Welcome to the forums.
You’re right, Reuben would like the community to have an attachment to the project. I think there are plenty of members of the community that would also have such hopes. There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, most of the communities in crypto have attachments to their projects. I’d argue that it is often necessary for a community to have such intentions - a common goal, a mutual interest, and a camaraderie amongst each other - in order to function. So I don’t think that is naive, and I would say that people with this in mind are on the right track.
As for the mining, contrary to your argument - this is expected from the miners. We expect miners to seek profit. We expect miners to sell. Reuben has expressed this over and over again. We expect miners to move from coin to coin for whichever suits them best. We expect miners to sell in order to make a profit or to cover overhead. This has been repeatedly stated and expressed. So no, Reuben is not angry about that. He is disappointed that miners consolidate the hash on one pool which can jeopardize the project, yes, and this is not too big of an ask. Even Monero was at risk of such a thing and their community stepped up and their miners moved pools in order to protect the project. This clearly shows it is well within reason to ask our miners to distribute their hash in order to protect the project.
Certainly, people are involved in crypto due to money. The whole intention of crypto is to be money. This is to be expected. Clearly, miners and MN holders are seeking money - whether it be to make a profit, or to use said crypto as the money it was intended for. This isn’t even the argument at hand. The point of the tokenomics was to introduce the community fund. Our current block reward is used up. In order to create the community fund, we need to take rewards from one area to add to the community fund. MNs are our primary security. Mining is backup, but their only real job currently is running the blockchain. MNs are used for numerous jobs. Based on this, logically, we are overpaying for the security from miners. The amounts that are available to vote from were all conjured up by the community. The argument is not that making money is bad.
I am unsure how you got “more block rewards should go to the dev team” considering that we have stated repeatedly in the original thread, in this thread, in our Firo Twitter Spaces, etc that our intentions are not to increase the dev fund. In fact, we have said no to the suggestion to increase the dev fund repeatedly. The dev fund was determined by the community in the first place. If you’re going to come to your conclusions contradictory to evidence or what is being said I don’t think I can make an argument.
Well, the name “dev team” sorta describes itself. Development. You can see work that has been done, and what is being pursued on our roadmap: Roadmap | Firo - Privacy-preserving cryptocurrency and if you can navigate it and all you can check out the GitHub: GitHub - firoorg/firo: The privacy-focused cryptocurrency
The dev fund was determined by the community in order to fund the core team. At the next halving, it can be determined again whether or not the community wants to maintain it. It is agreed that centralization is an issue - the core team could be targeted in order to get at the project. This is actually the exact reason why the community fund was proposed in the first place. The intention is to assist the community by providing funding for the community to fund various items and slowly phase out the dev fund.
I have to admit, I find it particularly amusing that you claim you don’t know or understand what the dev fund is for, what the core team does, or what the intentions of the community fund are for, but are pro-eliminating both. “I don’t know what the cable does, but I’m gonna cut it. Yolo.”
