BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: que23 on December 17, 2013, 07:55:48 am
-
The future of DACs
Two days ago Bytemaster introduced to us an idea to create Angel Shares. AngelShares is what I'm calling a development engine. It's extremely powerful. It would allow resources currently wasted to be pumped into development. Right now, Invictus is on the bleeding edge of a new frontier opened up by Bitcoin. But things are happening quickly and people are flooding into this new space looking for opportunities. The BitShare project risks falling behind.
How the development engine works
It's not much different from renting an ASIC miner to mine Bitcoins. Instead, you rent the miner from Invictus. You rent the miner and then you receive shares directly to your wallet. Mining will be proportional to work as measured by the money invested. This money will be used to fuel the BitShares project.
ProtoShares
ProtoShares will continue be mined. However, because Invictus only has enough time to mine so many AngelShares before the release of Bitshares, this means ProtoShare holders will end up with more than 10% of the money supply. It could be up to 50% or more.
Mining
Invictus has made it clear for awhile that it was looking to move from Proof-of-Work to Proof-of-Stake. This means, the DACs no longer need to pay miners to work for it. This is why Bitshares will no longer be mined. Mined shares are a reward for the work miners do, or used to do. There is no reason to pay for that work. It would just be a waste of electricity. Also, it has become clear that Proof-of-Work has many weaknesses. In addition, mining eventually favours the rich. How many of us can build a factory to produce ASICs to mine Bitcoin? This has happened with Bitcoin and it threatens its survival. Companies are mining Bitcoin. With Proof-of-Work, the rich will win. With Proof-of-Stake, the rich have to come through us if they want in. And if they want in early, then they will only be supplying us with the tools to make us stronger.
Centralisation
Some have raised concerns about Invictus being a point of failure. Some of these concerns are valid and there are possible solutions to the problem. However, Invictus is already a central point of failure. It is unclear who would pick up the torch should something happen to Invictus. If there was capital fuelling the development of the project, then there would be a larger pool of people who could continue the project should anything happen to Invictus. I believe bringing on more developers to the project will actually help the community who is already overly reliant on Invictus.
Where does the money go
This question is still open for debate. Personally, I'm advocating for an expansion of bounties. There are many things that DACs need done. Wikis, FAQs, How-To guides, and much, much more. DACs need people! And of course the project can use funds to bring on more developers.
How is the money allocated
This is still open for debate. Personally, I'd like to see the core team hand down the tasks and then the community can decide on appropriate bounties and completion requirements.
Distribution of Wealth
Some have raised concerns about only people with money being able to participate in the AngelShares system. As shown above, tasks and work can be distributed and this work is paid for from the Angel funds. The DACs will always need people to do stuff. Unfortunately, this means that people who just wanted to use their computers to mine for shares won't be able to do that. It should be pointed out though, that it's already too late for people with personal computers to mine ProtoShares meaningfully, and that BitShares, even under the Proof-of-Work strategy, would have been GPU and ASIC proof and cloud-proof and pool-proof. There would have been no BitShare windfall for profiteers. Without the need for brute work, it's difficult to see how or why Invictus should just give away shares. Mastercoin and Ripple provide examples of different strategies that may help us decide how to proceed.
Summary
Invictus is a slow moving steam locomotive. With Angel Shares, Invictus could turn this project into a high speed train.
[UPDATE Decemeber 18]
{This is from the newsletter.}
We hold these truths to be self-evident
1. ProtoShareholders benefit from appreciation of their ProtoShares (PTS).
2. ProtoShares appreciate as more PTS DACs are announced by credible developers.
3. More PTS DACs would be announced if credible developers could find funding.
4. Sources of funding generally expect shares in the businesses they fund.
5. The mining lottery method of distributing shares dis-incentivizes such investment.
6. Investors divert their money from helping developers to unproductive mining activity.
7. A new model which incentivized investment would benefit developers and investors.
8. Consumers of DAC services would benefit from a well-funded support system.
9. Entrepreneurs and volunteers would benefit from bounties and funded piece-work.
10. Something-for-nothing participants, small or large, won’t care - they’ve already sold.
{Que23}
Now, It's my understanding that AngelShares will be tradable. This really changes everything if they are and takes away a lot of the worry about centralization. As soon as some of the competing DACs are ready to move forward, then we will have real competition within this space. Don't like BitShares? Don't think it's adding value to your ProtoShares? Then swap your Invictus Angelshares for some new developer's AngelShares. If one DAC can't get Angels to invest, then there's something wrong with the idea or the team. If a team of Developers starts doing things you don't like, swap out your DevXAngelShares for Invictus AngelShares. Better trade fast, because if they're really screwing up, then their AngelShares will go to zero and they will have a very hard time finding new investors. Competition! It solves so many problems.
-
+1
*Grabs Popcorn*
-
Yeah I'll say I'm starting to agree, transparency will be key.
-
*Grabs Popcorn*
+1
-
As per my discussion tonight, the AngelShare funds should be held by members of the community via a multi-sig transaction. In essence Invictus would have to write an invoice for funds, have it approved by the community, who then can sign the transaction from the Angel address to Invictus.
Therefore if the earth was to open up and swallow Invictus, it would not matter. All the code is open source anyways, and the community would still have 98% of the funds. Just hire a new team, and hope no more strange acts of God happen.
It adds transparency backed by the blockchain. ;D
tldr; Remove point of failure with multisig.
-
As per my discussion tonight, the AngelShare funds should be held by members of the community via a multi-sig transaction. In essence Invictus would have to write an invoice for funds, have it approved by the community, who then can sign the transaction from the Angel address to Invictus.
Therefore if the earth was to open up and swallow Invictus, it would not matter. All the code is open source anyways, and the community would still have 98% of the funds. Just hire a new team, and hope no more strange acts of God happen.
It adds transparency backed by the blockchain. ;D
tldr; Remove point of failure with multisig.
+1
Money should not be wasted. But money should still under the control of shareholders.
-
As per my discussion tonight, the AngelShare funds should be held by members of the community via a multi-sig transaction. In essence Invictus would have to write an invoice for funds, have it approved by the community, who then can sign the transaction from the Angel address to Invictus.
Therefore if the earth was to open up and swallow Invictus, it would not matter. All the code is open source anyways, and the community would still have 98% of the funds. Just hire a new team, and hope no more strange acts of God happen.
It adds transparency backed by the blockchain. ;D
tldr; Remove point of failure with multisig.
Invictus should take precautions that the funds can be moved and we should be introduced to a second or third developer(hopefully outside their current city/state or perhaps the country.) who wants be the Godfather/mother for this project. However, I don't really want to hamstring Invictus too much. Perhaps they can just propose an opening budget, say 10 million, then everything after that could be locked up until they need more funds. But they have to be able to make commitments to developers and others. If they tell someone they can hire them for one year, that developer needs to know she's going to be paid. The proposal could just be a general outline but it would be nice to have more details later to make sure there's no waste.
-
I would say I don't quite sure whether this is whole good thing to discover the unnecessity of mining. Mining used to solve the both security and money distribution problem at the same time, in a coupled way. When the money are burned, a waste it is. The money spent in mining goes nothing, and no legal and political problem, no need to audit.
After all, why would we burn the money while there's no need to do it? Does mining still worth survive?
-
I would say I don't quite sure whether this is whole good thing to discover the unnecessity of mining. Mining used to solve the both security and money distribution problem at the same time, in a coupled way. When the money are burned, a waste it is. The money used in mining becomes nothing, and no legal and political problem, no need to audit.
After all, why would we burn the money while there's no need to do it? Does mining still worth survive?
Bytemaster and I reached that conclusion a while ago. This is why I've supported Peercoin for months. Mining is dead and we have something to replace it.
Then again everyone wants a free lunch(heh I'm mining right now). Mining is more about advertising and making a profit than securing the blockchain.
-
I would say I don't quite sure whether this is whole good thing to discover the unnecessity of mining. Mining used to solve the both security and money distribution problem at the same time, in a coupled way. When the money are burned, a waste it is. The money used in mining becomes nothing, and no legal and political problem, no need to audit.
After all, why would we burn the money while there's no need to do it? Does mining still worth survive?
Bytemaster and I reached that conclusion a while ago. This is why I've supported Peercoin for months. Mining is dead and we have something to replace it.
Then again everyone wants a free lunch(heh I'm mining right now). Mining is more about advertising and making a profit than securing the blockchain.
It's right, the traditional way of mining is a waste of eletric, and money, so it is stupid. But in my concept mining could be an greater framework, representing all the useful work need to be done for the DAC. Under this framework, 3I could be the leading miner, and provide transparent protocal and build the APIs for other miner to join.
