301
General Discussion / Re: [Proposal] Bounty for First Third Party AGS/PTS Honoring DAC
« on: March 07, 2014, 02:04:16 am »
It's not a game.
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.
We found that it did not work well in most cases and only led frustration and disappointment on all sides. We decided to try a more traditional approach of vetting and hiring people or companies with a proven track record and spending extra time to carefully define the requirements. While we will still use bounties for smaller jobs, we are not interested at all in making much bigger bounties where there is an even bigger disappointment for everyone at the end.
I don't always agree with you Adam, but do so more often than not. And I mostly like and am enthusiastic about this proposal of yours.
Now you will say that I am "too close" to this because I am a larger AGS holder than PTS holder, and you would probably be right. But in an attempt at helping me to become more objective, would you please extrapolate upon your reasoning as to why both PTS and AGS should not both be awarded a 10% stake in applicants' entries to this contest? (I do agree that Invictus should not be eligible to enter).
It seems to me to be difficult/impossible to separate out what benefit would be received by applicants tangentially from AGS funding. And therefore we AGS holders would be to some extent subsidizing PTS holders.
Then I am a man of faith. Interesting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Am I to go and beg Invictus to invest in my vision? I mean I could but ultimately they will hold the power and my vision would be very limited by their choices and decisions.
Or do I do 20% for AGS/PTS holders and then another 20% of funding the same way? Will people not be sick of these funding rounds?
I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on these matters. I think it's really important. Let me give you my take on it by putting myself in your shoes, and then tell me what I'm missing.
You allocate 20% to the community here and you would get people's attention and judgement. If everyone here loves your idea then Invictus will necessarily follow up on it, as Daniel Larimer has numerously declared that Invictus works for the PTS/AGS shareholders.
Once you have the favor of this community, you'll be placed centrally on the new website they are building, which will fast-track you ahead of everyone else in terms of publicity. You'll have all infrastructure necessary, and everyone will look to Invictus to see how they are treating you, so Invictus has to overcompensate you on all points for your allocation. First child will be spoiled!
And you'd still have 80-whatever-% left to do a fundraiser on your own.
I can't see how it's not a good deal atm. It just seems that nobody realizes it because Invictus has been lagging in their promotional efforts. If I had been an apt developer I'd go for it no question; like it or not, Invictus are first-movers in the realm of fundraising, and the funds will show their power in the next months. You just have to convince regular joe PTS/AGS shareholder that you have a decent product and you're set for the moon.
Make it coincide with their new website launch and you'll moon^2. If you really have something and aren't just puffing air, then I can't imagine why you wouldn't take this opportunity that lies right in front of you. You'll be set for life if you just do it good enough, and first.
It's not just Invictus. Yes, we have a responsibility to vet anything that uses AGS funds, but as we said in the Shark Tank newsletter article:QuoteBring us your business plan, win the hearts and minds of our community, and get past the industry leaders on our Panel of Judges at our Las Vegas Beyond Bitcoin Summit and you could win our support in incubating your new company.
You view it as "begging" but I spent my whole career writing proposals to funding sources of all kinds. Such sources don't just throw money in the street. They all have a process to make sure the money is used effectively.
We have defined a good-faith process that involves everybody as described in that article. It offers to put funding in the hands of those who need help to get started based upon a public merit-based competition.
Nothing stops people from pursuing other models. This is the one we have developed so far and we will keep refining it.
We don't believe people with the resources to develop and deploy a DAC need any more incentive to do so. A successful DAC is its own reward.
We choose to help those who don't have the resources by removing obstacles in their paths.
I disagree , I have complete trust because i3 continues to make the deal better
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
Here, every time you wonder "Why wouldn't someone just do it for free, when they're not working at their paying job, and then give away 20% of the money supply for nothing" just think of this
WHY WOULD THEY?
For the community kickstarting your project?
[edit]
Listen I do understand the issue here but me as a person would not be held back by not getting funding if I believe in something and have no problem giving back to the community , without it no-one would be even dreaming about these things in the first place so 20% is a small price to pay in my opinion.
[/edit]
err, so there were problems found with the snapshot, there is going to have to be a new one sometime soon.
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.
Bounties rewarded for specific outcomes do work. Have you heard of Peter Diamandis and his X Prize Foundation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BltRufe5kkI
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.
You're totally right, I re-read the OP and now agree with you even more.
In case you missed it I'm collecting things to talk about with I3 in person, you've been writing a lot and I don't want good stuff you say to be missed:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3420.0