So to get this started, please place your bids for the MAKER asset which will earn 20% of all liquidity incentivization rewards if the Liquidity Incentivization proposal is approved and executed. Lets see how the community actually values this potential feature and then move on from there.
So to get this started, please place your bids for the MAKER asset which will earn 20% of all liquidity incentivization rewards if the Liquidity Incentivization proposal is approved and executed. Lets see how the community actually values this potential feature and then move on from there.
Where do we place our bids, and are you including @Chronos counter proposal to make it fair?
So if Mr. Duke has 100,000 BTS to wager and Mr. Valentine has 100 BTS to wager, it is the Mr. Dukes of the world who will control the agenda. This sounds like pay to play. Am I mistaken?
So if Mr. Duke has 100,000 BTS to wager and Mr. Valentine has 100 BTS to wager, it is the Mr. Dukes of the world who will control the agenda. This sounds like pay to play. Am I mistaken?
Nice.
but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?
0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems
Nice.
but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?
0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems
Just calling it "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Please present an argument.
Nice.
but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?
0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems
Just calling it "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Please present an argument.
Well it is as sensible as the rest of them.
Why is it more sensible (deserves special treatment, in your mind)?
Nice.
but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?
0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems
Just calling it "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Please present an argument.
Well it is as sensible as the rest of them.
Why is it more sensible (deserves special treatment, in your mind)?
So if Mr. Duke has 100,000 BTS to wager and Mr. Valentine has 100 BTS to wager, it is the Mr. Dukes of the world who will control the agenda. This sounds like pay to play. Am I mistaken?
Mr Valentine sounds like a lover and should have no problem getting together a group of hismostmany intimate friends to play any game they can think of.
Nice.
but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?
0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems
Just calling it "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Please present an argument.
Well it is as sensible as the rest of them.
Why is it more sensible (deserves special treatment, in your mind)?
It deserves special treatment because @onceuponatime has already been grandfathered in. I don't want to take the deal he earned and auction off his profits. Also, he was planing to pay in fiat which is much appreciated. Furthermore, I think his plan is further developed than some of the others.
Nice.
but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?
0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems
Just calling it "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Please present an argument.
Well it is as sensible as the rest of them.
Why is it more sensible (deserves special treatment, in your mind)?
It deserves special treatment because @onceuponatime has already been grandfathered in. I don't want to take the deal he earned and auction off his profits. Also, he was planing to pay in fiat which is much appreciated. Furthermore, I think his plan is further developed than some of the others.
Unfortunately this is my take on the whole issue as well....the main difference being someone paying in cash....seeing said cash clouds any other reasonable judgment.
The other unfortunate fact is even with his great generosity , love for the project and willingness to take a huge risk for BTS .... he is sadly lacking the ability [actually stubbornly refusing to do so] to properly judge what is best of his beloved (his and mine) project.
Nice.
but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?
0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems
Just calling it "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Please present an argument.
Well it is as sensible as the rest of them.
Why is it more sensible (deserves special treatment, in your mind)?
It deserves special treatment because @onceuponatime has already been grandfathered in. I don't want to take the deal he earned and auction off his profits. Also, he was planing to pay in fiat which is much appreciated. Furthermore, I think his plan is further developed than some of the others.
Unfortunately this is my take on the whole issue as well....the main difference being someone paying in cash....seeing said cash clouds any other reasonable judgment.
The other unfortunate fact is even with his great generosity , love for the project and willingness to take a huge risk for BTS .... he is sadly lacking the ability [actually stubbornly refusing to do so] to properly judge what is best of his beloved (his and mine) project.
Millions of features, features for me
Millions of features, features for fees
Look out!
8)
In my humble opinion, BTS is so much more than Smart Coins at this point in time. We shouldn't let that one feature shape our whole worldview.
Nice.
but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?
0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems
Just calling it "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Please present an argument.
Well it is as sensible as the rest of them.
Why is it more sensible (deserves special treatment, in your mind)?
