Poll

Of which incentive models do you approve?

Ongoing funding through share dilution (Subscription model)
11 (17.5%)
Ongoing funding through transaction fees (Free to play model)
20 (31.7%)
Startup funding through donations or IPO (Kickstarter/IPO model)
15 (23.8%)
Unfunded volunteer driven development (Initial Bitcoin model (AFAIK...))
5 (7.9%)
Peripheral business driven development (Ubuntu model)
8 (12.7%)
None of these options can work.  Only forced taxation enables infrastructure. ("ROADS!" model)
1 (1.6%)
Other (please incite lively debate below)
1 (1.6%)
EDIT1: Preallocated/limited "dilution" gradually distributed through delegates.
2 (3.2%)
EDIT1: Unlimited possible dilution at discretion of delegates. (Total final supply = infinity)
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 24

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: DAC development incentive models  (Read 1007 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
DAC development incentive models
« on: July 03, 2014, 11:31:49 PM »

Many of these can coexist, so you can approve multiple options.

Offline fuzzy

Re: DAC development incentive models
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2014, 04:40:03 AM »
Bump  +5%
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

clout

  • Guest
Re: DAC development incentive models
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2014, 04:53:36 AM »
ongoing funding through share dilution is the same thing as taxation

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
Re: DAC development incentive models
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2014, 06:10:36 AM »
ongoing funding through share dilution is the same thing as taxation

This is true in that it taxes the shareholders, but "taxation" has connotations of coercing universal participation within a set of geographic borders.  In a DAC participation and buy in should always be voluntary.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: DAC development incentive models
« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2014, 06:40:39 AM »
'I think any of funding models may have a place.  Anything you seriously consider will likely have an application given the right set of participants.  The thing about dilution is you're incentivizing people to stick around.  Meh, I don't even care to argue my points as I've said them elsewhere.

I think with some sort of partial closed source DAC you really really need dilution.  THere will not be the typical "lets fork" option. 
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline luckybit

Re: DAC development incentive models
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2014, 07:57:21 AM »
Since there is no mining there is no such thing as a premine. Instead of dilution just set aside a percentage of the shares for developers just like Mastercoin did. It is working best under the Mastercoin model. The dilution model is speculative and likely will upset investors while not accomplishing any more than the Mastercoin pre-allocation model,

Pre-allocate your shares for development costs in terms of a percentage or raise transaction fees. No dilutions no bullshit.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

clout

  • Guest
Re: DAC development incentive models
« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2014, 04:12:50 PM »
ongoing funding through share dilution is the same thing as taxation

This is true in that it taxes the shareholders, but "taxation" has connotations of coercing universal participation within a set of geographic borders.  In a DAC participation and buy in should always be voluntary.

Its the same process in this system as it is with any government that imposes taxes or finances operations through debt and inflation. If the majority deem it appropriate they can violate the property rights of the minority. If 51% want to dilute shares why can they not donate the desired funds themselves? Dilution doesn't make any logical sense. Companies dilute stock when a capital expenditure is excessive to the point that it may not even get repaid. DACs don't need VCs to get started and they don't need costly R&D, which are to main scenarios for dilution. If I am an early investor and I see my investment increase by more than 100% do you really think I'm not going to want to donate funds to see my position appreciate more?

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
Re: DAC development incentive models
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2014, 05:18:56 PM »
...If the majority deem it appropriate they can violate the property rights of the minority...

This would be true, except that by buying into a DAC that allows such dilution, you are voluntarily surrendering ultimate ownership of your property to the majority shareholders.  Personally I'm rather averse to doing that, but I don't think it's a violation of property rights unless force/fraud are involved in the buy in.

Since there is no mining there is no such thing as a premine. Instead of dilution just set aside a percentage of the shares for developers just like Mastercoin did. It is working best under the Mastercoin model. The dilution model is speculative and likely will upset investors while not accomplishing any more than the Mastercoin pre-allocation model,

Pre-allocate your shares for development costs in terms of a percentage or raise transaction fees. No dilutions no bullshit.

Or even preallocate shares to an AGS style fund, allowing ongoing contributions concurrent with development, which provides the benefit of a solid metric of current market approval and optimism.

Offline toast

Re: DAC development incentive models
« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2014, 05:46:03 PM »
Since there is no mining there is no such thing as a premine. Instead of dilution just set aside a percentage of the shares for developers just like Mastercoin did. It is working best under the Mastercoin model. The dilution model is speculative and likely will upset investors while not accomplishing any more than the Mastercoin pre-allocation model,

Pre-allocate your shares for development costs in terms of a percentage or raise transaction fees. No dilutions no bullshit.

That is equivalent to dilution... dulution is just preallocation with an honest "total supply" label

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

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 gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: DAC development incentive models
« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2014, 05:56:42 PM »
Since there is no mining there is no such thing as a premine. Instead of dilution just set aside a percentage of the shares for developers just like Mastercoin did. It is working best under the Mastercoin model. The dilution model is speculative and likely will upset investors while not accomplishing any more than the Mastercoin pre-allocation model,

Pre-allocate your shares for development costs in terms of a percentage or raise transaction fees. No dilutions no bullshit.

That is equivalent to dilution... dulution is just preallocation with an honest "total supply" label

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Yep, the preallocation of shares is a dilution.  Instead of over a series of time it happens instantly at the beginning.  It then removes a lot of incentive for longterm motivation vs the dilution being suggested by some of us.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
Re: DAC development incentive models
« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2014, 06:16:15 PM »
...
That is equivalent to dilution... dulution is just preallocation with an honest "total supply" label
...

