Hi Piotr,

Thanks a lot for inviting me to this discussion and I will gladly share my point of view about it.

sustainability

I totally agree with you that it's important to get less dependent of the whales that support the project but I think that the authors should have a bigger piece of the pie in it.

That would only mean, that we will be stuck to 200k HP and growing this account will be very slow.

I believe that if you cover the costs with 200k, you will cover the costs also with a bigger amount. It's a question of percentages so I believe it should be scalable but probably you have a better picture of it :-)

I would like to voice a critical consideration of this project to also get a different prespective to it

50/50 split

With 1 million HP upvote, this would translate in a vote value of about 10$. This would be additional to all the other votes that may come in. 50% of these 10$ will go away as curation rewards, which leaves about 5$ author rewards. From these 5$ 50% would go away as beneficiary rewards to ph-fund. This leaves 2.5$ worth upvote that stays in the pocket of the author.

However the 50% beneficiary rewards would also apply to all the other upvotes that a post would get.

In Addition to ph-support we would get upvotes of around 3-5$ from project-hope and curation trail. This means we would reach a total post value of around 15$. The author would get around 3.75$ of it.

When I look at it this way I see a disbalance. Ph-fund would get around 5$ from curation rewards (50% of the upvote value). In addition it would get 3.75$ from beneficiary rewards. So ph-fund would make about 8.75$ from the post and the author only 3.75$. Even if the author would earn more like that than with a normal post, I can't help to think that it is not really a fair split.

This is in a situation where ph-fund operates with 1 mln HP and if the whole account is used to give the upvotes. The return for the author will be caped at around 4$ per post. If ph-fund operates with a smaller amount, then the return of the post will be smaller for the author.

Another solution, grow together

Everybody can give out leases on dlease and it would be an idea to ask members of project.hope to give delegations at a lower interests level. You could give a 10% return on leases and ask project hope members to fill them. The costs would be lower and the return would go in the pockets of project.hope members. We would be able to capture a bigger part of the inflation. At the same time we could keep beneficiary rewards at 30%. The authors would have a bigger part of the pie and would be able to grow faster and in return delegate again to project.hope. This would allow an organic growth where a big part of the inflation is kept among us and growing constantly.

This got a bit long :-)