Specific waterfall percentages, Franchise distribution formulas, R&D pool governance, free-rider treatment.
Why this matters
Entry 004 commits the principle: a transparent revenue waterfall — infrastructure, R&D pool, Franchise distribution, then excess governed by Need-vs-Greed. Entry 036 then settles the two-layer architecture: network canonical pages carry ads into a network fund that must cover all network expenses on its own before anything is pulled from communities; communities carry their own ads into their own treasury, which the network draws a percentage from only as a backstop; and a revolving slush fund seeds new communities with repayable advances. The specifics still need design and constitutional drafting:
- Specific percentages at each waterfall stage
- Whether Franchise distribution is uniform or proportional (by traffic, contributor count, or some other signal)
- The community-pull mechanism: how the backstop percentage is sized dynamically as costs and usage shift, and the trigger threshold (the recalculation engine)
- The cost-overhead allocation model that feeds that recalculation
- Free-rider question: should a Franchise that also runs no membership/sponsorship still receive Network distribution
- R&D pool governance — Council-only? Community proposals? Annual budget?