I agree the old mining way is dead, but the framework is great, we may find a more innovative way.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
-
Not knowing what the bounties would be I'd like to say that I (probably) don't like the idea as I don't have much time to work for bounties... But I would always have a few minutes time to set up 10(0) miners.
Of course it's stupid to waste money into mining-heat. But at least if you're on of the "early birds" your (stupid) mining could bring you a lot more than you invest (as long as difficulty is low).
I don't see that kind of chance right now with Angelshares. (How) does the early bird profit for being faster than others?
-
Not knowing what the bounties would be I'd like to say that I (probably) don't like the idea as I don't have much time to work for bounties... But I would always have a few minutes time to set up 10(0) miners.
Of course it's stupid to waste money into mining-heat. But at least if you're on of the "early birds" your (stupid) mining could bring you a lot more than you invest (as long as difficulty is low).
I don't see that kind of chance right now with Angelshares. (How) does the early bird profit for being faster than others?
Virtual mining is much the same as real mining. By joining early, you can get more shares with less money.
-
HackFisher +1
Gekko +1
coolspeed +1
-
Not knowing what the bounties would be I'd like to say that I (probably) don't like the idea as I don't have much time to work for bounties... But I would always have a few minutes time to set up 10(0) miners.
Of course it's stupid to waste money into mining-heat. But at least if you're on of the "early birds" your (stupid) mining could bring you a lot more than you invest (as long as difficulty is low).
I don't see that kind of chance right now with Angelshares. (How) does the early bird profit for being faster than others?
True but you still have protoshare for mining you could buy Angelshare too, I thing we are still in the "early birds" stage right know.
-
PTS mining at current difficulty is no more profitable. It's an investment hoping for higher PTS value in the future.
I wonder how the initial Angelshare investment would look. Early birds get 1 share for 0.01$?
-
All depend on how Angelshare will be implemented.
Angelshare should be cheaper than PTS if they don't give you any share on the DAC's and they only give you 1:1 on bitshares. And if AngelShare give you 1:1 in every3I DAC then they should be priced same as PTS 1.0 or else nobody will buy them or if they are cheaper nobody will mine PTS 1.0 or buy PTS 1.0 anymore.
-
The future of DACs
Two days ago Bytemaster introduced to us an idea to create Angel Shares. AngelShares is what I'm calling a development engine. It's extremely powerful. It would allow resources currently wasted to be pumped into development. Right now, Invictus is on the bleeding edge of a new frontier opened up by Bitcoin. But things are happening quickly and people are flooding into this new space looking for opportunities. The BitShare project risks falling behind.
How the development engine works
It's not much different from renting an ASIC miner to mine Bitcoins. Instead, you rent the miner from Invictus. You rent the miner and then you receive shares directly to your wallet. Mining will be proportional to work as measured by the money invested. This money will be used to fuel the BitShares project.
ProtoShares
ProtoShares will continue be mined. However, because Invictus only has enough time to mine so many AngelShares before the release of Bitshares, this means ProtoShare holders will end up with more than 10% of the money supply. It could be up to 50% or more.
Mining
Invictus has made it clear for awhile that it was looking to move from Proof-of-Work to Proof-of-Stake. This means, the DACs no longer need to pay miners to work for it. This is why Bitshares will no longer be mined. Mined shares are a reward for the work miners do, or used to do. There is no reason to pay for that work. It would just be a waste of electricity. Also, it has become clear that Proof-of-Work has many weaknesses. In addition, mining eventually favours the rich. How many of us can build a factory to produce ASICs to mine Bitcoin? This has happened with Bitcoin and it threatens its survival. Companies are mining Bitcoin. With Proof-of-Work, the rich will win. With Proof-of-Stake, the rich have to come through us if they want in. And if they want in early, then they will only be supplying us with the tools to make us stronger.
Centralisation
Some have raised concerns about Invictus being a point of failure. Some of these concerns are valid and there are possible solutions to the problem. However, Invictus is already a central point of failure. It is unclear who would pick up the torch should something happen to Invictus. If there was capital fuelling the development of the project, then there would be a larger pool of people who could continue the project should anything happen to Invictus. I believe bringing on more developers to the project will actually help the community who is already overly reliant on Invictus.
Where does the money go
This question is still open for debate. Personally, I'm advocating for an expansion of bounties. There are many things that DACs need done. Wikis, FAQs, How-To guides, and much, much more. DACs need people! And of course the project can use funds to bring on more developers.
How is the money allocated
This is still open for debate. Personally, I'd like to see the core team hand down the tasks and then the community can decide on appropriate bounties and completion requirements.
Distribution of Wealth
Some have raised concerns about only people with money being able to participate in the AngelShares system. As shown above, tasks and work can be distributed and this work is paid for from the Angel funds. The DACs will always need people to do stuff. Unfortunately, this means that people who just wanted to use their computers to mine for shares won't be able to do that. It should be pointed out though, that it's already too late for people with personal computers to mine ProtoShares meaningfully, and that BitShares, even under the Proof-of-Work strategy, would have been GPU and ASIC proof and cloud-proof and pool-proof. There would have been no BitShare windfall for profiteers. Without the need for brute work, it's difficult to see how or why Invictus should just give away shares. Mastercoin and Ripple provide examples of different strategies that may help us decide how to proceed.
Summary
Invictus is a slow moving steam locomotive. With Angel Shares, Invictus could turn this project into a high speed train.
Most of the ideas you present are fine but...
I don't want any core team to hand down tasks. That is complete control of what is supposed to be a decentralized free market community. Priority of tasks should be set by vote according to a sort algorithm which is set up stone and in code. A DAC could handle assigning tasks. Bounties don't work well long term and for programmers its better to hire them full time than to use bounties. Also it ignores marketing, documentation and a whole range of other kinds of jobs which we don't know the fair value of to the market at the time because we don't know how many people want to do those tasks.
The way you're presenting this idea you're removing an entire sector (mining) and the profit strategies associated with that sector no longer exist somewhere else. So you're basically taking away the profit making strategies of an entire sector without providing an alternative new sector to replace it.
I provide an alternative sector with Proof of Commitment as a scheme to move the profit strategies from obsolete (mining) to advertising, marketing, and other kinds of simple tasks which benefit the economic ecosystem. These tasks will be voted on in terms of priority by the community and the amount of payment to the task should be determined by a formula of how many people are trying to complete the task and how high it's voted.
You can distribute coins/shares that way so that it's not just distributed to whomever has the most money saved up, inherited or from a trust fund.
In order for this to work we have to turn miners into some other kind of worker. If we just get rid of all these people from the economy then they cannot afford to buy your angel shares, bitshares or anything else.
If removing mining will take away from the economic ecosystem while also hurting the little guy then I'm not in favor of it unless some other mechanism replaces it which is just as accessible and offers similar levels of profit.
Here are my ideas on how we can resolve the problem. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1413.msg15246#msg15246 review the proposal. I don't believe turning our backs on the little guy is an option even if we want to cut out the botnets. Many people simply will not have money to buy anything unless they can get paid for doing something. We should not mirror the problems we have in the real world in this community when we don't have to.
-
I would say I don't quite sure whether this is whole good thing to discover the unnecessity of mining. Mining used to solve the both security and money distribution problem at the same time, in a coupled way. When the money are burned, a waste it is. The money used in mining becomes nothing, and no legal and political problem, no need to audit.
After all, why would we burn the money while there's no need to do it? Does mining still worth survive?
Bytemaster and I reached that conclusion a while ago. This is why I've supported Peercoin for months. Mining is dead and we have something to replace it.
Then again everyone wants a free lunch(heh I'm mining right now). Mining is more about advertising and making a profit than securing the blockchain.
You are exactly right. Mining is about advertising but it's not free profit. There is no free profit. If too many people mine then it's not profitable at all to do it.
Since we know it's about advertising we should find a way to keep all the positive benefits of mining while removing the negative risks. None of us like or want botnets because they provide absolutely nothing for the economic ecosystem. But I do want people to advertise and be compensated for that. I do want people to do tasks, roles, jobs or whatever you want to call it and I want the reward to be algorithmic and predictable.
Mining was a predictable reward over a long period of time and it was very good for decentralizing the coin distribution. Selling the coins in my opinion is one of the worst ways to distribute because it cuts out the little guy. Assume the use case of the person who does not have a bank account at all, who does not have the ability to buy Bitcoins at all, who does not have any money to buy anything at all, how exactly are they supposed to be included if they cannot mine?
So by removing mining you basically cut them all out of the economy and with no alternative they have no way to get back in. That is why I cannot support cutting mining out without putting something in it's place. If you want to give Bitshares to people who advertise it in their signature that would be a start, if you want to let a DAC distribute these funds and let the community vote on it then that would be the best way.
