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: I3, open innovation and (de-)centralization of BA. A contructive discussion.  (Read 1933 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile

I am grateful for Adam's proposal which encouraged discussion and clarification. Any discussion is good if it is not taken personally. Having business development in such an open form like within this forum is a game changer in terms of transparency but also a challenge as people have to change their perspectives a bit:
(1) You can not expect the ready made products like you can expect with closed development
(2) It is natural that proposals, time tables and other plans are not perfect because they are in development
(3) The community which is involved in this open development has to lower its need for unified consensus because everything is discussed openly and it is impossible that all agree.
Having to lower expectations for a uniform consensus doesn't mean to give up on it. The opposite is true. The most effective way is to acknowledge the valid points other's make and emphasize the consensus and the dissent alike. If people expect full consensus or expect to always get approval of their proposals everyone tends to highlight the dissent. This is a challenge for everyone's character and part of the bigger process of shaking of the total guidance of individuals by society/by an outside force. This is what societies had to learn when "democracy" / freedom of speech was introduced to the political realm (this challenge is not that present in the US because the US had more or less always freedom of speech (at least compared to European monarchies...). A discussion culture that allows to efficiently work together in the presence of dissent might be something that has to be learned within businesses that have open development and community involvement.

This doesn't mean I3 can not improve on their communication with the community and on involving the community (!) and might be well adviced to not develope everything openly to not disappoint people. Overall though open development might have some positive implications for efficiency. I wrote about this here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3099.msg39175#msg39175

I could not agree more with Stan on that all is a balance and that if one thing is perfect a lot of others would be inferior. So one of these conflicting oppositions CAN BE open development (as described above with its ad- and disadvantages) and leadership / effective decision making; less of an opposition though if people acknowledge the realities of open development (see above). I think it is a fact (correct me on that if applicable) that I3 produces decentralized solutions as a centralized entity. Altough I3 is being driven by community contributions/discussions a lot more than any centralized entity I can think of; the Bitcoin Foundation and all (?) altcoin developers are also a centralized entities; a centralised entity is an entity making decisions finally by their own judgement rather than having a fully democratic stakeholder vote on every decision.

Decentralization is a huge buzz word within the crypto community and for a good reason as it is a central part of the consensus/blockchain technology. The decentralization part is not what makes the consensus technology more efficient, it makes it trustless. With the goal of getting to the best DACs as fast as possible we have the same trade off again. If you opt for complete trustlessness you opt for a free DAC market like we have it right now (the altcoin market with a lot of pointless DACs. I am not making the point of abolishing this market!!). A less trustless and less democratic solution is to give someone control over your funds which has a better judgement than the average investor (and possible also a better judgement than yourself) plus can make use of the donations to offer legal consulting and his own technical consulting (by employing developers that make everyday development tasks which gives him time for technical consulting in the case of I3 / Daniel) and other services which have to be purchased just once or are relatively easily reproducible plus will actively attracted DAC proposals and non crypto players to get consulting. This of course is not a political decision that is forced on the market as a whole. Anybody can contribute funds (AGS/PTS in our case) if he trusts the model described above.

There are ad- and disadvantages of the (de)centralisation of decision making in terms of efficiency:
[Application in mind for the following description: Deciding which DAC proposals qualifies for I3 consulting/support. A totally centralized model regarding regarding judgement would be: I3 decides. A totally decentralized model would be: Stakeholders decide depending on their stake size. But this is transferable to all decisions made regarding the utilization of AGS]
The advantages of centralized decision making are:
(1) An individual or group with an understanding of the matter that is above the stakeholder group average can be chosen by the majority.
(2) The individual/committee can go through the material more in depth than every single stakeholder could by himself. If all stakeholders would go through the material with the same depth the system as a whole would consume a lot of time. More likely is that the whole group would research the topic less in depth which results in a lower quality of decisions.
The disadvantages of centralisation of decision power in terms of efficiency are:
(1) Many different perspectives are a plus for making a good decision.
(2) You have to trust the individual / commitee to not run away with your donations, put into their own pockets or get hammered the night before the shark tank event etc.