It deserves special treatment because @onceuponatime has already been grandfathered in. I don't want to take the deal he earned and auction off his profits. Also, he was planing to pay in fiat which is much appreciated. Furthermore, I think his plan is further developed than some of the others.
Unfortunately this is my take on the whole issue as well....the main difference being someone paying in cash....seeing said cash clouds any other reasonable judgment.
The other unfortunate fact is even with his great generosity , love for the project and willingness to take a huge risk for BTS .... he is sadly lacking the ability [actually stubbornly refusing to do so] to properly judge what is best of his beloved (his and mine) project.
It is true that I lack many of the skills that you and others might have in this modern age and on this Forum. This is because I am probably much older than you and did my schooling before there were computers. There weren't even calculators when I went to school!
That doesn't mean that I lack common sense or discernment and discrimination. I'm sure that I have spent more time living on the streets than either you or even Martin 38PTSwarrior. I have traveled and lived in dozens of countries. I have degrees in Business Management and Economics and have worked (before the smell got too bad) as a special investigator for a Federal Government. I have slept under bridges and I have slept in palaces.
I think that I am as good a judge of character as anyone on this Forum. And I invest in people.
Perhaps your famous and cutting edge cynicism could be enhanced by a dash of Humility?
Peaches == Features
...This is because I am probably much older than you and did my schooling before there were computers. There weren't even calculators when I went to school!
...This is because I am probably much older than you and did my schooling before there were computers. There weren't even calculators when I went to school!
Me too. (Well, our school mainframe did have 8 kilobytes of core memory.) The HP-45 scientific calculator (with Reverse Polish Notation) first came out when I was a Sophomore EE student.
While others were sniffing glue, I was sniffing that calculator.
I still put it into the microwave once in a while for a few seconds, just to relive that "new calculator smell".
Better than "new car smell" IMHO.(http://www.hpmuseum.org/3qs/453q.jpg)
...This is because I am probably much older than you and did my schooling before there were computers. There weren't even calculators when I went to school!
Me too. (Well, our school mainframe did have 8 kilobytes of core memory.) The HP-45 scientific calculator (with Reverse Polish Notation) first came out when I was a Sophomore EE student.
While others were sniffing glue, I was sniffing that calculator.
I still put it into the microwave once in a while for a few seconds, just to relive that "new calculator smell".
Better than "new car smell" IMHO.(http://www.hpmuseum.org/3qs/453q.jpg)
Kind of sad when in 2015, 'the millions of features' actually boils down to 'the feature for me (and all of us)" is the same calculator of 1981, as the Grandfathered :) option...
:(
Nice.
but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?
0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems
Just calling it "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Please present an argument.
Well it is as sensible as the rest of them.
Why is it more sensible (deserves special treatment, in your mind)?
It deserves special treatment because @onceuponatime has already been grandfathered in. I don't want to take the deal he earned and auction off his profits. Also, he was planing to pay in fiat which is much appreciated. Furthermore, I think his plan is further developed than some of the others.
Unfortunately this is my take on the whole issue as well....the main difference being someone paying in cash....seeing said cash clouds any other reasonable judgment.
The other unfortunate fact is even with his great generosity , love for the project and willingness to take a huge risk for BTS .... he is sadly lacking the ability [actually stubbornly refusing to do so] to properly judge what is best of his beloved (his and mine) project.
It is true that I lack many of the skills that you and others might have in this modern age and on this Forum. This is because I am probably much older than you and did my schooling before there were computers. There weren't even calculators when I went to school!
That doesn't mean that I lack common sense or discernment and discrimination. I'm sure that I have spent more time living on the streets than either you or even Martin 38PTSwarrior. I have traveled and lived in dozens of countries. I have degrees in Business Management and Economics and have worked (before the smell got too bad) as a special investigator for a Federal Government. I have slept under bridges and I have slept in palaces.
I think that I am as good a judge of character as anyone on this Forum. And I invest in people.
Perhaps your famous and cutting edge cynicism could be enhanced by a dash of Humility?
In my humble opinion, BTS is so much more than Smart Coins at this point in time. We shouldn't let that one feature shape our whole worldview.