Programmers should be paid by the angel fund, but the miners are a demographic as well and they have to be paid by something if they are supposed to keep buying bitshares, investing, advertising, marketing and whatever else.
Not knowing what the bounties would be I'd like to say that I (probably) don't like the idea as I don't have much time to work for bounties... But I would always have a few minutes time to set up 10(0) miners.
Of course it's stupid to waste money into mining-heat. But at least if you're on of the "early birds" your (stupid) mining could bring you a lot more than you invest (as long as difficulty is low).
I don't see that kind of chance right now with Angelshares. (How) does the early bird profit for being faster than others?
Would you accept these ideas as a first step?
Administrative tasks - Check a list of users and make sure they all have their signatures filled. A script could do this or a human and either way it should be paid the credits. If a script does it then its an autonomous agent which must be paid and then it's money could be used to pay humans to make the script more efficient. If it's a human being then the human could get paid more doing this than they would mining because this takes more time and effort (I know because I have done this). But if I am wrong the algorithm is self correcting and would adjust the pay rate down as more people volunteer to do it due to the "difficulty" going up for the task.
Marketing tasks - Putting Bitshares in your signature on different forums and being credited as you would if you mined it setting up different miners. The profit rate should be based on how many other people are doing it. This would give you an easy to set up profit stream similar to what you get now from mining.
These are just two basic categories. As more people do a task the "difficulty" shall rise according to the algorithm and the profits shrink, but you'd still get a steady stream of Bitshares or whatever DAC you're doing it for and it would advertise us everywhere on every forum. It would be decentralized and a DAC itself so it would actually display in practice what a DAC is and anyone could start working for it immediately.
Not knowing what the bounties would be I'd like to say that I (probably) don't like the idea as I don't have much time to work for bounties... But I would always have a few minutes time to set up 10(0) miners.
Of course it's stupid to waste money into mining-heat. But at least if you're on of the "early birds" your (stupid) mining could bring you a lot more than you invest (as long as difficulty is low).
I don't see that kind of chance right now with Angelshares. (How) does the early bird profit for being faster than others?
Virtual mining is much the same as real mining. By joining early, you can get more shares with less money.
In my opinion a DAC should be backed by the goods and services of the community. If we are telling people they can only be a virtual miner by paying someone then you're cutting labor out of the equation. Why shouldn't labor be rewarded with shares if people join in on the labor early? In my opinion if you want to be early to put the new DAC in your signature the DAC itself should reward your commitment to it. There is no reason to centralize it around 3I, no reason to have anything more than an algorithm and a voting system for the community to set priorities. It's virtual mining but the difference would be that the human being and the autonomous agent would both be doing labor and paying each other.
The script would get credits, it would be used to improve the script. The human would get credits and these credits could be redeemed for Bitshares making them a deeper stakeholder in the DAC. Tell me why this isn't the best way? Commitment should be rewarded in my opinion and it's just a matter of getting people to prove their level of commitment to the different DACs.
-
The idea sound interesting but I'm not sure how you could implemented it.
So following you proposition it will look like that : you'll have 2 pts , 2 million angelshare, 1 million POC and 1 million for a hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake ?
Putting Bitshares in your signature on different forums and being credited
How can you prevent spamming and trolling ex: I put my bitshare signature and I spam every forum this could have the opposite effect for the DAC.
Same goes from marketing how will you control good marketing for bad marketing overdoing marketing it? When money are involved cheating always occurs especially it is is a script doing the counting.
-
The idea sound interesting but I'm not sure how you could implemented it.
So following you proposition it will look like that : you'll have 2 pts , 2 million angelshare, 1 million POC and 1 million for a hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake ?
This is correct or you can just remove Proof of Work entirely and make it 2 million PoC.
Putting Bitshares in your signature on different forums and being credited
How can you prevent spamming and trolling ex: I put my bitshare signature and I spam every forum this could have the opposite effect for the DAC.
Reputation. The payments will go to Keyhotee ID and those Keyhotee ID will have a reputation. Spamming wont be very effective if a human being checks it and flags them for spamming. Basically you spam and get flagged and you lose credits so that would put a deterrent against spamming. Keyhotee IDs have to be mined so that also would be a deterrent.
Same goes from marketing how will you control good marketing for bad marketing overdoing marketing it? When money are involved cheating always occurs especially it is is a script doing the counting.
You don't have precise control but a human (or humans) can check and be credited for providing a "spam control" function. An algorithm controls the pay rates. If there are too many people with signatures in their name then it wont be as profitable as before because "difficulty" would rise. As that happens people will have to find a new avenue for a profit stream. The point is not to completely shut down all avenues, so when you close off one because difficulty is too high then like water or electricity it should find the path of least resistance.
Cheating isn't really possible. You cannot spam because it's associated with your Keyhotee ID. You're concerned about the Sybil attack and the way to stop it is with Keyhotee. If you cannot build a reputation system to stop Sybil attacks with Keyhotee then you're going to have a lot more problems than this. The best bet is to make the deterrent high enough that the punishment for spamming is high enough that people will not cheat. If your Keyhotee ID loses its reputation then you may gain some temporary profit but you also get labelled as a spammer and now you have to explain that situation in the future.
The whole system can be pseudo-anonymous. I don't need to know your Keyhotee ID directly. I could know some hash which represents your Keyhotee ID. The pay script would simply go down the list and pay the public keys associated with Keyhotee IDs but it would be done in such a way that each Keyhotee ID would also have a reputation and if there is a dispute then Keyhotee IDs with a high reputation can resolve it.
For example let's say I'm an Administrator with a good reputation, trusted by many people, have marketed a lot of DACs, and I've proven my commitment to the DAC. My commitment level would be higher and my reputation would be better than a new someone who merely puts a lot of signatures on a lot of forums. They would gain a commitment level for what they are doing and it does matter but if you only ever did the same task and if it looks to a lot of people like spamming then you can be moderated by the community and held accountable.
This system can probably be refined so I'm not saying the solution I'm presenting to stop Sybil attacks in this context is the best way to go about it but it does seem that the only reason Keyhotee is mined is specifically to stop people from making a bunch of sock puppet accounts of throw away identities. If we add PoC to the mix then you make it even more important for people to have a "good name" because their "good name" will not just have to be mined, not just have a trust reputation level, but also have a PoC level for every DAC they help to build.
The PoC level is like a credit rating. If you mess up then it can go down and you don't want this to happen. To keep your PoC level up you just have to be active in the community consistently. Having signatures is the least you can do to be consistently active and boost your PoC level. The more of these sorts of tasks you are doing the higher your PoC level, the better your rating, the more "street cred" you have.
-
Ok this is all a bit ridiculous, money is just proof of work... work that you did for someone else. A little guy can do baby sitting, pick up leaves, mow lawns, cut fire wood, and "earn" shares in this by taking their earnings to a bitcoin meet up. Anyone with the ability to write, teach, explain, evangelize can find a way to earn value by providing value. Claiming that money "cuts labor" out of the equation is to imply that labor is valuable for its own sake. Labor can always earn money and has no right to value unless it is applied in profitable endeavors that benefit someone willing to give up money for labor.
At the very least someone has to have a computer and internet connection to participate in mining which means they have a home, an electric bill, and some disposable income. There is no reason why this person cannot set up a bank account or work with a friend who can setup a bank account. The use case you describe for the supposed "little guy" is so far out there that I do not know where to begin.
The purpose of money is to allow each person to specialize in what they do best. This is how they can earn the most money. It is also how they can earn the most AngelShares.
I just don't see why DACs should promote economic inefficiency by overpaying for work? These people could be doing something more productive with their time than having DAC shareholders overpay them for low-end questionably valuable work. If there is true need for something then someone will pay for it and Invictus will be smart enough to recognize they need to pay for marketing to gain a network effect.
ProtoShares already represents a HUGE advertising giveaway and viral marketing. It seems to have worked wonders, however more mining at this point will have diminishing returns if any.
-
The way you get cheat-free marketing is to make people stakeholders and put their own money on the line. When their money is on the line they have financial incentive to do GOOD marketing.
If you pay someone to post on forums etc that is called astro-turfing. People will do it without any care in the world.
If you try to manage all of these credits, reputation points, etc then the whole process becomes political and people fight about what is good or bad marketing.
Equal opportunity investment, easy investment, anonymous investment, no minimum investment, is the best way to allow people to profit and promote solid advertising.
The last thing this movement needs is to attract more people with the mindset that they can get a free lunch by performing questionably valuable services.