Preallocation is dilution with an honest fixed "total supply" label.  Ongoing dilution has a potentially infinite "total supply", with a potentially dynamic release rate.  This isn't dishonest or wrong, but it requires placing faith in the majority shareholders to use everyone's stake to serve everyone's interests, rather than using it only in the interest of the majority.

Offline toast

Re: DAC development incentive models
« Reply #11 on: July 05, 2014, 06:26:44 PM »
Ah... btw none of the dilution strategies we're considering for ant dacs have potential infinite total supply, they all converge mu ch like btc. Otherwise you can't follow the 10/10 social consensus

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

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 Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
Re: DAC development incentive models
« Reply #12 on: July 05, 2014, 06:34:46 PM »
...
Yep, the preallocation of shares is a dilution.  Instead of over a series of time it happens instantly at the beginning.  It then removes a lot of incentive for longterm motivation vs the dilution being suggested by some of us.

Ongoing dilution doesn't actually create additional longterm motivation, it just centralizes that motivation.  Centralized motivation certainly has significant benefits, especially early on, but I think ideally a mature DAC should have a self sustaining decentralized network.

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
Re: DAC development incentive models
« Reply #13 on: July 05, 2014, 06:43:04 PM »
Ah... btw none of the dilution strategies we're considering for ant dacs have potential infinite total supply, they all converge mu ch like btc. Otherwise you can't follow the 10/10 social consensus
...

Great, in that case it would just be preallocation effectively.  What I've been arguing against is allowing the majority discretionary dilution power without an eventual upper bound.  If no one else was arguing for this, I apologize for misunderstanding.

Offline luckybit

Re: DAC development incentive models
« Reply #14 on: July 05, 2014, 06:55:54 PM »
ongoing funding through share dilution is the same thing as taxation

This is true in that it taxes the shareholders, but "taxation" has connotations of coercing universal participation within a set of geographic borders.  In a DAC participation and buy in should always be voluntary.

Its the same process in this system as it is with any government that imposes taxes or finances operations through debt and inflation. If the majority deem it appropriate they can violate the property rights of the minority. If 51% want to dilute shares why can they not donate the desired funds themselves? Dilution doesn't make any logical sense. Companies dilute stock when a capital expenditure is excessive to the point that it may not even get repaid. DACs don't need VCs to get started and they don't need costly R&D, which are to main scenarios for dilution. If I am an early investor and I see my investment increase by more than 100% do you really think I'm not going to want to donate funds to see my position appreciate more?
+5% +5%

This expresses how I feel exactly. I believe the deal should be on the table and shouldn't be changed. If you do the math right and it's actually basic math then you'd set aside around 30% for development. Mastercoin did this, MaidSafe did this, it's essential that developers eat their own dog food and live within the means of the value of the same tokens that everyone else has.

So rather than let developers take from everyone else on the sneak I prefer it be up front. I prefer developers ask for a premine or for a founders fee, percentage or anything like that. I think higher transaction fees are more desirable than dilution because transaction fees as a tax too but at least it's a tax we expect to pay in this kind of business and not a dilution.

This kind of business is high risk. Dilution makes sense when you've got a proven track record of growth. These sorts of businesses we are dealing with aren't promised to grow x10 each year. It's something  we expect to happen, and work towards making it happen, but it's not a sure thing.

I like the donation idea and I think if we can provide an incentive for the people who donate such as points which they can trade in for discounts at certain businesses then you'll have the perfect system. Donate to the developers, receive points, these points give you discounts for products and services offered by affiliate DACs and businesses. Perhaps these points also put you on the Sharedrop list.

Since there is no mining there is no such thing as a premine. Instead of dilution just set aside a percentage of the shares for developers just like Mastercoin did. It is working best under the Mastercoin model. The dilution model is speculative and likely will upset investors while not accomplishing any more than the Mastercoin pre-allocation model,

Pre-allocate your shares for development costs in terms of a percentage or raise transaction fees. No dilutions no bullshit.

That is equivalent to dilution... dulution is just preallocation with an honest "total supply" label

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Yep, the preallocation of shares is a dilution.  Instead of over a series of time it happens instantly at the beginning.  It then removes a lot of incentive for longterm motivation vs the dilution being suggested by some of us.

The difference is preallocation is planned and everyone knows about it before they buy their first share. Everyone knew the plan with Mastercoin for the development tokens. We purchased it knowing exactly how much a Mastercoin is worth and it reflects the real price in the market. There is less volatility because the price discovery happens immediately in the beginning and you don't have all these different mental models.

Also people don't have to keep buying Mastercoins to try to keep their position on the treadmill. The dev Mastercoins are earned through bounties of all kinds and the whole community is able to get involved from testing to documentation (it's not just programmers).

The problem with dilution is there isn't a very strong case that we the community need that dilution. If our shares are worth a lot of money we'd pay for new features. You could crowd fund it or use an innovation game to figure out what new features the community desires and how much they'll pledge.

So I'm not convinced there is a problem here. I know developers are expensive especially if they are highly skilled but I expect and hope that our shares will have enough value that developers will not need the dilution. I guess I'm naturally skeptical of any inflation scheme or tax scheme until it's proven necessary or beneficial.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2014, 07:08:08 PM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

 

Google+