Whether it's more liquid Smartcoins or an even more awesome, popular sellable product/UIA, the ability to transfer them privately will surely increase potential demand for them and as a result increase the value of BTS shares.
However without sellable product, stealth transfers won't necessarily increase the value of BTS unless the belief is that BTS is currently undervalued because potential shareholders are reluctant to buy this amazingly undervalued company without privacy.
So I would think focusing on SmartCoin or other 'better than Smartcoin' product would ideally precede Stealth, not critical though.
The assumption for all features is that a working reference GUI will be provided to make the features accessible. Each feature will be fully documented with a detailed design complete with UI wireframes prior to Cryptonomex taking any money. We want to ensure that the community knows what they are bidding on and to maximize the price we can get for each feature. Bidding can start early (prior to detailed documentation), and users can cancel their bids if they change their minds prior to us locking them in.
So if Mr. Duke has 100,000 BTS to wager and Mr. Valentine has 100 BTS to wager, it is the Mr. Dukes of the world who will control the agenda. This sounds like pay to play. Am I mistaken?
THE GAME
Buy A FeatureCreate a list of potential features and provide each with a price. Just like for a real product, the price can be based on development costs, customer value, or something else. Although the price can be the actual cost you intend to charge for the feature, this is usually not required. Customers buy features that they want in the next release of your product using play money you give them. Make certain that some features are priced high enough that no one customer can buy them. Encourage customers to pool their money to buy especially important and/or expensive features. This will help motivate negotiations between customers as to which features are most important.
This game works best with four to seven customers in a group, so that you can create more opportunities for customers to pool their money through negotiating.
@bytemaster what you've done is recreated an innovation game called "Buy a Feature".
http://www.innovationgames.com/buy-a-feature/
http://www.uxforthemasses.com/buy-the-feature/
When the feature is delivered, the UIA will be converted into a FBA and the proceeds of the sale will become our private property.
In addition to creating the UIA we will also create a corresponding worker proposal that is symbolic of shareholder support for enabling the feature. The worker proposal must be funded before we will sell into the buy wall of the UIA.
BitShares stakeholders will now have price information that indicates how the market values each potential feature. This price information can in turn be used to inform them on which features they should vote for. A highly valued feature means that the market believes that feature will generate significant ROI and therefore be profitable for BitShares holders.
I do think it will give an overall better measure for the direction to take. Before each is proposed however, the fundamental groundwork of doing proper market research still as to take place. This is more like a final step to confirm whatever data summation was done.
In my humble opinion, BTS is so much more than Smart Coins at this point in time. We shouldn't let that one feature shape our whole worldview.
@bytemaster what you've done is recreated an innovation game called "Buy a Feature".
http://www.innovationgames.com/buy-a-feature/
http://www.uxforthemasses.com/buy-the-feature/
Wow! Did you run across that before or after this thread came up?
I do think it will give an overall better measure for the direction to take. Before each is proposed however, the fundamental groundwork of doing proper market research still as to take place. This is more like a final step to confirm whatever data summation was done.
Good questions!
Although not comprehensive, the presale of the UIA is itself market research. It may or may not be useful, depending on the target audience the feature is aiming at. If a representative portion of the target audience of the feature is part of this community it is useful as market research.
However if not, it must be publicized and brought to the attention of whoever outside of this community, wherever that audience may be. And in that case I wonder if explaining the feature will represent much value, since the audience would also need to be sold on the ecosystem in with this feature is only one part. In that case the sales pitch may be quite difficult.
The UIA is not sold until there is enough demand. You can always cancel your bids up until that time.
A UIA is just an asset, you buy it or you don't. The bidding is something else which I am not familiar with in this context.
Thanks.
BitShares stakeholders will now have price information that indicates how the market values each potential feature. This price information can in turn be used to inform them on which features they should vote for. A highly valued feature means that the market believes that feature will generate significant ROI and therefore be profitable for BitShares holders.To get this straight...
4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.