-
+1
-
I see two options, a sort of fork in the road for the community. Do we want to be a community guided by investors who buy shares but who have nothing more to do with the community or do we want a community guided by the labor and services of the community? Perhaps we can compromise and have a combination of both, but removing mining and going entirely toward an investor model removes everyone else and I don't see that option as sustainable. Just look at Ripple and tell me you want that.
If we want to be guided by the labor of the community then you'll have to build a community economy which is sustainable. People will have to start working for DACs and get paid in shares. People in the real world work for shares and people online should be able to work for shares in my opinion. That is my stance and now to address the criticisms.
The way you get cheat-free marketing is to make people stakeholders and put their own money on the line. When their money is on the line they have financial incentive to do GOOD marketing.
Not money but time. If they have to mine their Keyhotee ID then that Keyhotee ID's reputation is on the line and they could have spent those computing time mining a pump and dump coin if they just wanted to make money.
There is no money in the system. Input and output, you're assuming that money will magically appear in the system prior to people working and getting paid. People must profit in order to have any money to input into the system and that is the problem I have with the plan to make people pay with $ as the only way of getting Bitshares. That basically backs Bitshares by the $ which people would be working for or perhaps they are rich already, rather than the community itself. I want the community to actually be working for the currencies/shares of the DACs.
If you go decentralized you cannot micromanage it so easily. You can have reputation, you can have ratings, you can have moderation, you can have spam control functions, but you cannot have a boss who dictates what you should or shouldn't do. You have the free market which is the ultimate boss of us all, and the algorithm which controls the rate of distribution of credits according to difficulty. So if we are all doing the same thing it wont be profitable any more and this would make us have to do different things.
If you pay someone to post on forums etc that is called astro-turfing. People will do it without any care in the world.
But we aren't talking about paying people to post on forums. A better analogy is we are talking about paying people to wear a tshirt which has the url (or QRcode) to or mention of Bitshares (or other DACs). I am talking about undercover or buzz marketing, not astroturfing. Astroturfing is what politicians use to push their agenda and this isn't an election. The goal here is to increase mind share to compete with Mastercoin and the only way to do that would be to have a similar signature campaign.
Of course you could say the Mastercoin giveaway thread was astroturfing but either it was a success or it wasn't. If Mastercoin is popular for it then it's a success in my opinion as determined by the market. You and I don't determine if a marketing campaign is successful or not, but it seems that signature marketing works well if you look at all the alt coins which have used it for pump and dump schemes. Bitshares is actually innovative so all you really need to do is get people to click a link or just see a brief description and Google it.
If you try to manage all of these credits, reputation points, etc then the whole process becomes political and people fight about what is good or bad marketing.
Let them fight. People fight over mining already. You have mining pools which act like political parties already. You will never remove all the political crap. But who cares?
The numbers will show us whether or not it is working. In my experience it has worked. It's not an accident that Mastercoin seems so much more popular than Bitshares right now. When you go on Bitcointalk you will see a bunch of people with Mastercoin in their signature but you don't see anything about DACs. If each DAC has to be marketed then the only way to spread the word is to pay people to spread the word otherwise some DACs like memorycoin for example wont get very far because no one even will know it exists or what it does.
And if you don't compensate people for spreading the word people will spend their time spreading the word for something else. Their signature space (or spam space if you want to call it that) will go to Mastercoin, Colored Coin, Quark or whatever the latest alt coin is.
Equal opportunity investment, easy investment, anonymous investment, no minimum investment, is the best way to allow people to profit and promote solid advertising.
So basically you want only investors and no workers? That isn't a community and it wont be sustainable. A community has to be backed by labor at some point whether it be human or autonomous agent. If you're saying basically only people with lots of fiat should be investors and the only way to get fiat is from the banks, I can see this playing out similar to Ripple and I do not support that at all.
The last thing this movement needs is to attract more people with the mindset that they can get a free lunch by performing questionably valuable services.
"Free" would mean they aren't performing any service at all. So we must disagree. If it is questionable then why isn't investing from the fiat world just as questionable. How do we know any of those fiat investors care about DACs at all? It could be a big pump and dump for all we know. It also opens the community up to being bought out completely, or to market manipulation. Basically if you want the politics of it the idea of going entirely into an investment model looks like selling out to anyone who isn't capable of being an investor.
At some point you have to give people some sort of way get a share if they don't have money already. If you think the signature method of marketing is questionable, or ineffective, there are many other methods we could discuss which are equally accessible (provide free lunch), and are effective. If you're against it because it's too easy or seems too simple then that is a political rather than economic stance because it doesn't make a difference to the DAC which marketing method brings people to the DAC and the DAC does not care what kind of work people do to commit to it.
Humans subjectively judge the work of other humans sometimes not based on the actual result but on the perception. Sites which run on pop up ads for example look like scams so people judge it, but do those sites make money? If they did not make money then Google ad sense would not exist. If we did not have websites which could get paid by advertising then how exactly would you fund the creation of the web? Tell every website to ask for donations/investment? You think everyone going to websites has money to donate/invest?
-
Ok this is all a bit ridiculous, money is just proof of work... work that you did for someone else.
Money isn't a proof of work. If you inherited a lot of money then of course you'd want to buy up all the Bitshares to increase your money but what work did you do? You just did the work of buying a lot of Bitcoins and then trading them in for Bitshares.
Investment does require work and I don't mean to demean investors who did their research and want to invest. But if investing is the only way to do it then it's all about money and greed without much actual community behind it. Who is going to actually do the work of building the community? If there isn't a community then you could have 100 really innovative and brilliant DACs which no one will ever know about.
I suppose you could centralize it like Ripple is doing but that seems to go against the whole DAC model of doing things. Ripple distributes according to their own internal rules who can and cannot get XRP and how much. They have centralized control of the network and are a private corporation. I thought 3I was going to release DACs and then let go of them?
A little guy can do baby sitting, pick up leaves, mow lawns, cut fire wood, and "earn" shares in this by taking their earnings to a bitcoin meet up.
None of that work builds up the Bitshares community or any DAC. Sure they could do but then a lot of rich people in developed countries would buy up all the shares anyway.
Anyone with the ability to write, teach, explain, evangelize can find a way to earn value by providing value.
But if it's supposed to be a sustainable economic ecosystem we shouldn't tell people to go earn fiat and come back. They should be able to do it here. It shouldn't depend on Bitcoin either, as each DAC has it's own shares which people can work for without having to first earn fiat and then trade them for Bitcoins on an exchange and then trade that for some DAC shares.
All this will do is cause these people to go to Mastercoin, or altcoins to build that up instead and then maybe they'll come back or maybe not. Altcoins already have faucets, giveaways, signature campaigns, and more. Even Ripple gave out free XRP to certain threads. Bitcoin's lead developer gave out Bitcoins, and while I'm not saying we should give free lunch you do have to find a way to distribute shares and create a wide network of stakeholders in order to have a community.
-
I think it's really important to remember that DACs perform a service. It's those services and the ingenious way they perform those services that brings people to this forum.
I'm super excited about all the DACs that Invictus are doing and all the other DACs that people are proposing. I am really thrilled and honored to be taking part in this revolution. Invictus is doing some ground breaking work and we all can help and be a part of that.
ProtoShares were/are a way to vet ideas in the market. The original idea was that any DAC would be able to test their ideas using protoDACshares. I think for the most part, they worked fairly well for Invictus. ProtoShares primary function was to bring us together, to look at their ideas and decide if we wanted to keep PTS in our wallets or dump them into the market. It worked. Even with profiteers dumping PTS, the price stood strong. We gave Invictus the green light to move ahead.
The mining of bitshares
I'm not sure if mining bitshares had anything to do with equal distribution of the shares. Under proof-of-work, mining secures the network. Invictus originally wanted to create a way so that only single users would be able to mine, as to avoid Bitcoin's achilles' heel of centralized mining power.
The simple question is: Why should we give shares away through mining or a giveaway for no reason whatsoever?
-
I think it's really important to remember that DACs perform a service. It's those services and the ingenious way they perform those services that brings people to this forum.
I'm super excited about all the DACs that Invictus are doing and all the other DACs that people are proposing. I am really thrilled and honored to be taking part in this revolution. Invictus is doing some ground breaking work and we all can help and be a part of that.
ProtoShares were/are a way to vet ideas in the market. The original idea was that any DAC would be able to test their ideas using protoDACshares. I think for the most part, they worked fairly well for Invictus. ProtoShares primary function was to bring us together, to look at their ideas and decide if we wanted to keep PTS in our wallets or dump them into the market. It worked. Even with profiteers dumping PTS, the price stood strong. We gave Invictus the green light to move ahead.
