Decided to contribute more time on NRS! For me it doesn't matter, wether it's honoring the SC or not! 
We all, we are community and when i can't contribute to III tasks, why i shouldn't contribute to new alternative projects?

Quote from: AdamBLevine on March 06, 2014, 04:39:41 pm

Quote from: toast on March 06, 2014, 04:32:24 pm

Quote from: AdamBLevine on March 06, 2014, 04:22:36 pm

What has Invictus done to demonstrate the value of giving 20% of a new money supply to AGS/PTS holders

I wish someone would do it so we could see... because of this I agree with the motive behind your bounty, I just think it would be insta-claimed by a shitty altcoin. Actually that might be valuable because we would have had someone go through the process of initializing a genesis block with PTS/AGS. Maybe changing the wording on that bounty to be like your suggestion would be good.

Okay so you don't undertand the bounty idea.

It was "Invictus defines the metrics by which a successful DAC should be judged"

then you say "The most profitable DAC that honors the social contract after 12 months gets 20,000 PTS - The Most profitable DAC that honors the social contract after 18 months gets 15,000PTS, after 2 years 10,000PTS etc.

You do not define what a successful dac looks like, only how you judge it when a bunch of DACs are competing for the prize.  You ASSUME you will be successful and allow the market enough time to deliver what you're asking for because the prize is big.

You start with high amounts because you believe PTS will succeed, and so after 18 months 15,000PTS will be worth more than 20,000PTS was six months before that.  BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL WITH BUILDING THE ECOSYSTEM.

We have never done bounties like this, Invictus only has tasks and chores they want someone to do for them.  That is not a good bounty campaign, that is overpaying for specific tasks because your pool of people who even see it's available is too small.

If we're expecting Invictus to pick all "winning" DACs that can be funded, it sounds like we're in for a bad time.  Invictus has been terrible at important decisions so far, I don't see why adding public spectacle would change that.

No we are not expecting invictus to pick "winning" DAC's. I expect winning DAC's to be those that use bitshares x as platform for development. Those that do use bitshares x as a template for their projects will be more inclined to honor the ags/pts agreement.

What happened to the people who start up their own next big thing whether it be an app, game, website or DAC in their spare time? If you have a great idea and the skill-set to do it, just go for it and pick up some funding along the way or when it's ready for launch to pay lawyers or a marketing team. You'll be your own investor, paying with time.

Quote from: barwizi on March 06, 2014, 04:12:48 pm

agreement with who?

You're making this point in several threads. Of course you are free to not participate in the contract/agreement.
It seems like you are just also surprised that this causes other people to not want to support your venture. You don't do your part, the counterparty doesn't do their part.

"We don't need you! Why are we being shunned?"

I do not understand how this thread has gone on for so long. It seems more than evident that the simple issue is that there are not enough competent developers in the space. The point of what invictus is doing right now with bitshares is to launch a viable product and from that product create an easy to use template for people to make dacs.

Additionally if there were a competent dac developer than I would expect him/her to develop without the need of some sort of bounty reward as developers will get paid relative to the success of their dac. This suggests that either developers do not have the skills to create these dacs yet or they do not have the confidence in their ideas and implementations to start developing.

I think that everyone here should be cognizant of the fact that this is a company and not just some open source project. They have a full time team whose livelihood is dependent upon the success of this product. Although the forum is an open space for the exchange of ideas, your participation on this forum does not make you an employee of their company. How can you be mad at them for not allowing bounties that would distract from their main goal, which is to complete their flagship dac, particularly when you barzwizi do not plan on honoring the ags/pts agreement?

If bitshares is successfully released and there is no further DAC development than perhaps these concerns may be warranted, but as for right now these complaints are not productive, just distracting.

ags/pts agreement?

For a little while I couldn't understand why I was so unhappy about DAC builders who didn't want to honor the social contract, because the point is that they're free to try whatever you like and see what works.
I understand that technically the AGS/PTS social consensus is founded in the SCSL and so if you didn't use code there's no reason you have to honor it.

But AGS/PTS also represents your interest in *me*. By not honoring PTS/AGS properly and saying "I don't see the value of honoring PTS/AGS properly", you're saying "I don't see the value of working with *you personally*, Toast". That hurts my feelings! When I think of your DAC, I feel bad without even having examined what you are doing!

I think you will see this sentiment in others throughout the forum, but it would be expressed like "but look at all these advantages! community! network!". This isn't communicating the right message.

So, here is a safe space for whoever feels this way to say:

Tell me to my face: "Your attention is not worth having on my project."

.. hope you can grap some bounty for your work