Another question is: What if a better feature which targets the same market (e.g. the bond market) is proposed as a normal worker proposal or a FBA sometimes in the future?
4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.
I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.
Polls/Voting, etc are not good means of prioritizing. Profit is perhaps the most important means of prioritizing.
As a company, Cryptonomex is interested in working on the most profitable features. Those features that we can sell for the highest price will get the highest priority.
A UIA is just an asset, you buy it or you don't. The bidding is something else which I am not familiar with in this context.
Thanks.
Bidding is just put a buy order (also called bid order)
A UIA is just an asset, you buy it or you don't. The bidding is something else which I am not familiar with in this context.
Thanks.
Bidding is just put a buy order (also called bid order)
Thx for trying bhuz, I need a little more to understand. Could you elaborate to clarify? I've never heard of a "bid order"
A UIA is just an asset, you buy it or you don't. The bidding is something else which I am not familiar with in this context.
Thanks.
Bidding is just put a buy order (also called bid order)
Thx for trying bhuz, I need a little more to understand. Could you elaborate to clarify? I've never heard of a "bid order"
It is literally just placing an order to buy. In a market you have offers to buy at different prices, or bids.
You say "In a market you have offers to buy at different prices, or bids.", but not ALL markets behave as an auction or negotiation. Walk into most retail stores and there is no negotiation, the price is the price, take it or leave it.
I'm getting confused by the mixing of fixed funding costs vs. bidding which is a negotiable (i.e. variable) offer at some price.Everything is negotiable.
You say "In a market you have offers to buy at different prices, or bids.", but not ALL markets behave as an auction or negotiation. Walk into most retail stores and there is no negotiation, the price is the price, take it or leave it.
Its the same thing really. The various bids or buys, are like various competing retail stores all competing for your dollars. The highest bid is the only relevant bid if they can satisfy the amount you're looking to buy. So the highest bid is the no negotiation, take it or leave it price.
Of course you can negotiate by placing a sell order(ask) above this price but you risk no one being willing to meet it. You can do the same at a retail store (trying to get a discount) but you may not get it.
4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.
I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.
4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.
I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.
I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split. Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !
It's a bad thing because it complicates the messaging of the refer program tremendously. It takes it from, "you get a piece of all their transactions for the lifetime of their account", too, "sometimes you get a piece of the transactions depending on what they are doing in bitshares and what they are using" .. which then derails the entire messaging into wanting to find out when and where that ultimately leads to 'damn this is just too complicated', or 'geez it looks like you only get some in a few cases.. why bother?', or worse 'this looks like you are tricking people into thinking you get something for refers when really they only get it for a few things.'As much as I like the FBA concept, BunkerChain Labs has a point that features implemented via FBAs are not very friendly for the Referral Program (as they undermine its revenue pool or at least make it more obscure).
The refer program to "bring users" is only going to be as good as the opportunity it brings to those that promote it. If you marginalize it by excluding it through out the bitshares space, then all these new FBAs will have to go on their own marketing efforts to get users instead of leveraging the base that will be more excited and more incentive to spend money to promote the new features knowing the base they are targeting is going to directly result in refer income generated from the specific feature they referred them for.
4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.
I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.
I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split. Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !
Agree with these concerns. Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset. With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA. I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.
Thx @Xeldal and @yvv for your replies to my confusion. Your replies do help.4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.
I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.
I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split. Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !
Agree with these concerns. Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset. With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA. I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.
This again? C'mon, go back and read the thread. Stan addressed the reason for the 80 / 20 split. In essence, it has become the "traditional" split for most efforts around here, like the referral program. I see this objection as just cloaked envy.
As to "no business plan", that is a valid concern, but nothing new around here. Most everything done around here is fly by night / seat of the pants, without market research, prototypes or the usual planning that goes into most business ventures. It's entrepreneurship, but with more risk and speculation. Lots more intuition and guesswork.
Thx @Xeldal and @yvv for your replies to my confusion. Your replies do help.4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.
I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.
I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split. Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !
Agree with these concerns. Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset. With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA. I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.
