Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: WeTube - Initial economic model - programmers and thinkers - the great winners  (Read 1276 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline liberman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile

UPDATE

We are separating Wetube from Bitcloud, which is the protocol.

The economic model is here:

https://github.com/wetube/bitcloud/blob/master/economic-model.org

The protocol is here:

https://github.com/wetube/bitcloud/blob/master/bitcloud.org#introduction

Our forum is here:

http://talk.bitcloudproject.org/




Programmers - the great initial winners

In you have read something about economics of Bitcoins, DACs and the approach of Invictus Innovations, all of them are based in the concept of mining. This has some advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages of mining:

• You attract a lot of investors and other people interested in your idea. You only have to see the impressive success of Protoshares and how thousands of people got involved into it the first week.

• People worry about your project and encourage the adoption of it.

However, it has also serious disadvantages:

• Real workers are not motivated to do any programming, so you must centralize this task and put money of your own to overcome it in the form of bounties. This is ironic, as you pursue decentralization but you obtain the contrary: centralization of human resources, at great cost.

• Many criminals mine virtually for free, using botnets, a form of virus that steal computer power from infected computers of innocents. They obtain at least 1000 more shares this way than an individual. And solutions to end up this are not clear nor efficient.

It is my opinion that a DAC of this characteristics should not be driven by the greed of eventual hackers. It is also my opinion that the persons who do most of the efforts should be the initial shareholders of this company, just like it happens in the real world. Do you imagine Steve Jobs doing what he did knowing that he had only 0.0001% of the company he just created? No, he had a good share because he took the risks and has the ideas (it is irrelevant if after some years he sold them).

So I propose something that would not like very much to speculators, but certainly will motivate programmers and serious investors to do serious work here.

My proposition is to centralize the capital in a group of programmers EXACTLY ONLY for the INITIAL phase of the project until we have the first alpha released to the world. I mean: the initial shares of the company are equally distributed to the programmers, only in function of the amount of code/art/documentation they write manually. We can debate how amounts are measured. And, after the release of the software, the company becomes COMPLETELY, without exception, DECENTRALIZED. This is the equivalent of the actual way in which most companies start: first it comes the idea, then comes the partners who do the initial work, and then, if the company has succeed, it goes to the stock market.

This way, the programmers will obtain their part with justice, their work will be rapidly rewarded once the system if fully functional, in the form of dividends. And because they obtain a good part of it, this project should become very primordial in their minds. They should be very motivated to maintain the source code in the future because they have a proper share that they don't want to drop in value.

Compare this with a programmer who has been paid a simple bounty. S/he would have no further motivation to maintain it.

My proposition is to form a democratic virtual cooperative of programmers in which everybody who contributes can share her/his ideas, with the compromise to obtain their shares one day before the launch and then become investors. After that moment, WeTube DAC will be maintained by its workers (artists, moderators, clients and servers), but the programmers will still have the important role and motivation of maintaining the software itself.

Because I know that there are people who want to invest but don't have any skills to contribute, we can also create a ProtoMediaShares, similar to what Protoshares is, that could be converted to WeTube DAC's shares at the launch, at some proportion. We are open to this proposition if we still give programmers something like 3/4 of the total initial shares. But some shares could be given to miners-only with a moral condition: please promote WeTube!

Our intention to develop this initial political system is precisely to encourage the initial decentralization of human resources, which are the most valuable of them all, and without them we can only fail and give power to people who don't really want to get involved but just get rich without having to do nothing. Think about this question: would you give shares of your company to someone who steals money from someone else? He will steal from you when he find the proper moment, too.

After the initial share partition upon programmers (and probably some miners that act as promoters), people can invest in the usual ways for WeTube: by serving, by uploading content, by moderating, or just by buying shares in the Bitshares market.

How do we know when to do the partition for the programmers and become fully decentralized? Very simple: when we start to operate and receive the first clients, so we are forced to become a BitAsset and operate on Bitshares market. This comes exactly at the same time that the first alpha release happens, the same time at which the original block of our block-chain is released. From there on, WeTube DAC is fully decentralized an it is on its own. :)

And what part of the stock do we reserve for programmers and miners? I propose 10% for programmers and 2.5% for miners. The 87.5% left is reserved for workers to be earn slowly once the system starts running. 10% is really a lot if we consider that this DAC could become the next YouTube. Imagine you do about 10% of the programming, that would give you 1% of the total shares that WeTube will ever have, which would convert you in a millionaire in some years.

