ficasse a cargo de cada ganhador, indicar.
Now that we have evolved into V4, I’d like to open this discussion back up based on the delegating feature that comes with V4. After reading this discussion, I have no solution for what happens after a wallet is funded with money aimed at donating to a charity. Those caveats still exist, but, I’d like to propose a deviation from the initial proposal here of 2% (or any amount) being deducted from the prize pool in an attempt to donate it to a charity chose by the PT people.
Instead, a wallet could be created (and controlled by PT inc-multisig?) With a base deposit… say 5$…from the treasury (big spender hehe). That wallet would need to be easily identified by the public…maybe it’s registered with an ENS domain or the public address is posted on the main UI. From there, users could delegate any amount they want for as long as they want whenever they want to the charity wallet. Overtime this wallet collects winnings, and after a certain epoch (say 59 days to avoid claim drops) the multi-sig claims, withdraws, and donates.
This wallet may end up not winning anything, or maybe our community is more giving than we think. Either way, I can’t imagine this being too technically difficult to do.