The mining of bitshares
I'm not sure if mining bitshares had anything to do with equal distribution of the shares. Under proof-of-work, mining secures the network. Invictus originally wanted to create a way so that only single users would be able to mine, as to avoid Bitcoin's achilles' heel of centralized mining power.
The simple question is: Why should we give shares away through mining or a giveaway for no reason whatsoever?
Equal distribution is not important. Wide distribution is important.
If the community isn't very big or very deep then Bitshares will be forked because people will view it as somehow tainted if it's not widely and deeply distributed. We don't want to go through all that mess just because miners are left out.
I think our shares would be worth more if there are more people who are stakeholders. Some people believe having less stakeholders but more money is good for the value of their shares. In the short term they might be right that having a flood of money is good for their shares even if its fewer shareholders. Most of us own PTS already and will benefit regardless but for people who discover Bitshares a year from now they aren't going to be happy when told to buy Bitshares if a Bitshare is $500 and it looks like we basically own them all in advance. It could cause it to be perceived as unfair and we already see people saying this about Bitcoin, Mastercoin, because they came in late and now cannot afford to get any.
Corporations in the real world eventually go public after the IPO process is complete but even prior to the IPO they distribute shares in-house. How do we want to do that? I don't advocate giving them away for free, but what services or tasks do we want people to do in exchange for shares? If we say nothing they can do will get them shares then what if they decide to create a fork which is the exact same social contract but with greater sense of inclusion?
I see it as a choice between quick short term money or a long term sustainable money based on work distribution to share platform DAC. I also think when you have more stakeholders then it changes your narrative in terms of marketing and the main problem people have with Mastercoin or even Bitcoin is that too few people own a piece of it. Imagine if you couldn't mine Bitcoins and the only way to get them were to buy them, the accusations of it being a pyramid scheme would never end.
As far as the distribution goes if you own PTS then you're locked into Bitshares at 2 million according to my idea so you're reserved in the IPO. The angelshares should be purchased and if there are 2 million of those that will allow the individuals with a lot of money to invest for their portion.
What about everyone else? 2 million reserved for everyone else seems fair to me. It can be used to get people to do all kinds of tasks like setting up a forum for each new DAC, setting up a website for each new DAC, and any other tasks which can be prioritized, voted up, verified, and it could be done within the infrastructure of a DAC so that it is decentralized and community controlled.
People have the idea that it's giving the community something for nothing but it's actually how you get a community of people to actively build. Just hiring programmers will not be enough and having 3I do hiring and bounties might work for Bitshares but what about the hundreds of DACs which will come after it? My idea would build up every future DAC the same way because my idea is a DAC.
From here on out I'm going to leave it up to the community to decide. My voice has been heard and I will profit regardless of the decision made.
-
I think it's really important to remember that DACs perform a service. It's those services and the ingenious way they perform those services that brings people to this forum.
I'm super excited about all the DACs that Invictus are doing and all the other DACs that people are proposing. I am really thrilled and honored to be taking part in this revolution. Invictus is doing some ground breaking work and we all can help and be a part of that.
ProtoShares were/are a way to vet ideas in the market. The original idea was that any DAC would be able to test their ideas using protoDACshares. I think for the most part, they worked fairly well for Invictus. ProtoShares primary function was to bring us together, to look at their ideas and decide if we wanted to keep PTS in our wallets or dump them into the market. It worked. Even with profiteers dumping PTS, the price stood strong. We gave Invictus the green light to move ahead.
The mining of bitshares
I'm not sure if mining bitshares had anything to do with equal distribution of the shares. Under proof-of-work, mining secures the network. Invictus originally wanted to create a way so that only single users would be able to mine, as to avoid Bitcoin's achilles' heel of centralized mining power.
The simple question is: Why should we give shares away through mining or a giveaway for no reason whatsoever?
Equal distribution is not important. Wide distribution is important.
If the community isn't very big or very deep then Bitshares will be forked because people will view it as somehow tainted if it's not widely and deeply distributed. We don't want to go through all that mess just because miners are left out.
Basically I believe our shares would be worth more if there are more people who are stakeholders. Some people believe having less stakeholders but more money is good for the value of their shares. In the short term they might be right that having a flood of money is good for their shares even if its fewer shareholders. Most of us own PTS already and will benefit regardless but for people who discover Bitshares a year from now they aren't going to be happy when told to buy Bitshares if a Bitshare is $500 and it looks like we basically own them all in advance. It could cause it to be perceived as unfair and we already see people saying Bitcoin, Mastercoin, because they came in late and now cannot afford to get any.
Corporations in the real world eventually go public after the IPO process is complete but even prior to the IPO they distribute shares in-house. How do we want to do that? I don't advocate giving them away for free, but what services or tasks do we want people to do in exchange for shares? If we say nothing they can do will get them shares then what if they decide to create a fork which is the exact same social contract but with greater sense of inclusion?
I see it as a choice between quick short term money or a long term sustainable work distribution to share platform DAC. I also think when you have more stakeholders then it changes your narrative in terms of marketing and the main problem people have with Mastercoin or even Bitcoin is that too few people own a piece of it. As far as the distribution goes if you own PTS then you're locked into Bitshares at 2 million according to my plan so you're reserved in the IPO. The angelshares should be purchased and if there are 2 million of those that will allow the individuals with a lot of money to invest for their portion.
What about everyone else? 2 million reserved or everyone else seems fair to me. It can be used to get people to do all kinds of tasks like setting up a forum for each new DAC, setting up a website, and any other task which can be verified and it could be done within the infrastructure of a DAC so that it is decentralized and community controlled.
People have the idea that it's giving the community something for nothing but it's actually how you get a community of people to actively build. Just hiring programmers will not be enough and having 3I do hiring and bounties might work for Bitshares but what about the hundreds of DACs which will come after it? My idea would build up every future DAC the same way because my idea is a DAC.
From here on out I'm going to leave it up to the community to decide. My voice has been heard and I will profit regardless of the decision made.
Thank you luckybit. This was great. I'm not opposed to having a few more shares go out. I just wanted people to make a good argument for it, which you are. There is still the problem of how to get those extra shares out.
-
I think it's really important to remember that DACs perform a service. It's those services and the ingenious way they perform those services that brings people to this forum.
I'm super excited about all the DACs that Invictus are doing and all the other DACs that people are proposing. I am really thrilled and honored to be taking part in this revolution. Invictus is doing some ground breaking work and we all can help and be a part of that.
ProtoShares were/are a way to vet ideas in the market. The original idea was that any DAC would be able to test their ideas using protoDACshares. I think for the most part, they worked fairly well for Invictus. ProtoShares primary function was to bring us together, to look at their ideas and decide if we wanted to keep PTS in our wallets or dump them into the market. It worked. Even with profiteers dumping PTS, the price stood strong. We gave Invictus the green light to move ahead.
The mining of bitshares
I'm not sure if mining bitshares had anything to do with equal distribution of the shares. Under proof-of-work, mining secures the network. Invictus originally wanted to create a way so that only single users would be able to mine, as to avoid Bitcoin's achilles' heel of centralized mining power.
The simple question is: Why should we give shares away through mining or a giveaway for no reason whatsoever?
Equal distribution is not important. Wide distribution is important.
If the community isn't very big or very deep then Bitshares will be forked because people will view it as somehow tainted if it's not widely and deeply distributed. We don't want to go through all that mess just because miners are left out.
Basically I believe our shares would be worth more if there are more people who are stakeholders. Some people believe having less stakeholders but more money is good for the value of their shares. In the short term they might be right that having a flood of money is good for their shares even if its fewer shareholders. Most of us own PTS already and will benefit regardless but for people who discover Bitshares a year from now they aren't going to be happy when told to buy Bitshares if a Bitshare is $500 and it looks like we basically own them all in advance. It could cause it to be perceived as unfair and we already see people saying Bitcoin, Mastercoin, because they came in late and now cannot afford to get any.
Corporations in the real world eventually go public after the IPO process is complete but even prior to the IPO they distribute shares in-house. How do we want to do that? I don't advocate giving them away for free, but what services or tasks do we want people to do in exchange for shares? If we say nothing they can do will get them shares then what if they decide to create a fork which is the exact same social contract but with greater sense of inclusion?
I see it as a choice between quick short term money or a long term sustainable work distribution to share platform DAC. I also think when you have more stakeholders then it changes your narrative in terms of marketing and the main problem people have with Mastercoin or even Bitcoin is that too few people own a piece of it. As far as the distribution goes if you own PTS then you're locked into Bitshares at 2 million according to my plan so you're reserved in the IPO. The angelshares should be purchased and if there are 2 million of those that will allow the individuals with a lot of money to invest for their portion.
