106
General Discussion / Re: [Proposal] Bounty for Easy to launch DAC code
« on: March 06, 2014, 11:28:48 am »
Well, NRS is done. I will do PTS when i get time hopefully later today. https://github.com/DACBootcamp
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Adam, tell me straight up: Do you think Noir and MMC are good investments? Would you rather have $100 of those two, or $100 of a random choice of the 5 or 6 known invictus DAC ideas?
edit: I know that's not the point you're making, but you can't really say anyone who can make copy/paste altcoins can actually deliver a profitable DAC
If they were equals, they would already be building their projects and giving other people bounties, not waiting for bounties before getting started. We're all here because we're convinced that Bytemaster and the rest of the Invictus team is on to something and is offering something of value. There are good reasons for honoring the social consensus, and there's no reason for any developers to be left without a stake in their own ventures as you suggest.
QuoteBecause you're picking projects to fund rather than laying out the very basic things a successful dac requires, putting out a bounty and letting teams opt to go after your eco system
Right now you're making them pitch to you, and you've centralized the process on daniel. Just define what a successful ideal dac looks like after six months of operation and let the market decide, not any man!
The answer to your earlier question, I believe what I have proposed here is fundamentally different than your shark tank all-ideas-pass-through-invictus funnel. I think you should focus on being oracle gatekeepers after you've proven you're more than aspiring students. Bounties incentivize the participation of equals who don't need your money up front but want to know they've got stake when they deliver value with their venture.
What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated. That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you.
Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you!
Let's wait and see how well they do compared to those that honor this community. Of course, if the community doesn't favor DACs that honor them and shun those who don't, we will be proven wrong. We don't exactly have a scientifically large sample yet.
For due diligence purposes, are all of following correct, please correct where wrong?
- The only difference between AGS and PTS is PTS can be traded.
To very briefly address this one: not quite.
Invictus has made no commitment to honor AGS and PTS equally, only that they're each going to get at least 10% of each new DAC. There's nothing to stop them from awarding 40% to AGS and 10% to PTS.
On the other hand, if non-invictus DAC developers have no access to AGS funds, they have no explicit incentive to honor AGS. If you want to read a big argument about this, see this topic: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2924.0
True, we have not made balance mandatory, that's just our recommendation.
Developers should read the 10 Natural Laws of the Crypto-Currency Universe and consider their real reasons for honoring each group?
Goal 1: Do you want to attract supporters who have proven that they mine and hold?
Give PTS holders a stake.
Goal 2: Do you want to attract supporters who have proven that they invest in new ideas?
Give AGS holders a stake.
Goal 3: If you want to include "supporters" who mine, dump, and move on
by all means use traditional mining lotteries.
And remember: The traditional model is that developers must give away 100% to Goal 3 "supporters". With our model, they can reserve some to raise funds to develop their DAC or to attract the DAC's targeted customers, without hearing screams of "pre-mining". Honoring AGS and PTS holders frees up 80% of your coins/shares for whatever fund-raising model you can convince the market is fair.
And yes, as icing on the cake, they get our promotional support. We are still delighted (even desperate) to use funds on competent and committed third parties. Where do people get the idea that we don't?
Read our recent newsletters. See this recent post:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988
so it's a problem with the tool. hmm, this messes up my plans.Sorry to hear that .. but better late than never :-)
strange, maybe it's a problem with the tool i used. btw, is this a wallet balance or specific address balance? sometimes wallet balance is different from address balance.It's an address balance ..
Jupabout 2014.8
and the snapshot states that you have 2000 exactly?
about 2014.8
it's from 20 Feb.Its not. :-(
My address is [censored] --- https://coinplorer.com/PTS/Addresses/[censored]
On 12/18/2013 I had over 2k PTS in it ... your file just gives me 2k pts .. something is definitely wrong here :-(
On 12/18/2013 I had over 2k PTS
Why are people trying to "save" protoshares? Low mining interest means NOTHING, mining interest does not generate demand. The only problem is slower blocks because the difficulty is not caught up. PTS was never intended to have advanced features, FFS it uses proof of work when invictus is clearly against mining. Maybe I'm missing the point?