Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Annual Value Increase: Difference between revisions
Reframe as draft Open Call: remove the 5% figure (illustration withdrawn), add rounds/multiplier rationale, ExpertIntro + TOC + anchors (Theo audio 2026-07-03) |
Enrich: multiplier more relevant than added percentage, prudent bond analogy (Theo point 15) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{KidsIntro|Maybe one day, rewards could slowly grow a little each year, like a savings jar. Nobody has decided yet. The team plans to ask everyone through an Open Call: people will send ideas and studies, and then a choice will be made.}} | {{KidsIntro|Maybe one day, rewards could slowly grow a little each year, like a savings jar. Nobody has decided yet. The team plans to ask everyone through an Open Call: people will send ideas and studies, and then a choice will be made.}} | ||
{{ExpertIntro|A possible annual percentage increase on rewards is under study. No percentage is decided; figures mentioned in earlier drafts were only illustrations and are withdrawn. The question is planned as a dedicated Open Call (draft, not yet launched) that would collect proposals and scientific and economic analyses of its positive and negative impacts. The topic gains relevance over the funding rounds, since the bonding curve multiplier is intended to decrease round after round.}} | {{ExpertIntro|A possible annual percentage increase on rewards is under study. No percentage is decided; figures mentioned in earlier drafts were only illustrations and are withdrawn. The multiplier is considered more relevant than an added percentage on the reward only. The question is planned as a dedicated Open Call (draft, not yet launched) that would collect proposals and scientific and economic analyses of its positive and negative impacts. The topic gains relevance over the funding rounds, since the bonding curve multiplier is intended to decrease round after round.}} | ||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
* It is not decided whether it would be implemented at all. | * It is not decided whether it would be implemented at all. | ||
* No percentage is defined. Figures mentioned in earlier drafts were only illustrations and are withdrawn. | * No percentage is defined. Figures mentioned in earlier drafts were only illustrations and are withdrawn. | ||
<span id="multiplier"></span> | |||
== The multiplier matters more than the percentage == | |||
In this model, '''the multiplier is more relevant than an added percentage on the reward only''': the bonding curve multiplier, applied at donation time, is what mainly shapes the potential reward; an annual percentage would only be a secondary adjustment on top of it. | |||
If it were adopted, the interest would be to create a stable commitment, in some ways comparable to a stable state bond, but issued by the worldwide community of online commerce users. This would create a new interest group at the international level: the actors of online commerce. As everywhere in this model, this remains a donation-based, non-speculative mechanism, with no guarantee: rewards remain potential ceilings, paid only from real subscription income. | |||
<span id="open-call"></span> | <span id="open-call"></span> | ||