What about everyone else? 2 million reserved or everyone else seems fair to me. It can be used to get people to do all kinds of tasks like setting up a forum for each new DAC, setting up a website, and any other task which can be verified and it could be done within the infrastructure of a DAC so that it is decentralized and community controlled.
People have the idea that it's giving the community something for nothing but it's actually how you get a community of people to actively build. Just hiring programmers will not be enough and having 3I do hiring and bounties might work for Bitshares but what about the hundreds of DACs which will come after it? My idea would build up every future DAC the same way because my idea is a DAC.
From here on out I'm going to leave it up to the community to decide. My voice has been heard and I will profit regardless of the decision made.
Thank you luckybit. This was great. I'm not opposed to having a few more shares go out. I just wanted people to make a good argument for it, which you are. There is still the problem of how to get those extra shares out.
One additional thought or comment I want to make. Bitshares are not like shares in the real world. I am assuming they are highly divisible. One of the main problems with Bitcoin is that when the price shoots up it's still priced at $1000 or whatever and people start discussing miliBit or whatever weird denomination. Asicminer shares got around that by allowing people to buy smaller fractions. So for sake of marketing and psychological benefit we should probably not make the same mistakes Bitcoin made and release it to be sold at the satoshi level and track the price at that level to the dollar if they are going with the price unit model at all (I heard some rumor of percentage of the pie model)
This way people with fractions of a cent still can buy Bitshares in ever decreasing portions and also through this mechanism Bitshares would allow for micropayments to pay for tasks which people view as irrelevant. So even the tasks which are at the bottom of the task list would pay something and while that something might be a fraction of a Bitshare and not seem like a lot in 2014, in 2016 if they hold onto it then it could be a nice profit for them as if there are only between 4 and 6 million Bitshares it would be highly deflationary.
Am I wrong about that?
-
Can't agree more with luckybit. That is something I want to express, but still not have deep and clear thought, stick in mouse.
BTW, in DAC, people have money resources and labor/mining resources, they may want to contribute and maybe return. But some labor resources are not easy to transform to money, but can have the same effect of contribute to DACs. E.g. I work daily from Mon to Fri, I would like to contribute my resource and time to DACs on Sta. and Sun even if it has less ROI, but it is not easy for me to do boring works on weekend for money, and using these money to invest in.
My another idea is that, Work Proof is not the only target, it is because of the just-in-time feedback/fee of Mining as proof-of-work, so that people can response with more work/mining to the DAC, I can not see that Money as Proof-of-work can have this just-in-time feedback effect. Just-in-time is important.
I use the term "labor", but don't like it, the community have many other resources, ideas, feedback, thoughts, smart guys, It's also a waste not to use them.
I was attracted in the community by the Mission(http://invictus-innovations.com/mission/ (http://invictus-innovations.com/mission/)) page of 3I's website, it says that "Centralization tends to corrupt. And absolute centralization corrupts absolutely." But I do not understand why we should do the decentralization revolution in a centralize way.
-
Can't agree more with luckybit. That is something I want to express, but still not have deep and clear thought, stick in mouse.
BTW, in DAC, people have money resources and labor/mining resources, they may want to contribute and maybe return. But some labor resources are not easy to transform to money, but can have the same effect of contribute to DACs. E.g. I work daily from Mon to Fri, I would like to contribute my resource and time to DACs on Sta. and Sun even if it has less ROI, but it is not easy for me to do boring works on weekend for money, and using these money to invest in.
I use the term "labor", but don't like it, the community have many other resources, ideas, feedback, thoughts, smart guys, It's also a waste not to use them.
I was attracted in the community by the Mission(http://invictus-innovations.com/mission/ (http://invictus-innovations.com/mission/)) page of 3I's website, it says that "Centralization tends to corrupt. And absolute centralization corrupts absolutely." But I do not understand why we should do the decentralization revolution in a centralize way.
I've updated my post, make sure to check it out. AngelShares will not centralize anything. As soon as more DAC teams are ready to go, there will be competition. If you don't like how things are going with one team, then you can invest in a new idea or team. Invictus actually wants you to do this. They would love for you to punish bad actors.
-
{Que23}
Now, It's my understanding that AngelShares will be tradable. This really changes everything if they are and takes away a lot of the worry about centralization. As soon as some of the competing DACs are ready to move forward, then we will have real competition within this space. Don't like BitShares? Don't think it's adding value to your ProtoShares? Then swap your Invictus Angelshares for some new developer's AngelShares. If one DAC can't get Angels to invest, then there's something wrong with the idea or the team. If a team of Developers starts doing things you don't like, swap out your DevXAngelShares for Invictus AngelShares. Better trade fast, because if they're really screwing up, then their AngelShares will go to zero and they will have a very hard time finding new investors. Competition! It solves so many problems.
I am not sure making AngleShares tradable is a good idea, it will have cascading effect on Protoshares, could be good, could be very bad.
-
{Que23}
Now, It's my understanding that AngelShares will be tradable. This really changes everything if they are and takes away a lot of the worry about centralization. As soon as some of the competing DACs are ready to move forward, then we will have real competition within this space. Don't like BitShares? Don't think it's adding value to your ProtoShares? Then swap your Invictus Angelshares for some new developer's AngelShares. If one DAC can't get Angels to invest, then there's something wrong with the idea or the team. If a team of Developers starts doing things you don't like, swap out your DevXAngelShares for Invictus AngelShares. Better trade fast, because if they're really screwing up, then their AngelShares will go to zero and they will have a very hard time finding new investors. Competition! It solves so many problems.
I am not sure making AngleShares tradable is a good idea, it will have cascading effect on Protoshares, could be good, could be very bad.
The reason you want PTS, the reason I want them is it protects you from people just forking any of the open source DACs and running with it. As we've seen with Bitcoin, the network effect is very powerful. So, if someone tried to take Bitshares without honouring PTS holders, it would be an uphill battle for that person or group. We already have a strong community of PTS holders and soon to be AngelShare holders. But AngelShares are different, they are for funding. Where PTS keeps the whole DAC project together, AngelShares keeps the teams competing. After AngelShares, we don't actually need invictus anymore. If they screw up bitshares and someone forks it and does it better and honours PTS holders, then we can just stop buying Invictus AngelShares. Better than that, we can trade them for the new teams AngelShares. Invictus really thought of everything when they create PTS(I'm thinking they should have made more), and AngelShares just makes our situation so much better, because now we can take this project anywhere. The project is portable.
-
Forgive me if I mis-understand something,
but I think angleshares could be a natural part of 3I as an DAC,
just like the model they have proposed before.
For example, a possible model should be like this:
1. Every software project of 3I should have a new (angle)share/coin branched from the mother DAC share, and use coding as POW because the new project is directly benifited by coding itself. There is already some software available like Bithub to do this (https://github.com/WhisperSystems/BitHub)
2. This new share should accept as many currencies as possible, and donors acquire this new share in current exchange rate. In this way, this project is funded and the new share is backed by the donated money, just like fiat currencies are backed by gold.
3. To honor protoshare, protoshare holders should have 1:1 amount of this new share relative to their protoshares.
And these are also the three ways to obtain such new share
(i. e. 1. Mining by coding 2. Exchange by funding 3. obtain PTS)
-
Forgive me if I mis-understand something,
but I think angleshares could be a natural part of 3I as an DAC,
just like the model they have proposed before.
For example, a possible model should be like this:
1. Every software project of 3I should have a new (angle)share/coin branched from the mother DAC share, and use coding as POW because the new project is directly benifited by coding itself. There is already some software available like Bithub to do this (https://github.com/WhisperSystems/BitHub)
2. This new share should accept as many currencies as possible, and donors acquire this new share in current exchange rate. In this way, this project is funded and the new share is backed by the donated money, just like fiat currencies are backed by gold.
3. To honor protoshare, protoshare holders should have 1:1 amount of this new share relative to their protoshares.
And these are also the three ways to obtain such new share
(i. e. 1. Mining by coding 2. Exchange by funding 3. obtain PTS)
If you are from China as your name suggests, and the Chinese government bans you from buying Bitcoins with fiat, how would you obtain Bitshares if you cannot mine them and cannot directly work for them?
Am I the only one who can see this as the ultimate chokepoint?
-
Forgive me if I mis-understand something,
but I think angleshares could be a natural part of 3I as an DAC,
just like the model they have proposed before.
For example, a possible model should be like this:
1. Every software project of 3I should have a new (angle)share/coin branched from the mother DAC share, and use coding as POW because the new project is directly benifited by coding itself. There is already some software available like Bithub to do this (https://github.com/WhisperSystems/BitHub)
2. This new share should accept as many currencies as possible, and donors acquire this new share in current exchange rate. In this way, this project is funded and the new share is backed by the donated money, just like fiat currencies are backed by gold.