Overall the decision whether to opt for more trustlessness respectively control of your stakeholdervote or for more efficiency depends on the application and whether interests are aligned.  I am not proposing that one thing is better than another by default. But for our case I think having I3 decide how to utilize AGS donations is in the best interest of all. Although there would  lots of room for the ulilization of skills and efforts comming from the community. But WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HERE is a discussion that is aware of the trade of character of a lot of things.

A DIFFERENT MODEL FOR ACCESSING DACs than the shark tank model would be to have a community vote by stake size where stakeholders can vote or not vote. A yes is a vote for the DAC being incutated, a no is a vote against the DAC being incubated. A "not vote" is not a no but is given as a vote to either I3 / Daniel or a group that would be elected by all stakeholders (could be I3 again if that is the vote). I actually think the shark tank model is better but this could be an add on for daily business as opposed to the event character of the shark tank model. The shark tank model also creates publicity which is a plus. The partly stakeholder voting system would encourage discussion which in return could also help I3.

I would like to encourage everyone to discuss this without being biased just by seeing the word centralization not having a negative connotation. Centralization and decentralization should not be a fashion and not a goal in itself. Decentralization as a goal in itself would be highly missleading and dangerous to the degree that it prevents people from thinking THEMSELFES about the mechanics of things which again lets others exploit those mechanics. Two examples (reading through it again I see these examples are not perfect but also not totally bad): MMC advertised its DAC/coin through "decentralizing business administration decisions" which surely sucked some people in that believed in decentralization as an end in itself applicable to every problem. An opposing example is: Any charismatic leader that advertised the centralization of power, culture and worldview as a goal in itself. Those ends in itself (ideologies) give you a warm feeling because it is simplifying the judgement of the world and it frees you from thinking on your own but it is dangerous. I am not saying that either the MMC creator or some charismatic leader acts knowing that it won't work. Regarding the MMC example: I didnt look into it too closely and decentralising decision power might even work depending on a lot of things. The point I wanted to make with this example is that judging on whether (de)centralization is a good idea or not solely because society which produces fashions and 'narratives that are a solution to EVERY problem' tells you so is missleading and possibly dangerous.

I value Adam highly as a member of this community and believe and hope he keeps contributing under the the conditions of open development. Again I think I3's decision making is far more open to comunity contribution than others. The solution is TO KEEP ON STRIVING FOR UNITY AND COLLABORATIVE CONTRIBUTION ACCEPTING YOU WILL NEVER REACH TOTAL CONSENSUS OR TOTAL ACCEPTENCE OF YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS.

love and peace :) 

*BA in the title is Business Administration
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 07:42:13 PM by delulo »

Offline toast

A DIFFERENT MODEL FOR ACCESSING DACs than the shark tank model would be to have a community vote by stake size where stakeholders can vote or not vote. A vote is a yes for the DAC, a no is a vote against the DAC. A "not vote" is not a no but is given as a vote to either I3 / Daniel or a group that would be elected by all stakeholders. I actually think the shark tank model is better but this could be an add on for daily business as opposed to the event character of the shark tank model. The shark tank model also creates publicity which is a plus.

One point here: "voting" by "stake size"... you mean donating money? The whole point of the 80% "free" is for DAC developers to do whatever they want, including collect money outside of AGS.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
A DIFFERENT MODEL FOR ACCESSING DACs than the shark tank model would be to have a community vote by stake size where stakeholders can vote or not vote. A vote is a yes for the DAC, a no is a vote against the DAC. A "not vote" is not a no but is given as a vote to either I3 / Daniel or a group that would be elected by all stakeholders. I actually think the shark tank model is better but this could be an add on for daily business as opposed to the event character of the shark tank model. The shark tank model also creates publicity which is a plus.

One point here: "voting" by "stake size"... you mean donating money? The whole point of the 80% "free" is for DAC developers to do whatever they want, including collect money outside of AGS.

What I meant was: You have as many votes as you have stake. One vote one stakeholder doesnt work because one PTS/AGS address doenst equal one stakeholder.
By "accessing DACs" I meant choosing which DAC should get the incubator support of I3 when honoring AGS/PTS (the same goal as the shark tank competition).
 