So please consider yourself all this matter. This is a serious business we have here, and a real opportunity.

UPDATE FROM HERE

Managers / marketers / modelers

A project of this size/repercussion, cannot go far without thinkers. Every single area of this DAC needs delicate analysis and modeling.

In the traditional structure of a company, you normally have departments and directors. Directors mandate a way of working and ensure that everybody is working in the correct direction. This imposes a hierarchy. And we don't want that. We want freedom, voluntarism, and a way to compensate everybody only in function of their work. We would like this DAC to be flat and auto managed.

But, let me be very clear on this: while we want full freedom, we also need proper analysis and direction. So, how to achieve both?

I have this idea, that I hope everybody can agree with. I call it distributed management, where everybody can become a manager, and where real experts can obtain their proper retribution with their thinking. They will not receive more or less money than programmers, instead they will work together to model the necessary political details. Many times, but not all the times, one will be both a manager and a programmer, which is fantastic!

Every manager has the important task to model the details of the protocols and characteristics of the system. Some examples of different areas that require management:

• p2p protocol modelers, to ensure privacy and performance. This is the core of WeTube, and the most important task.

• Marketing, or how to encourage adoption of the system, while maintaining the delicate balance between profit and user enthusiasm. This department is mainly about the business model.

• Economists and currency experts in charge of MediaCoin, working together with marketing guys.

• Legal advisers. Their analysis are vital to avoid legal issues.

• Social thinkers, whose task is to think about the interface behavior and net-inter-relations between users and/or moderators.

• Programmer's coordinators. Very important to ensure communication and the application of ideas.

• Spokesmen, doing conferences/videos to promote the system.

• Moderators, to avoid abuses (for example, someone tries to write very redundantly or write code in an unnatural way to augment the number of lines).

• And general coordination, in charge of the original idea, trying to put everything together. I will assume this task, but will obtain the shares in the same proportion and conditions as the rest.

Every area may require several managers/thinkers.

So I propose that managers can get their shares in the system by writing papers, and their retribution will be in proportion on how much they need to write. Every manager should write one or more papers with a detailed analysis of the needs, and a suggested model to achieve the objectives. Then, this paper is passed to programmers and they implement the ideas. At the same time, a programmer can work with the manager to propose changes, or the programmer him/herself can become a manager if that area is empty or the actual manager is not competent/open minded enough. In case of severe conflict, a meeting will take place with the rest of the team, and we'll decide together by consensus.

Shares will be paid in the moment of the launch, so rejected writings of previous modifications will not count. I suggest that everybody will obtain their shares in proportion to the number of lines s/he wrote, the same that happens with programmers. In case of graphics/drawings, we could agree that they cost something like 20 lines each. More if they are logos.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 02:03:16 PM by liberman »

Offline bytemaster

Re: WeTube - Initial economic model - programmers - the great winners
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2013, 07:33:10 PM »
We agree with your assessment and this is why we started DAC angels.  We are still working out the details but will publish something soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline phoenix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Re: WeTube - Initial economic model - programmers - the great winners
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2013, 08:01:36 PM »
The problem I see with this is that there's no incentive for new programmers to join the project after you launch it. Perhaps you should include a way to create bounties for the programming work that needs to happen after the launch. This way a new programmer would have incentive to contribute to this project.
Protoshares: Pg5EhSZEXHFjdFUzpxJbm91UtA54iUuDvt
Bitmessage: BM-NBrGi2V3BZ8REnJM7FPxUjjkQp7V5D28

Offline liberman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: WeTube - Initial economic model - programmers - the great winners
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2013, 09:01:57 PM »
The problem I see with this is that there's no incentive for new programmers to join the project after you launch it. Perhaps you should include a way to create bounties for the programming work that needs to happen after the launch. This way a new programmer would have incentive to contribute to this project.

Well... there is the same incentive that there is for any open source project, plus the incentive to want the program to behave better, because you may have shares.
Take for example Bitcoin, nobody pays the programmers, but I'm pretty sure they have a bunch of bitcoins in their pockets, so they are interested on improving it.
The more valuable Bitcoin is, the more you are interested. The same will happen with WeTube for sure.

Offline liberman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: WeTube - Initial economic model - programmers - the great winners
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2013, 09:10:12 PM »
We agree with your assessment and this is why we started DAC angels.  We are still working out the details but will publish something soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Too much to do and so little time we have...
That is why we should incentive the open source spirit and make these projects attractive for programmers.

