While the proposed system does have foreseeable benefits, it’s a pretty radical shift from the decentralized nature of democratic voting, with a lot of additional moving parts that could prove to cause more problems than they solve.
Currently, we have a system where anyone has the ability to prove their worth via contributions and earn votes. ICONists are the one’s who have the ultimate say in what’s best for the ecosystem by delegating, and moving their votes (ICX) to the delegates of their choice, as it should be.
The proposed CPF system, on the other hand leans too much on the side of centralization by essentially moving the majority of rewards, and stripping block production rewards from elected block producers to a centralized fund that will be controlled by a few select entities. The top 22 P-Reps.
I think it’s safe to say, being that ICON Foundation holds majority of votes (17% to be exact). More than 10 times of some of the other P-Reps in the Top 22. They alone will have the majority of sway when it comes to approving or rejecting grants. A very centralized system that incentivizes the formation of “cartels”.
Here are some suggestions for adjustments to gain our approval:
CPF: The contribution proposal fund would be an amazing idea if it were to be implemented as a peripheral project funding system.
All P-Reps in the Top 100 would need to contribute a percentage of their rewards to CPF.
Reduce the number going to CPF ~20-30% (depending if you’re s Sub P-Rep, Main P-Rep etc.)
Block production rewards need to go to block producers. This is important.
That way we would still have an environment that promotes grants without completely neutering the Top 22’s ability to work on their own proposed initiatives and projects i.e Consensus 2020 which was a decentralized group effort by top P-Reps without any assistance from the foundation.
With a little bit of adjustments, I truly believe we can have the best of both worlds.