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2865
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BTS: Stan
I am grateful for Adam's proposal which encouraged discussion and clarification. Any discussion is good if it is not taken personally. Having business development in such an open form like within this forum is a game changer in terms of transparency but also a challenge as people have to change their perspectives a bit:
(1) You can not expect the ready made products like you can expect with closed development
(2) It is natural that proposals, time tables and other plans are not perfect because they are in development
(3) People have to lower their need for consensus/unity because everything is discussed openly and it is impossible that all agree.
Having to lower expectations for a uniform consensus doesn't mean to give up on it. The opposite is true. The most effective way is to acknowledge the valid points others make and emphasize the consensus and the dissent alike. If people expect full consensus or expect to always get approval of their proposals everyone tends to highlight the dissent. This is a challenge for everyones character and part of the process of shaking of the total guidance of individuals by society/by an outside force. This is what societies had to learn when "democracy" / freedom of speech was introduced to the political realm (this challenge is not that present in the US because the US had more or less always freedom of speech (at least compared to European monarchies...). A discussion culture that allows to efficiently work together in the presence of dissent might be something that has to be learned within businesses that have open development and community involvement.

This doesn't mean I3 can not improve on their communication with the community and on involving the community (!) and might be well adviced to not develope everything openly to not disappoint people. Overall though open development might have some positive implications for efficiency. I wrote about this here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3099.msg39175#msg39175

I could not agree more with Stan on that it all is a balance and that if one thing is perfect a lot of others would be inferior. So one of these conflicting oppositions CAN BE open development (as described above with its ad- and disadvantages) and leadership / effective decision making; less though if people acknowledge the realities of open development. I think it is a fact (correct me on that if applicable) that I3 produces decentralized solutions as a centralized entity. Altough I3 is being driven by community contributions/discussions a lot more than any centralized entity I can think of; the Bitcoin Foundation and all (?) altcoin developers are also a centralized entities; a centralised entity is an entity making decisions finally by their own judgement rather than having a fully democratic stakeholder vote on every decision.

Decentralization is a huge buzz word within the crypto community and for a good reason as it is a central part of the consensus/blockchain technology. The decentralization part is not what makes the consensus technology more efficient, it makes it trustless. With the goal of getting to the best DACs as fast as possible we have the same trade off again. If you opt for complete trustlessness you opt for a free DAC market like we have it right now (the altcoin market with a lot of pointless DACs. I am not making to point to abolish this market!!). A less trustless and less democratic solution is to give someone control over your funds which has a better judgement than the average investor plus can make use of the donations to offer legal consulting and his own technical consulting (by employing developers that make everyday development tasks that give time for technical consulting in the case of I3 / Daniel) and other services which have to be purchased just once or are relatively easily reproducible plus will actively attracted DAC proposals and non crypto players to get consulting. This of course is not a political decision that is forced on the market as a whole. Anybody can contribute funds if he trusts the model described above.

There are ad- and disadvantages of (de)centralisation of decision making in terms of efficiency:
The advantage of centralized decision making is: An individual or group with an understanding of the matter that is above the group average can be chosen by the majority. Second advantage: The individual/group can go through the material more in depth than every single stakeholder could by himself. If all voters / the whole group would go through the material with the same depth the system as a whole would consume a lot of time. More likely is that the whole group would research the topic less in depth which results in a lower quality of decisions.
The disadvantage of centralisation in terms of efficiency is: Many different perspectives are a big plus for making a good decision. You have to trust the individual / group to not run away with your donations or get hammered the night before the shark tank event etc.
Overall the decision whether to opt for more trustlessness respectively control of your stake/vote or for more efficiency depends on the application and whether interests are aligned. I am not proposing that one thing is better than another! WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HERE is a discussion that is aware of the trade of character of a lot of things.

A DIFFERENT MODEL FOR ACCESSING DACs than the shark tank model would be to have a community vote by stake size where stakeholders can vote or not vote. A vote is a yes for the DAC, a no is a vote against the DAC. A "not vote" is not a no but is given as a vote to either I3 / Daniel or a group that would be elected by all stakeholders. I actually think the shark tank model is better but this could be an add on for daily business as opposed to the event character of the shark tank model. The shark tank model also creates publicity which is a plus.