3. To honor protoshare, protoshare holders should have 1:1 amount of this new share relative to their protoshares.
And these are also the three ways to obtain such new share
(i. e. 1. Mining by coding 2. Exchange by funding 3. obtain PTS)
If you are from China as your name suggests, and the Chinese government bans you from buying Bitcoins with fiat, how would you obtain Bitshares if you cannot mine them and cannot directly work for them?
Am I the only one who can see this as the ultimate chokepoint?
Because BitCNY will trade in a narrow range vs CNY it is much easier to find someone in your locality willing to do a trade. Thus Local Bitcoins style on/off ramps are much more efficient than they are with BTC. I think we all need to assume that buying coins from centralized exchanges will be illegal everywhere and thus work on decentralized alternatives.
Besides, mining could only allow you to "BUY" about $20 per month per computer which is worthless if you want to buy $10,000 in one day.
-
Forgive me if I mis-understand something,
but I think angleshares could be a natural part of 3I as an DAC,
just like the model they have proposed before.
For example, a possible model should be like this:
1. Every software project of 3I should have a new (angle)share/coin branched from the mother DAC share, and use coding as POW because the new project is directly benifited by coding itself. There is already some software available like Bithub to do this (https://github.com/WhisperSystems/BitHub)
2. This new share should accept as many currencies as possible, and donors acquire this new share in current exchange rate. In this way, this project is funded and the new share is backed by the donated money, just like fiat currencies are backed by gold.
3. To honor protoshare, protoshare holders should have 1:1 amount of this new share relative to their protoshares.
And these are also the three ways to obtain such new share
(i. e. 1. Mining by coding 2. Exchange by funding 3. obtain PTS)
If you are from China as your name suggests, and the Chinese government bans you from buying Bitcoins with fiat, how would you obtain Bitshares if you cannot mine them and cannot directly work for them?
Am I the only one who can see this as the ultimate chokepoint?
For this issue, I have two suggestions:
1.Workaround/playaround (depending on your angle of view) of the statement of PBOC
According to the statement from PBOC, and I quote:
"各金融机构和支付机构不得开展与比特币相关的业务"
i. e. Financial and payment institutes are not allowed to do business related to bitcoin.
(http://goo.gl/F9FRxr)
I take this message as one can still exchange fiat currency with Cryptocurrency in China if there is no financial or payment institutes involved.
Practically, I can sell my bitcoins in small amount to some buyer in China mediated by some OTC exchange, which works just like Localbitcoins.com.
I know the China goverment can still bans OTC exchanges, so I am looking forward to distributed exchanges that cannot be recognized as exchanges or too hard to ban.
2. 3I registers as a physical company, and emploee can choose to get salary directly in this share-as-salary or in fiat currency according to current exchange rate. This method means the company should pre-exhange this share outside of countries banned to do so.
-
Forgive me if I mis-understand something,
but I think angleshares could be a natural part of 3I as an DAC,
just like the model they have proposed before.
For example, a possible model should be like this:
1. Every software project of 3I should have a new (angle)share/coin branched from the mother DAC share, and use coding as POW because the new project is directly benifited by coding itself. There is already some software available like Bithub to do this (https://github.com/WhisperSystems/BitHub)
2. This new share should accept as many currencies as possible, and donors acquire this new share in current exchange rate. In this way, this project is funded and the new share is backed by the donated money, just like fiat currencies are backed by gold.
3. To honor protoshare, protoshare holders should have 1:1 amount of this new share relative to their protoshares.
And these are also the three ways to obtain such new share
(i. e. 1. Mining by coding 2. Exchange by funding 3. obtain PTS)
The big picture: Everyone here is really keen on decentralization. But, there's a problem. Invictus is a centralized company. What to do? Well, because Invictus loves decentralized entities too, they came up with the idea of ProtoShares. ProtoShares does not benefit Invictus. They mine them just like everyone else does. If they sold the PTS, then they would have no stake in the future of DACs. Now, this is important. The future of DACs. Nothing guarantees that Invictus will be a part of that future. The projects are open source. Anyone can copy them and start their own DAC. If this happened, then it would also benefit the new company to honor the PTS social promise/contract. If they didn't, that company would have to start a whole new community fresh. They would have no network effect to propel them.
Now, Invictus needs funding. Every company needs funding. What to do? AngelShares gives any team of DAC developers a chance at funding. If the idea is good and the team is good, then funding should be easy to obtain. However, if the team starts to fail (this includes invictus) then people can stop buying the AngelShares and even trade them for another team of developer's AngelShares.
PTS is the glue that binds the DAC movement. AngelShares is the engine that move it forward. Technically, any team of Developers is free to release their AngelShares however they want. Invictus hasn't officially released their AngelShare model but it seems to be a system where you pay them to mine Invictus AngleShares for you.
-
Forgive me if I mis-understand something,
but I think angleshares could be a natural part of 3I as an DAC,
just like the model they have proposed before.
For example, a possible model should be like this:
1. Every software project of 3I should have a new (angle)share/coin branched from the mother DAC share, and use coding as POW because the new project is directly benifited by coding itself. There is already some software available like Bithub to do this (https://github.com/WhisperSystems/BitHub)
2. This new share should accept as many currencies as possible, and donors acquire this new share in current exchange rate. In this way, this project is funded and the new share is backed by the donated money, just like fiat currencies are backed by gold.
3. To honor protoshare, protoshare holders should have 1:1 amount of this new share relative to their protoshares.
And these are also the three ways to obtain such new share
(i. e. 1. Mining by coding 2. Exchange by funding 3. obtain PTS)
The big picture: Everyone here is really keen on decentralization. But, there's a problem. Invictus is a centralized company. What to do? Well, because Invictus loves decentralized entities too, they came up with the idea of ProtoShares. ProtoShares does not benefit Invictus. They mine them just like everyone else does. If they sold the PTS, then they would have no stake in the future of DACs. Now, this is important. The future of DACs. Nothing guarantees that Invictus will be a part of that future. The projects are open source. Anyone can copy them and start their own DAC. If this happened, then it would also benefit the new company to honor the PTS social promise/contract. If they didn't, that company would have to start a whole new community fresh. They would have no network effect to propel them.
Now, Invictus needs funding. Every company needs funding. What to do? AngelShares gives any team of DAC developers a chance at funding. If the idea is good and the team is good, then funding should be easy to obtain. However, if the team starts to fail (this includes invictus) then people can stop buying the AngelShares and even trade them for another team of developer's AngelShares.
PTS is the glue that binds the DAC movement. AngelShares is the engine that move it forward. Technically, any team of Developers is free to release their AngelShares however they want. Invictus hasn't officially released their AngelShare model but it seems to be a system where you pay them to mine Invictus AngleShares for you.
Exactly. The key is every DAC/project needs funding.
As a donor, one may wanna be specific where his money goes:
1. To the DAC(3I) at kickstarting stage. This purpose is served well by PTS for 3I.
2. To a project of the DAC. This could be where angleshares go.
So PTS is like the root dorectory of '3I system' and angleshares are sub-folders.
In this way, angleshares should not be recognized as duplicate/dilution of PTS.
-
Forgive me if I mis-understand something,
but I think angleshares could be a natural part of 3I as an DAC,
just like the model they have proposed before.
For example, a possible model should be like this:
1. Every software project of 3I should have a new (angle)share/coin branched from the mother DAC share, and use coding as POW because the new project is directly benifited by coding itself. There is already some software available like Bithub to do this (https://github.com/WhisperSystems/BitHub)
2. This new share should accept as many currencies as possible, and donors acquire this new share in current exchange rate. In this way, this project is funded and the new share is backed by the donated money, just like fiat currencies are backed by gold.
3. To honor protoshare, protoshare holders should have 1:1 amount of this new share relative to their protoshares.
And these are also the three ways to obtain such new share
(i. e. 1. Mining by coding 2. Exchange by funding 3. obtain PTS)
The big picture: Everyone here is really keen on decentralization. But, there's a problem. Invictus is a centralized company. What to do? Well, because Invictus loves decentralized entities too, they came up with the idea of ProtoShares. ProtoShares does not benefit Invictus. They mine them just like everyone else does. If they sold the PTS, then they would have no stake in the future of DACs. Now, this is important. The future of DACs. Nothing guarantees that Invictus will be a part of that future. The projects are open source. Anyone can copy them and start their own DAC. If this happened, then it would also benefit the new company to honor the PTS social promise/contract. If they didn't, that company would have to start a whole new community fresh. They would have no network effect to propel them.
