Seriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner. If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year.
Don't predict outcomes, reward them. The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.
Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really. This is different.
It's an intriguing concept worthy of consideration. Perhaps we can do both.
Our view was that deploying a successful DAC was its own reward. Plenty of motivation at that end of the rainbow already.
We figured what got in the way for people was lack of support funding when they really need it -
before the DAC is developed. Our shark tank variant lets the little guy invest just enough to write a convincing proposal. If the angels and judges (not just Dan) like that proposal best, then the little guy gets all kinds of help
while he is doing the development.
In the end, I guess it comes down to a choice of which end of the rainbow we should put the pot of gold.
And then there's the buzz and excitement of a contest that pays off in July, right in front of a studio audience that has just been trained in how to evaluate and create good DACs. A chance to apply what they have learned and see how others have approached the problem the day after they take the class.
We are looking to kill many birds with each stone. Its all part of an integrated push by every member of our team in every department and has built in community involvement at every stage.
Not only that, but even the "losers" win, because they will become well known in the process and may get help from other attending investors. Those who watch talent search shows know that most of the finalists get a big career boost from a public competition with judges and instant gratification.
Of course all of this hinges on whether there are enough simultaneously-appearing quality contestants to make the concept work.
Also, if there's an obviously qualified developer ready to go with a great DAC idea, do we really want to make her wait until July? That's a lifetime in this industry. So the competition idea is really a wild-card second-chance opportunity for candidates that don't get funded on the spot.
There is much to ponder and as we said in the newsletter, we welcome civil comments and want to hear if there are actually any interested contestants for either of the approaches on the table.
If you want to compete for a post-development demonstrated-success prize, let us know.
If you want to compete for a pre-development demonstrated-potential stipend, let us know.