I would like to encourage everyone to discuss this without being biased just by seeing the word centralization not having a negative connotation. Centralization and decentralization should not be a fashion and not a goal in itself. This would be highly missleading and dangerous to the degree that it prevents people from thinking THEMSELFES about the mechanics of things which again lets others exploit those mechanics. Two examples: MMC advertised its DAC/coin through "decentralizing business administration decisions" which surely sucked some people in that believed in decentralization as an end in itself applicable to every problem. An opposing example is: Any charismatic leader that advertised the centralization of power, culture and worldview as a goal in itself. Those ends in itself (ideologies) give you a warm feeling because it is simplifying the judgement of the world and it frees you from thinking on your own but it is dangerous. I am not saying that either the MMC creator or some charismatic leader acts knowing that it won't work. It doesn't matter.

I value Adam highly as a member of this community and believe and hope he keeps contributing under the the conditions of open development. Again I think I3's decision making is far more open to comunity contribution than others. The solution is TO KEEP ON STRIVING FOR UNITY AND COLLABORATIVE CONTRIBUTION ACCEPTING YOU WILL NEVER REACH TOTAL CONSENSUS OR TOTAL ACCEPTENCE OF YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS.

love and peace :) 

*BA in the title is Business Administration

"Blessed are the peace makers..."

 :)

Also, great points about the purpose of decentralization.

Decentralization is for immunity from corruption by seduction or coercion.
We want the Invictus movement and its products to be decentralized for this primary reason.

But centralization in engineering design and management - anything that requires optimization of a system or process - is necessary to achieve that optimality.   One person or small team has to get it all inside their heads and then make careful tradeoffs.

Just look at all the classic jokes about products designed by committee!


« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 07:53:40 PM by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline unimercio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 245
  • The opportunity of a lifetime comes by every 7 day
    • View Profile
    • Conscious Entrepreneurship Foundation (CEF)
  • BTS: unimercio
I am grateful for Adam's proposal which encouraged discussion and clarification. Any discussion is good if it is not taken personally. Having business development in such an open form like within this forum is a game changer in terms of transparency but also a challenge as people have to change their perspectives a bit:
(1) You can not expect the ready made products like you can expect with closed development
(2) It is natural that proposals, time tables and other plans are not perfect because they are in development
(3) People have to lower their need for consensus/unity because everything is discussed openly and it is impossible that all agree.
Having to lower expectations for a uniform consensus doesn't mean to give up on it. The opposite is true. The most effective way is to acknowledge the valid points others make and emphasize the consensus and the dissent alike. If people expect full consensus or expect to always get approval of their proposals everyone tends to highlight the dissent. This is a challenge for everyones character and part of the process of shaking of the total guidance of individuals by society/by an outside force. This is what societies had to learn when "democracy" / freedom of speech was introduced to the political realm (this challenge is not that present in the US because the US had more or less always freedom of speech (at least compared to European monarchies...). A discussion culture that allows to efficiently work together in the presence of dissent might be something that has to be learned within businesses that have open development and community involvement.

This doesn't mean I3 can not improve on their communication with the community and on involving the community (!) and might be well adviced to not develope everything openly to not disappoint people. Overall though open development might have some positive implications for efficiency. I wrote about this here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3099.msg39175#msg39175

I could not agree more with Stan on that it all is a balance and that if one thing is perfect a lot of others would be inferior. So one of these conflicting oppositions CAN BE open development (as described above with its ad- and disadvantages) and leadership / effective decision making; less though if people acknowledge the realities of open development. I think it is a fact (correct me on that if applicable) that I3 produces decentralized solutions as a centralized entity. Altough I3 is being driven by community contributions/discussions a lot more than any centralized entity I can think of; the Bitcoin Foundation and all (?) altcoin developers are also a centralized entities; a centralised entity is an entity making decisions finally by their own judgement rather than having a fully democratic stakeholder vote on every decision.

Decentralization is a huge buzz word within the crypto community and for a good reason as it is a central part of the consensus/blockchain technology. The decentralization part is not what makes the consensus technology more efficient, it makes it trustless. With the goal of getting to the best DACs as fast as possible we have the same trade off again. If you opt for complete trustlessness you opt for a free DAC market like we have it right now (the altcoin market with a lot of pointless DACs. I am not making to point to abolish this market!!). A less trustless and less democratic solution is to give someone control over your funds which has a better judgement than the average investor plus can make use of the donations to offer legal consulting and his own technical consulting (by employing developers that make everyday development tasks that give time for technical consulting in the case of I3 / Daniel) and other services which have to be purchased just once or are relatively easily reproducible plus will actively attracted DAC proposals and non crypto players to get consulting. This of course is not a political decision that is forced on the market as a whole. Anybody can contribute funds if he trusts the model described above.