Offline devilfish

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Re: WeTube - Initial economic model - programmers - the great winners
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2013, 11:52:31 PM »
I don't like the idea of centralising anything at any point especially programmers because the group could ultimately be held liable for the actions of the DAC.

As you say a coder may only be holding 0.0001% of a stock and there is no motivation for them to program, however if they really think it's a good idea then they can invest in the protoshares and gain a bigger stake. If they truly believe in the idea they will feel that the cost of buying a stake will result in a profit for them. If the price of the shares has risen out of their range this would probably suggest that there has been major progress within the DAC community and coders are already at work on final products.

The DAC coding should be looked at as a community process just like any open source project, hundreds of people contributing to the one source code to come to a final end. The more coders working the less each coder will need to do (in theory...practice is another thing which would assume all code is commented correctly and in a way that can be understood by all).

Ultimately I feel the issues you are raising are ones that a final DAC will have to handle but I don't think centralising the ownership to the developers of the software is a good idea if we want to eliminate liability and regulation.
BTC: 1MqCxQ2qD7ZuS3ELFY43wfaBTbA2XkYwDP
PTS: PiuFEJHz6zScALgPWzcu2SDKtWJW4cnUFi
XPM: Af5qzgsEwWaHZdGUq8dUoHkhmH4XBmnGW9

Offline liberman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: WeTube - Initial economic model - programmers - the great winners
« Reply #6 on: November 28, 2013, 12:26:37 AM »
I don't like the idea of centralising anything at any point especially programmers because the group could ultimately be held liable for the actions of the DAC.

As you say a coder may only be holding 0.0001% of a stock and there is no motivation for them to program, however if they really think it's a good idea then they can invest in the protoshares and gain a bigger stake. If they truly believe in the idea they will feel that the cost of buying a stake will result in a profit for them. If the price of the shares has risen out of their range this would probably suggest that there has been major progress within the DAC community and coders are already at work on final products.

The DAC coding should be looked at as a community process just like any open source project, hundreds of people contributing to the one source code to come to a final end. The more coders working the less each coder will need to do (in theory...practice is another thing which would assume all code is commented correctly and in a way that can be understood by all).

Ultimately I feel the issues you are raising are ones that a final DAC will have to handle but I don't think centralising the ownership to the developers of the software is a good idea if we want to eliminate liability and regulation.

Partition can be in private, and anyway, they can transfer their shares to many other accounts just after they receive them.

Offline devilfish

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Re: WeTube - Initial economic model - programmers - the great winners
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2013, 03:44:51 AM »
Partition can be in private, and anyway, they can transfer their shares to many other accounts just after they receive them.

No, no it cannot, a DAC can't have any secrets...pretty big rule you'd be violating there buddy.
BTC: 1MqCxQ2qD7ZuS3ELFY43wfaBTbA2XkYwDP
PTS: PiuFEJHz6zScALgPWzcu2SDKtWJW4cnUFi
XPM: Af5qzgsEwWaHZdGUq8dUoHkhmH4XBmnGW9

Offline fuzzy

Re: WeTube - Initial economic model - programmers - the great winners
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2013, 12:22:52 PM »
Yerp.  No secrets.  That certainly is a pretty big deal.  A good video contest would be a good start to bring in quality content imo...

Looking forward to seeing how you guys move forward with this.  :)
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline liberman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: WeTube - Initial economic model - programmers - the great winners
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2013, 01:58:41 PM »
Ok, you are right.
So I'm thinking another way, which is just separating MediaCoin from Wetube itself.
MediaCoin will be another virtual currency like Bitcoin, and WeTube is just a platform that uses it. There could be many other platforms.
MadiaCoin could represent the price of bandwidth propagation, which is the equivalent to the services of internet routers. Nobody accuses ISPs for what their users do, specially if they use encryption and cannot know what the user is doing. When the prosecutors want to find illegal activities, they go to those serving illegal content, not for the routers/ISPs. If they do so, then they should shut down Cisco and many other router services/companies. For example, they don't go against Tor nodes and your ISP, but against end hidden servers and users.

If you know about law, please read this and help us to design WeTube better:

http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1046.msg12451#msg12451

Offline bytemaster

Re: WeTube - Initial economic model - programmers - the great winners
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2013, 05:03:49 PM »
Most users would prefer to use a known coin to pay for services.  How would the WeTube service compete against a clone that switched to Bitcoin from WeCoin?
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline liberman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: WeTube - Initial economic model - programmers - the great winners
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2013, 05:59:46 PM »
Most users would prefer to use a known coin to pay for services.  How would the WeTube service compete against a clone that switched to Bitcoin from WeCoin?