This again? C'mon, go back and read the thread. Stan addressed the reason for the 80 / 20 split. In essence, it has become the "traditional" split for most efforts around here, like the referral program. I see this objection as just cloaked envy.
As to "no business plan", that is a valid concern, but nothing new around here. Most everything done around here is fly by night / seat of the pants, without market research, prototypes or the usual planning that goes into most business ventures. It's entrepreneurship, but with more risk and speculation. Lots more intuition and guesswork.
Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?
Thx @Xeldal and @yvv for your replies to my confusion. Your replies do help.4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.
I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.
I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split. Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !
Agree with these concerns. Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset. With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA. I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.
This again? C'mon, go back and read the thread. Stan addressed the reason for the 80 / 20 split. In essence, it has become the "traditional" split for most efforts around here, like the referral program. I see this objection as just cloaked envy.
As to "no business plan", that is a valid concern, but nothing new around here. Most everything done around here is fly by night / seat of the pants, without market research, prototypes or the usual planning that goes into most business ventures. It's entrepreneurship, but with more risk and speculation. Lots more intuition and guesswork.
We wouldn't want to feel married to a feature if it doesn't successfully drive revenue. If the FBA holder does not hold up his end of the bargain, which is driving transaction growth, shareholders and entrepreneurs will be inclined to circumvent, steal or compete with the feature.
Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?
The only answer to these quantitative questions is price establishing competition. But then we are back to questions like: How much change to the code of a FBA qualifies for it to be a new feature with a different allocation? And if the question is answered so that any newly proposed FBA that is targeting the same market would break the initial social consesnsus on the initial FBA that "cornered" that market then the next question is: Shouldnt there be initially sufficient competition between various FBA entrepreneuers to compete to "corner" a market so that the BTS holders can choose the best deal instead of going with the first proposal that arbitrarly sets the tx fee allocation.Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?
You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.
No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.
Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.
The only answer to these quantitative questions is price establishing competition. But then we are back to questions like: How much change to the code of a FBA qualifies for it to be a new feature with a different allocation?Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?
You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.
No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.
Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.
The full argument is here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20575.msg265645.html#msg265645
That might be. But if we dont assume that everyone does things for a profit then it can easily happen that by such an argumentation the "perceived volonteers/gifters" can easily take advantage of a larger group of people (BTS holders) through such talk... In the end you will never know whether people believe that there is a good profit to be made if you don't allow / plan for competiton.The only answer to these quantitative questions is price establishing competition. But then we are back to questions like: How much change to the code of a FBA qualifies for it to be a new feature with a different allocation?Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?
You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.
No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.
Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.
The full argument is here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20575.msg265645.html#msg265645
There's no thing as competition for a risk this high in this early stage. I see it more as every investor being more some kind of a gift/opportunity.
This, because from a investor's point of view it doesn't make much sense to get such amounts of money into this when the chance of return is so low atm. I'm sure there are other kinds of investmentes where you can get your money back in a shorter time frame and with more chances of getting it back. My opinion only. Crypto is a niche atm, so on top of having someone willing to take such a huge risk, it needs to be into crypto wich is extremely difficult
I meant that at this early in the game, there is no competition because we're too small.I would agree in general. But then the question about how to handly new featrures that target the same market (note that the difference between a new feature and an upgrade to it is a continuum and hard to distinguish) doesnt become less relevant.
Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?
You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.
No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.
Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.
Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?
You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.
No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.
Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.
The 90/10 was 10 for the network, 90 for the entrepreneurs. So it was very generous thinking.
I was asking why 80/20 , why there was never serious discussion about this crucial split number.
And I remember well in the original stealth proposal the split should revert in favour to network
after certain amount of fees collected. It was more generous and then become more greedy.
You own the network, but who pays for development?
oops, sorry for the double post
I'm being quoted in a signature. I feel wise let me enjoy
@bytemaster,
So I would like to take some time to outline a plan I am devising for getting features lined up and prioritized based upon the concept of Fee Backed Assets (FBA). For each of the following features I will create a UIA that represents stake in the future fees generated from that feature.
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)