There are ad- and disadvantages of (de)centralisation of decision making in terms of efficiency:
The advantage of centralized decision making is: An individual or group with an understanding of the matter that is above the group average can be chosen by the majority. Second advantage: The individual/group can go through the material more in depth than every single stakeholder could by himself. If all voters / the whole group would go through the material with the same depth the system as a whole would consume a lot of time. More likely is that the whole group would research the topic less in depth which results in a lower quality of decisions.
The disadvantage of centralisation in terms of efficiency is: Many different perspectives are a big plus for making a good decision. You have to trust the individual / group to not run away with your donations or get hammered the night before the shark tank event etc.
Overall the decision whether to opt for more trustlessness respectively control of your stake/vote or for more efficiency depends on the application and whether interests are aligned. I am not proposing that one thing is better than another! WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HERE is a discussion that is aware of the trade of character of a lot of things.

A DIFFERENT MODEL FOR ACCESSING DACs than the shark tank model would be to have a community vote by stake size where stakeholders can vote or not vote. A vote is a yes for the DAC, a no is a vote against the DAC. A "not vote" is not a no but is given as a vote to either I3 / Daniel or a group that would be elected by all stakeholders. I actually think the shark tank model is better but this could be an add on for daily business as opposed to the event character of the shark tank model. The shark tank model also creates publicity which is a plus.

I would like to encourage everyone to discuss this without being biased just by seeing the word centralization not having a negative connotation. Centralization and decentralization should not be a fashion and not a goal in itself. This would be highly missleading and dangerous to the degree that it prevents people from thinking THEMSELFES about the mechanics of things which again lets others exploit those mechanics. Two examples: MMC advertised its DAC/coin through "decentralizing business administration decisions" which surely sucked some people in that believed in decentralization as an end in itself applicable to every problem. An opposing example is: Any charismatic leader that advertised the centralization of power, culture and worldview as a goal in itself. Those ends in itself (ideologies) give you a warm feeling because it is simplifying the judgement of the world and it frees you from thinking on your own but it is dangerous. I am not saying that either the MMC creator or some charismatic leader acts knowing that it won't work. It doesn't matter.

I value Adam highly as a member of this community and believe and hope he keeps contributing under the the conditions of open development. Again I think I3's decision making is far more open to comunity contribution than others. The solution is TO KEEP ON STRIVING FOR UNITY AND COLLABORATIVE CONTRIBUTION ACCEPTING YOU WILL NEVER REACH TOTAL CONSENSUS OR TOTAL ACCEPTENCE OF YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS.

love and peace :) 

*BA in the title is Business Administration

"Blessed are the peace makers..."

 :)

Also, great points about the purpose of decentralization.

Decentralization is for immunity from corruption by seduction or coercion.
We want the Invictus movement and its products to be decentralized for this primary reason.

But centralization in engineering design and management - anything that requires optimization of a system or process - is necessary to achieve that optimality.   One person or small team has to get it all inside their heads and then make careful tradeoffs.

Just look at all the classic jokes about products designed by committee!


 +5% +5% Both you and Stan or spot on..

Management/design by committee is fine for projects with much narrower scope. BitShares is a revolution, revolutions are spawned by visionaries, run by dictators or decree. 

The shortest/fastest path to market in a project of this scope takes a leap of faith in the visionary and architect(s). I suspect once the foundation is built, code libraries, sample DACs, tutorials, etc.. the application development community will come out in droves and the games will begin.
Conscious Entrepreneurship Foundation (CEF)

Offline bytemaster

Great post and I would like to make the following simple explanation of how I view things:

1) The Free Market is Ultimate Decentralization
2) All DAC development teams that can convince the community of their good ideas can raise all the money they require.
3) Those who gave to AGS trusted our team.   These funds are not community property to be voted on... the vote was in giving us the money up front.  It was a vote of confidence in us, and not in any particular idea.   If we were to defer our judgment to the crowd then we would be shirking our responsibility to make judgments. 