We need our own coin because money supply should be generated by bandwidth sharing and moderation services.
The interface will contain a wallet and a simple exchange interface, where sellers/buyers freely interchange bitcoins and wecoins with automatic escrow. An interface to bitshares is on your charge, as I think wetube should be a Bitasset.
Even more, we can work together to make a bitshares interface for the browser, and with the same codebase you can build bitshares for the web, while we just have to include a simplistic version in our user interface.
I'm thinking to open a new thread also for Keyhotee. The more I think this, the more I realize that Keyhotee should be implemented as a browser extension, with strong security in mind (to avoid scams). I have many ideas on this regard that we can share.

Read what I'm writing the next days, I'm having many explosive ideas.  ;)

Offline liberman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: WeTube - Initial economic model - programmers - the great winners
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2013, 09:17:00 PM »
Quote
It is also my opinion that the persons who do most of the efforts should be the initial shareholders of this company, just like it happens in the real world. Do you imagine Steve Jobs doing what he did knowing that he had only 0.0001% of the company he just created? No, he had a good share because he took the risks and has the ideas (it is irrelevant if after some years he sold them).
...
So I propose something that would not like very much to speculators, but certainly will motivate programmers and serius investors to do serius work here.
...
Because I know that there are people who want to invest but don't have any skills to contribute, we can also create a ProtoMediaShares, similar to what Protoshares is, that could be converted to WeTube DAC's shares at the launch, at some proportion. We are open to this proposition if we still give programmers something like 3/4 of the total initial shares. But some shares could be given to miners-only with a moral condition: please promote WeTube!
...
And what part of the stock do we reserve for programmers and miners? I propose 10% for programmers and 2.5% for miners. The 87.5% left is reserved for workers to be earn slowly once the system starts running. 10% is really a lot if we consider that this DAC could become the next Youtube.

Here is some innovative proto-DAC thinking that deserves to be highlighted outside its home thread.  I'd like to see more discussion about "acceptable" ways to motivate and enable more developers to develop more DACs.  After all, we as ProtoShareholders now have a vested interest in seeing lots of high-quality DACs fielded and backed by strong teams of developers willing and able to see them through to stand-alone autonomous operation.

Proto-DACs would seem to be a way to attract DAC-specific investors and developers the same way ProtoShares attracts global visionaries and industry leaders.

Stan,
What is this?  :o
You edited my message and removed parts of it?

Offline liberman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
UPDATE: including managers/thinkers/modelers

Please go up to read more.

Offline bytemaster

Re: WeTube - Initial economic model - programmers - the great winners
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2013, 10:01:14 PM »
Quote
It is also my opinion that the persons who do most of the efforts should be the initial shareholders of this company, just like it happens in the real world. Do you imagine Steve Jobs doing what he did knowing that he had only 0.0001% of the company he just created? No, he had a good share because he took the risks and has the ideas (it is irrelevant if after some years he sold them).
...
So I propose something that would not like very much to speculators, but certainly will motivate programmers and serius investors to do serius work here.
...
Because I know that there are people who want to invest but don't have any skills to contribute, we can also create a ProtoMediaShares, similar to what Protoshares is, that could be converted to WeTube DAC's shares at the launch, at some proportion. We are open to this proposition if we still give programmers something like 3/4 of the total initial shares. But some shares could be given to miners-only with a moral condition: please promote WeTube!
...
And what part of the stock do we reserve for programmers and miners? I propose 10% for programmers and 2.5% for miners. The 87.5% left is reserved for workers to be earn slowly once the system starts running. 10% is really a lot if we consider that this DAC could become the next Youtube.

Here is some innovative proto-DAC thinking that deserves to be highlighted outside its home thread.  I'd like to see more discussion about "acceptable" ways to motivate and enable more developers to develop more DACs.  After all, we as ProtoShareholders now have a vested interest in seeing lots of high-quality DACs fielded and backed by strong teams of developers willing and able to see them through to stand-alone autonomous operation.

Proto-DACs would seem to be a way to attract DAC-specific investors and developers the same way ProtoShares attracts global visionaries and industry leaders.

Stan,
What is this?  :o
You edited my message and removed parts of it?

I think the forum needs to be updated so that admins/mods don't accidentally click modify when they mean to click quote or reply.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

 

Google+