Discussion of EIP-3267

The discussion was moved https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/discussion-of-eip-3267/5343 - please don't reply here anymore.

1. Complete the smart contract audit for SalaryWithDAO and DefaultDAOInterface, which has already been paid for. 2. Once the audit is complete, deploy these contracts along with a DAOstack DAO that controls the `DefaultDAOInterface` using voting tokens initially distributed through community consensus, and establish an oracle ID using the `SalaryWithDAO` API. 3. Conduct an audit and deploy the [DonateETH](https://github.com/vporton/donations/blob/main/contracts/DonateETH.sol) contract to redirect ETH payments to this oracle as well.

= More on security considerations The security considerations are: - The contract audit of `SalaryWithDAO` and of `DefaultDAOInterface` was paid for. But the re-audit would be good for such a drastic change. - `DonateETH` also needs to be audited. - The value of wrapped ETH transferred to `SalaryWithDAO` may happen to decrease with time (despite that this EIP itself and some others aim to increase ETH value), so (as it were told to be discussed in a separate EIP) need to consider alternative DeFi schemes than simply wrapping ETH in ERC-1155. - Future Salaries system is expected to create big unfounded bubbles of somebody's personal tokens. This problem seems inevitable, but the existing problems this EIP aims to solve are much worse. - The DAO may switch to a non-effective or biased way of voting (for example to being controlled by one human) thus distributing funds unfairly. This problem could be solved by a future fork of Ethereum that would "confiscate" funds from the DAO.

= Exteded motivation There are two motivations: 1. It provides a big amount of "money" to common good producers. That obviously personally benefits common good producers, allowing them to live better human lives, it increases peoples' and organizations' both abilities and incentives to produce common goods. That benefits the humanity as a whole and the Ethereum ecosystem in particular. In my opinion (Victor Porton), this is crucial for survival of mankind because of the following reasons: a. Suppose an important scientific discovery was wrongly published and because of the wide-spread "no-republication of already published" scientific ethic it may become that there will be nothing in the mankind what would make this discovery to enter into scientific databases and/or raise reasonably high in search engines result pages. This would effectively mean that a part of science is missing in human knowledge (it could be rediscovered but not re-published due to the above described reasons). A missing part of the science would make the entire science development stuck. So, mankind would become unable to resist exestential problems (like climate change or asteroid impact) and likely die completely in near future. b. There is no other known (already discovered) economical incentive to finance climate actions than this proposal. So if this proposal won't be accepted, we are unable to resist climate change. You may assume that humanity has a way to overcome these problems and you are right: a way is this EIP. 2. This would effectively decrease circulating ETH supply. The necessity to decrease the (circulating) ETH supply (by locking ETH in Future Salaries system for a long time) is a well-known important things to be done. > For a multi-asset smart contract platform to function as a store of value, proper incentives must be put in place to align in the growth in value of a network's assets with its underlying security. Or put another way, the platform's native token must be a good value capture of the platform's aggregate asset value. If the intrinsic value of a platform's native token is limited to transaction fee payment, its value would be determined solely by transaction demand, instead of the demand of asset storage. (https://github.com/nervosnetwork/rfcs/blob/master/rfcs/0001-positioning/0001-positioning.md) In other words, we need to measure the ETH "real" value. This EIP proposes to allocate *much* (it probably may be more than 90%) of miner's ETH fees to Future Salaries contract. So the cost of ETH will be associated with the real ("job") value of the conditional tokens of this contract. So, this proposal partly solves both the well-known problems of - decreasing (ciculating) ETH supply - making ETH cost proportionally increasing when tokens' value increases (in other word incresing the ETH intristic value) As the above mentioned RFC explains, it is good for miners/validators, because: - It reduces manipulation incentives such as selfish mining - It highly increases the security of the Ethereum network - It increases the ETH intristic value, so miners/validators spend less on energy per amount of money earned. - There is the danger (https://github.com/nervosnetwork/rfcs/blob/master/rfcs/0001-positioning/0001-positioning.md) that without radical measures like this proposal the value of ETH (not of Ethereum tokens) will become zero in some future, so greatly downshifting miners/validators.