Because AGS and PTS is not the only way to compete in this market and there are many other teams out there for people to fund: ethereum, Nxt, Ripple, Bitcoin Foundation, Barwizi, etc there is no reason to allocate our funds by voting.   As I have stated clearly many places in the forum, I do not believe that voting is a fair way to allocate capital.   I am also against the idea of shared funds in general because it destroys the property rights of minority share holders. 

So the proper way to view decentralization is to look at the market as a whole.   Any reasonable DAC idea must convince the market to succeed and attempts to substitute convincing the market with convincing Invictus or even a majority of AGS shareholders is to take shortcuts that will undermine the necessary due diligence of the market.

For example, I have people come to me all the time asking me to give them large shares of the AGS funds to develop their DAC.   They may be able to convince me they are trustworthy, but how can I know?   Why should I fund any DAC that I believe is inferior to ones I have in my queue? 

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 CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2610
    • View Profile
  • BTS: clains
Any reasonable DAC idea must convince the market to succeed and attempts to substitute convincing the market with convincing Invictus or even a majority of AGS shareholders is to take shortcuts that will undermine the necessary due diligence of the market.

They may be able to convince me they are trustworthy, but how can I know?   Why should I fund any DAC that I believe is inferior to ones I have in my queue?

On the flipside, why should a reasonable DAC idea that convinces more people than Invictus and the majority of AGS holders allocate 20%+? AGS/PTS holders + Invictus should act as optimal VC's. When the overall market has already decided that their idea is viable they will value their DAC idea higher and give us an equivalent lower stake (for a higher price) in their DAC. Optimal VC's capitalize on their superior insight into the idea they invest in; they see before the overall market that it's worth investing in. You are the optimal VC in this space.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2014, 10:21:04 PM by CLains »
Vote for BTS-2 witness: spectral (1.6.30)

Follow https://steemit.com/@clains

Online oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
Quote
2) All DAC development teams that can convince the community of their good ideas can raise all the money they require.
Please explain : How they will raise the money ? Put an address and raise more money from the community ? If the idea is that good why they should go to all that trouble of raising money  in this small community instead going on a much more bigger community in bitcointalk ? I mean both community know the crypto world  why a DAC developer not go directly there ? In top of that they should give 20 % AGS/PTS
Clains post try to answer some of the questions : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3481.0 but besides the shark tank competition most of the point could be done by bitcointalk community too.
We need to have a very clear answer to those questions. Barwizi was a developer for some bounty of Invictus and a investor in AGS(I think) so he understood very well the vision of 3I but even himself did't see why honor 10/10 to AGS/PTS holder, when he created Noirshares.
Shark Tank competition may help  but I think this is not the optimal solution for everybody. Should be a better way to attract developers. Why not brainstorm the forum ? we may find something.

Quote
For example, I have people come to me all the time asking me to give them large shares of the AGS funds to develop their DAC.   They may be able to convince me they are trustworthy, but how can I know?

This is easy you don't pay them in advance. You pay them when they proof their work all along the development of the DAC so no need to trust them. They get money when they show you the advancement of their work.

I wrote some ideas here : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3491.0 . I guess it is in line with "The free market is Ultimate Decentralization" too. 
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 04:09:37 AM by oco101 »

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2865
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BTS: Stan
Quote
2) All DAC development teams that can convince the community of their good ideas can raise all the money they require.
Please explain : How they will raise the money ? Put an address and raise more money from the community ? If the idea is that good why they should go to all that trouble of raising money  in this small community instead going on a much more bigger community in bitcointalk ? I mean both community know the crypto world  why a DAC developer not go directly there ? In top of that they should give 20 % AGS/PTS
Clains post try to answer some of the questions : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3481.0 but besides the shark tank competition most of the point could be done by bitcointalk community too.
We need to have a very clear answer to those questions. Barwizi was a developer for some bounty of Invictus and a investor in AGS(I think) so he understood very well the vision of 3I but even himself did't see why honor 10/10 to AGS/PTS holder, when he created Noirshares.
Shark Tank competition may help  but I think this is not the optimal solution for everybody. Should be a better way to attract developers. Why not brainstorm the forum ? we may find something.

