Here is an idea for how we could get better alignment on developer pay.
What if we pay developers part in BTS salary and part in "Performance Pay", giving them each a choice about the split they want?
Performance Pay could be structured as payments of BTS that are only exercisable if the BTS price or market cap exceeds some level at some future vesting date (e.g. 3 years). At that point the vested payments would be dilutive, but only if BTS had experienced substantial market cap growth. In this way, it may be that the prospect of future dilution is not viewed as a negative impact on the BTS price (although I accept not all BTS owners would find this acceptable).
Developer staff could have the following choices:
- Work for bitshares and receive pay of X BTS (less than market rate) - in this case they are like a salaried employee
- Work for bitShares and receive Performance Pay, with an underlying of X+Y BTS (will be worth more that straight salary if BTS is ultimately successful) - in this case, they are like workers in a startup business
- Work for some combination in the middle of these two extremes, depending on individual needs
- Work for IBM or Apple if they want and just invest in BTS, but potentially forgoing all the intangible benefits of working inside bitShares, such as future recognition and reputation value
Possibly such a structure could align everyone's interests better. Although something we must be alert to, as where executive options of this type are used in traditional industries, is that beneficiaries do not start focusing more on BTS price and trying to pump it through hype, than they do on underlying BTS progress and performance.
This is not the only possible solution I'm sure. But I think we would all be better served by creatively exploring the choices we can create, rather than irresolvable issues like rights, entitlements, or the fuzziness of future intents.
people assumed incentive account for majority of the success in a start-up .
But in the end is the cold hard business rule matters . If a business costs more than it creates , or a business is failing to sell the product , no matter how strong the incentive is for the employees , the business will still fail .
The old dilution model sadly ignored this fact . It assumed as long as people are working , they could bring success to the business . If that's the case , every programmer out there will jump to start their own business with money from their relatives and families . If that's the case , every high-tech start-up with tons of VC will be successful .
VC know what their getting into and willing to bet that someday the worker may generate income(not vague "value" , but economic income ) than they cost . Also they can't exit at will so even the cost > income it wouldn't matter to the path ahead as long as the fund are not dry up .
But freely speculator on the market don't have to bear that burden . A good and useful wallet is no way near "value" in the eyes of business . Sooner of later , they'll bail and the price will fall if there is no income that they can see while the cost are piling up .
When you constantly remind people that you need to sell dilution to pay rent at a ridiculous price , you're reminding them you wasn't bringing income in the system just bring a wallet(no matter how good it is ) that may not even have customer to use it let alone generate profit , and the price will be more ridiculous as they withdraw the buy order .
A company with hard working workers from former Google and cost XXXXX USD a month and generates awesome product , while the company generate XXX USD income , no matter how good how awesome how amazing these workers are , the company will still be at red . This was the joke that this community used to laugh at bitcoin .
I think with the new model where you dilute for shares with vest in period and exchange for outside money is the way to do it from day 1 .
The license model is also the way to do it , as long as the licence deal for BitShares are rock solid and without any way of withdrawing it .