So far, here is one plan to decentralize biblepays foundation (and provide transparency for decentralized orphan sponsorships):
- Modify governance to allow a vote to Add or Delete an orphan. An orphan would consist of 'Orphanid, Charity, Name, URL, Amount, Date Added, (and possibly gender and age but some orphanages frown on providing the gender and age - due to child trafficking regs). When the vote succeeds we will actually store the orphan in the chain.
- Modify governance to allow adding or deleting a charity. A charity is the Charity Name and the BBP Send to Address.
- Add an engine that is smart enough to allocate funds to a charity based on percentages of costs per sponsored orphan.
- Add a decentralized relay to bbp for the charity. This means that BBP would automatically pay the stored charity the funds received for the month. It would do this because we would make the global giving address a burn address, and the monthly governance payout a payment contract. This would mean no human would actually be involved in the collection or dispursement to the charity!
- When a charity BBP address changes, the sancs would vote to delete a charity then add a charity (this would edit the record).
- Add a feature to list the children to the RPC, so that people will be encouraged to sponsor children who are waiting.
- The system would be smart enough to handle excess children (for example our SAI children are being paid for right now monthly -- but are not yet sponsored by a user).
- We would have a separate donation address for 'whale matches'. The system would be smart enough to tally and allocate whale matches also, to reduce the price of sponsorships.
This would theoretically make us into a true DAC also.
Does this feature sound like something that would propel us to the forefront, and make us more trustworthy for Binance charity and Coinbase to donate to us?
We will definitely cover the scenarios where someone donates a LOT, or a Little:
So far the baby plan for 'A lot' is this:
- Donald Trump donates 50MM BBP for no reason to the actual orphan donation address (not the whale match address). What would happen is due to the engine rules, is each registered charity would receive their excess payment based on the percentages and we would notify Cameroon for example, to add children (we can do this up front). We can tell orphanages if you receive too much, add children for us. Then that month we would add children to the portfolio using the governance system.
- Too little:
Over time we would vote to reduce our portfolio. In the interim, our orphanages would receive less than enough to cover the monthly expenses.
AUDITING:
We could offer a quarterly bounty to audit the orphan collage. I would like to see a PDF report for our investors that summarizes the portfolio once per quarter. I dont mind paying 2-3 MM for this in the beginning, until we can afford to pay for it out of the governance budget again. I think this would be a nice report to post occasionally! Even bi-annually would be sufficient, I think to earn trust. Would anyone like to take on the first one for 2020? Ill add a bounty for 4MM for the first one.
EXAMPLE USAGE:
Once the system is in prod, it would be advertised like this:
Give to BIBLEPAY today, and automatically sponsor an orphan:
Send 100,000 BBP to NNNNNNN and sponsor an orphan for 30 days!
Send 1MM to NNNNN and sponsor an orphan for a year!
Send 1MM to ZZZZZZ and become a matching whale, which lowers the cost of orphan sponsorships for everyone else!
Your donation will be show in our RPC report, and its impact as a percentage of our monthly sponsorships!
See our orphan collage here:
(This report would pull dynamically from BBP data, then construct its collage. The other reports can pull from BBP core also). This would make them all dynamic.
FAQ:
Q: What makes a DAC any better than plain vanilla governance?
A: With a DAC, we don't need to manually liquidate the monthly donations (leaving a point of failure between BBP operations and the trusted individual who collects the funds). Even with a multi-sig scenario we would have a bottleneck with 2-3 individuals appointed to the post. Also, in the scenario where we had Compassion and BLOOM, we had to manually allocate the USD and forward these liquidations over to two more people. I believe with an automated DAC, trust will increase because we will place the impetus of processing the payment directly on the third party charity. If a charity fails, it will be a public spectacle and BBP will sadly need to delete that charity and vote in a new charity. It would also give us more transparency, as the children would be in the chain, then we could write more detailed reports. No one will forget to run the monthly individual processes and pieces required to run a charity or enter the accounting records into multiple systems.
4300 BBP