Quote
For example, I have people come to me all the time asking me to give them large shares of the AGS funds to develop their DAC.   They may be able to convince me they are trustworthy, but how can I know?

This is easy you don't pay them in advance. You pay them when they proof their work all along the development of the DAC so no need to trust them. They get money when they show you the advancement of their work.

I wrote some ideas here : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3491.0 . I guess it is in line with "The free market is Ultimate Decentralization" too.

I don't think this will remain a small community.
Once several BitShares-branded DACs have succeeded, the consensus will become increasingly strong.
The value of joining will grow.
Until then we will hand-negotiate those best-of-breed deals and work with those that do share the vision.
That will be plenty rewarding to keep things growing until we reach the necessary network effect critical mass:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8RCQDDsMpU

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Online oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
Quote
2) All DAC development teams that can convince the community of their good ideas can raise all the money they require.
Please explain : How they will raise the money ? Put an address and raise more money from the community ? If the idea is that good why they should go to all that trouble of raising money  in this small community instead going on a much more bigger community in bitcointalk ? I mean both community know the crypto world  why a DAC developer not go directly there ? In top of that they should give 20 % AGS/PTS
Clains post try to answer some of the questions : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3481.0 but besides the shark tank competition most of the point could be done by bitcointalk community too.
We need to have a very clear answer to those questions. Barwizi was a developer for some bounty of Invictus and a investor in AGS(I think) so he understood very well the vision of 3I but even himself did't see why honor 10/10 to AGS/PTS holder, when he created Noirshares.
Shark Tank competition may help  but I think this is not the optimal solution for everybody. Should be a better way to attract developers. Why not brainstorm the forum ? we may find something.

Quote
For example, I have people come to me all the time asking me to give them large shares of the AGS funds to develop their DAC.   They may be able to convince me they are trustworthy, but how can I know?

This is easy you don't pay them in advance. You pay them when they proof their work all along the development of the DAC so no need to trust them. They get money when they show you the advancement of their work.

I wrote some ideas here : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3491.0 . I guess it is in line with "The free market is Ultimate Decentralization" too.

I don't think this will remain a small community.
Once several BitShares-branded DACs have succeeded, the consensus will become increasingly strong.
The value of joining will grow.
Until then we will hand-negotiate those best-of-breed deals and work with those that do share the vision.
That will be plenty rewarding to keep things growing until we reach the necessary network effect critical mass:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8RCQDDsMpU

Fair enough !!! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D88HMQF8W_4
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 07:06:13 AM by oco101 »

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Any reasonable DAC idea must convince the market to succeed and attempts to substitute convincing the market with convincing Invictus or even a majority of AGS shareholders is to take shortcuts that will undermine the necessary due diligence of the market.

They may be able to convince me they are trustworthy, but how can I know?   Why should I fund any DAC that I believe is inferior to ones I have in my queue?

On the flipside, why should a reasonable DAC idea that convinces more people than Invictus and the majority of AGS holders allocate 20%+? AGS/PTS holders + Invictus should act as optimal VC's. When the overall market has already decided that their idea is viable they will value their DAC idea higher and give us an equivalent lower stake (for a higher price) in their DAC. Optimal VC's capitalize on their superior insight into the idea they invest in; they see before the overall market that it's worth investing in. You are the optimal VC in this space.

Agree. Insight is naturally limited beacuse I am not having to make BM decisions. But whether is DAC is supported by III should depend on the ratio of [how much does it coist to sopport the DAC team in terms of III/BM time, money, marketing ressources] to [how much value increase will it bring to AGS/PTS]. That a DAC is worth less in its prospects than other DACs planed by III should not be an exclusion criterion. If the developers can work mostly by themselfs and need little money and the DAC has some value it would add value to AGS/PTS.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2610
    • View Profile
  • BTS: clains
Market Solution

Give the community incentives to gain Invictus.

How?

1. Make a Propose Bounty section.
2. The community will give feedback, and Invictus will decide if it goes active.
3. When claimed, give 5% of the prize to the person who submitted the Bounty.

