What if they took 80% of the fees until they'd recouped, for example, $60k worth of BTS - currently about 18 - 20 million shares. That's a 33% ROI - more if the price of BTS goes up during the payback phase.
Feature funding for profit makes sense. Lifetime royalties not so much.
I say give them 100% of the fees indefinitely. If they funded it then they deserve 100% of the fees indefinitely unless they decide they don't want the fees and in that case burn the fees.
Is there any rational reason why they shouldn't get 100% of the fees indefinitely if they privately funded the feature? By giving them that we could encourage new efforts to privately fund features, like the bond market or prediction markets.
A bold move by this individual and a very long term bet. What would happen if before they recovered their $45k in fees a new worker proposal is submitted and approved to build a better stealth transfer mechanism?
The 25% royalty on the stealth transfer fees for life leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps it's the precedent it would set for future proposals.
I think it should be 100% on the stealth transfer fees for life. What is the argument for keeping it at 25% If they paid for it they own it entirely don't they?
If all of us did it through a worker proposal we would get lifetime royalties, so if they do it privately I don't see why they can't get lifetime royalties. I don't see why it's at 25% other than that is what they agreed to.
What is gained by not having lifetime royalties vs what you gain by having it? For a feature like this, it might require lifetime royalties to get it funded immediately.
And the blockchain will never earn anything from them... Lifetime royalties is a no for me.
The point is that this feature will be made, sooner or later, with or without this private investment.
Making it now, with this person, the community/blockchain will earn nothing from it (speaking of fees and so revenue for future worker proposals)
Edit: refering to a 100% lifetime royalties
Why? Who says it will be made sooner or later. Your arguing for socializing costs which is anti-volunteerism. We're forced as the community to pay for this project..... Your arguing for a system that got us into this financial mess in the first place after 2008.
Whereas here, someone pays for it and get to profit from their investments. You dont have to use that feature. Nobody is forcing you. But when you do, you just pay the person who took the biggest risk to bring it to market. He's getting rewarded appropriately.
Additionally, if they're providing cash for this, this would benefit bitshares since BM doesn't have to liquidate in this thin market. Its entirely a Win-Win. So we can have lifetime referrals, but not lifetime feature use?