Now people will readily propose bounties that gain Invictus.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 03:02:06 PM by CLains »
Vote for BTS-2 witness: spectral (1.6.30)

Follow https://steemit.com/@clains

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Market Solution

Give the community incentives to gain Invictus.

How?

1. Make a Propose Bounty section.
2. The community will give feedback, and Invictus will decide if it goes active.
3. When claimed, give 5% of the prize to the person who submitted the Bounty.

Now people will readily propose bounties that gain Invictus.
+5%

Offline jae208

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
    • View Profile
Great post and I would like to make the following simple explanation of how I view things:

1) The Free Market is Ultimate Decentralization
2) All DAC development teams that can convince the community of their good ideas can raise all the money they require.
3) Those who gave to AGS trusted our team.   These funds are not community property to be voted on... the vote was in giving us the money up front.  It was a vote of confidence in us, and not in any particular idea.   If we were to defer our judgment to the crowd then we would be shirking our responsibility to make judgments. 

+5% I know that Adam suggested setting some AGS funds aside and having a multi sig address or something but I personally disagree with that suggestion and agree with you instead. Those who funded the AGS addresses did so because they were casting a vote of confidence in you and your team. I can only speak for myself but perhaps others may agree with this.


Because AGS and PTS is not the only way to compete in this market and there are many other teams out there for people to fund: ethereum, Nxt, Ripple, Bitcoin Foundation, Barwizi, etc there is no reason to allocate our funds by voting.   As I have stated clearly many places in the forum, I do not believe that voting is a fair way to allocate capital.   I am also against the idea of shared funds in general because it destroys the property rights of minority share holders. 

So the proper way to view decentralization is to look at the market as a whole.   Any reasonable DAC idea must convince the market to succeed and attempts to substitute convincing the market with convincing Invictus or even a majority of AGS shareholders is to take shortcuts that will undermine the necessary due diligence of the market.

For example, I have people come to me all the time asking me to give them large shares of the AGS funds to develop their DAC.   They may be able to convince me they are trustworthy, but how can I know?   Why should I fund any DAC that I believe is inferior to ones I have in my queue?

You also shouldn't just give them large shares of AGS because AGS holders don't want AGS to be used ineficiently.
http://bitsharestutorials.com A work in progress
Subscribe to the Youtube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/BitsharesTutorials

Offline jae208

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
    • View Profile
Quote
2) All DAC development teams that can convince the community of their good ideas can raise all the money they require.
Please explain : How they will raise the money ? Put an address and raise more money from the community ? If the idea is that good why they should go to all that trouble of raising money  in this small community instead going on a much more bigger community in bitcointalk ? I mean both community know the crypto world  why a DAC developer not go directly there ? In top of that they should give 20 % AGS/PTS
Clains post try to answer some of the questions : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3481.0 but besides the shark tank competition most of the point could be done by bitcointalk community too.
We need to have a very clear answer to those questions. Barwizi was a developer for some bounty of Invictus and a investor in AGS(I think) so he understood very well the vision of 3I but even himself did't see why honor 10/10 to AGS/PTS holder, when he created Noirshares.
Shark Tank competition may help  but I think this is not the optimal solution for everybody. Should be a better way to attract developers. Why not brainstorm the forum ? we may find something.

Quote
For example, I have people come to me all the time asking me to give them large shares of the AGS funds to develop their DAC.   They may be able to convince me they are trustworthy, but how can I know?

This is easy you don't pay them in advance. You pay them when they proof their work all along the development of the DAC so no need to trust them. They get money when they show you the advancement of their work.

I wrote some ideas here : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3491.0 . I guess it is in line with "The free market is Ultimate Decentralization" too.

This may be a small community at the moment but only because it consists of people with a more visionary mind. The people of Bitcointalk are mostly miners so they probably wouldn't even see much value in the long term potential of Bitshares or even Mastercoin.

I think its better to pay someone for developing a better DAC that honors PTS/AGS AFTER they have generated a profitable DAC that has been in business for a few months minimum. Well if future DACS don't honor PTS/AGS they won't grow much and they simply will be known as clones just like all the Bitcoin clones you see on coinmarketcap that are pretty much worthless and on the verge of extinction.
http://bitsharestutorials.com A work in progress
Subscribe to the Youtube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/BitsharesTutorials

 

Google+