Now, Invictus needs funding. Every company needs funding. What to do? AngelShares gives any team of DAC developers a chance at funding. If the idea is good and the team is good, then funding should be easy to obtain. However, if the team starts to fail (this includes invictus) then people can stop buying the AngelShares and even trade them for another team of developer's AngelShares.
PTS is the glue that binds the DAC movement. AngelShares is the engine that move it forward. Technically, any team of Developers is free to release their AngelShares however they want. Invictus hasn't officially released their AngelShare model but it seems to be a system where you pay them to mine Invictus AngleShares for you.
You made a key point which can resolve a lot of these issues. You said Angelshares will be tradable. If that is the case then miners will be happy because they'll be able to trade for Angelshares on crypsy. If Bitshares are put on some exchanges too such as crypsy then that would work for people who have LTC or BTC or who need some other altcoin for a specific purpose.
Mining altcoins isn't bad, it's just there are too many worthless clone coins which don't matter being mined. Some mined altcoins will have enough value to be traded.
-
Forgive me if I mis-understand something,
but I think angleshares could be a natural part of 3I as an DAC,
just like the model they have proposed before.
For example, a possible model should be like this:
1. Every software project of 3I should have a new (angle)share/coin branched from the mother DAC share, and use coding as POW because the new project is directly benifited by coding itself. There is already some software available like Bithub to do this (https://github.com/WhisperSystems/BitHub)
2. This new share should accept as many currencies as possible, and donors acquire this new share in current exchange rate. In this way, this project is funded and the new share is backed by the donated money, just like fiat currencies are backed by gold.
3. To honor protoshare, protoshare holders should have 1:1 amount of this new share relative to their protoshares.
And these are also the three ways to obtain such new share
(i. e. 1. Mining by coding 2. Exchange by funding 3. obtain PTS)
The big picture: Everyone here is really keen on decentralization. But, there's a problem. Invictus is a centralized company. What to do? Well, because Invictus loves decentralized entities too, they came up with the idea of ProtoShares. ProtoShares does not benefit Invictus. They mine them just like everyone else does. If they sold the PTS, then they would have no stake in the future of DACs. Now, this is important. The future of DACs. Nothing guarantees that Invictus will be a part of that future. The projects are open source. Anyone can copy them and start their own DAC. If this happened, then it would also benefit the new company to honor the PTS social promise/contract. If they didn't, that company would have to start a whole new community fresh. They would have no network effect to propel them.
Now, Invictus needs funding. Every company needs funding. What to do? AngelShares gives any team of DAC developers a chance at funding. If the idea is good and the team is good, then funding should be easy to obtain. However, if the team starts to fail (this includes invictus) then people can stop buying the AngelShares and even trade them for another team of developer's AngelShares.
PTS is the glue that binds the DAC movement. AngelShares is the engine that move it forward. Technically, any team of Developers is free to release their AngelShares however they want. Invictus hasn't officially released their AngelShare model but it seems to be a system where you pay them to mine Invictus AngleShares for you.
You made a key point which can resolve a lot of these issues. You said Angelshares will be tradeable. If that is the case then miners will be happy because they'll be able to trade for Angelshares on crypsy. If Bitshares is put on some exchanges too such as crypsy then that would work for people who have LTC or BTC or who need some other altcoin for a specific purpose.
Mining altcoins isn't bad, it's just there are too many worthless clone coins which don't matter being mined. Some mined altcoins will have enough value to be traded.
I'm getting excited about this too. What we really need now are more Developers.
-
Forgive me if I mis-understand something,
but I think angleshares could be a natural part of 3I as an DAC,
just like the model they have proposed before.
For example, a possible model should be like this:
1. Every software project of 3I should have a new (angle)share/coin branched from the mother DAC share, and use coding as POW because the new project is directly benifited by coding itself. There is already some software available like Bithub to do this (https://github.com/WhisperSystems/BitHub)
2. This new share should accept as many currencies as possible, and donors acquire this new share in current exchange rate. In this way, this project is funded and the new share is backed by the donated money, just like fiat currencies are backed by gold.
3. To honor protoshare, protoshare holders should have 1:1 amount of this new share relative to their protoshares.
And these are also the three ways to obtain such new share
(i. e. 1. Mining by coding 2. Exchange by funding 3. obtain PTS)
The big picture: Everyone here is really keen on decentralization. But, there's a problem. Invictus is a centralized company. What to do? Well, because Invictus loves decentralized entities too, they came up with the idea of ProtoShares. ProtoShares does not benefit Invictus. They mine them just like everyone else does. If they sold the PTS, then they would have no stake in the future of DACs. Now, this is important. The future of DACs. Nothing guarantees that Invictus will be a part of that future. The projects are open source. Anyone can copy them and start their own DAC. If this happened, then it would also benefit the new company to honor the PTS social promise/contract. If they didn't, that company would have to start a whole new community fresh. They would have no network effect to propel them.
Now, Invictus needs funding. Every company needs funding. What to do? AngelShares gives any team of DAC developers a chance at funding. If the idea is good and the team is good, then funding should be easy to obtain. However, if the team starts to fail (this includes invictus) then people can stop buying the AngelShares and even trade them for another team of developer's AngelShares.
PTS is the glue that binds the DAC movement. AngelShares is the engine that move it forward. Technically, any team of Developers is free to release their AngelShares however they want. Invictus hasn't officially released their AngelShare model but it seems to be a system where you pay them to mine Invictus AngleShares for you.
Exactly. The key is every DAC/project needs funding.
As a donor, one may wanna be specific where his money goes:
1. To the DAC(3I) at kickstarting stage. This purpose is served well by PTS for 3I.
2. To a project of the DAC. This could be where angleshares go.
So PTS is like the root dorectory of '3I system' and angleshares are sub-folders.
In this way, angleshares should not be recognized as duplicate/dilution of PTS.
The problem with the whole Angelshares thing is we don't really want to trust a centralized company even if its 3I. Look at what happened to Bitfunder, or BTCT.
3I is in the United States just like those others were. If it's done following the Mastercoin model then it could work but if it's traded on an exchange then it might have legal vulnerability. I just don't know and this needs more planning.
Mining doesn't have any of these risks but I do understand the problem of raising funds and that you need some kind of Kickstarter.
-
Forgive me if I mis-understand something,
but I think angleshares could be a natural part of 3I as an DAC,
just like the model they have proposed before.
For example, a possible model should be like this:
1. Every software project of 3I should have a new (angle)share/coin branched from the mother DAC share, and use coding as POW because the new project is directly benifited by coding itself. There is already some software available like Bithub to do this (https://github.com/WhisperSystems/BitHub)
2. This new share should accept as many currencies as possible, and donors acquire this new share in current exchange rate. In this way, this project is funded and the new share is backed by the donated money, just like fiat currencies are backed by gold.
3. To honor protoshare, protoshare holders should have 1:1 amount of this new share relative to their protoshares.
And these are also the three ways to obtain such new share
(i. e. 1. Mining by coding 2. Exchange by funding 3. obtain PTS)
The big picture: Everyone here is really keen on decentralization. But, there's a problem. Invictus is a centralized company. What to do? Well, because Invictus loves decentralized entities too, they came up with the idea of ProtoShares. ProtoShares does not benefit Invictus. They mine them just like everyone else does. If they sold the PTS, then they would have no stake in the future of DACs. Now, this is important. The future of DACs. Nothing guarantees that Invictus will be a part of that future. The projects are open source. Anyone can copy them and start their own DAC. If this happened, then it would also benefit the new company to honor the PTS social promise/contract. If they didn't, that company would have to start a whole new community fresh. They would have no network effect to propel them.
Now, Invictus needs funding. Every company needs funding. What to do? AngelShares gives any team of DAC developers a chance at funding. If the idea is good and the team is good, then funding should be easy to obtain. However, if the team starts to fail (this includes invictus) then people can stop buying the AngelShares and even trade them for another team of developer's AngelShares.
PTS is the glue that binds the DAC movement. AngelShares is the engine that move it forward. Technically, any team of Developers is free to release their AngelShares however they want. Invictus hasn't officially released their AngelShare model but it seems to be a system where you pay them to mine Invictus AngleShares for you.
Exactly. The key is every DAC/project needs funding.
As a donor, one may wanna be specific where his money goes:
1. To the DAC(3I) at kickstarting stage. This purpose is served well by PTS for 3I.
2. To a project of the DAC. This could be where angleshares go.
So PTS is like the root dorectory of '3I system' and angleshares are sub-folders.
In this way, angleshares should not be recognized as duplicate/dilution of PTS.
1. 3I doesn't profit or benefit from PTS. Even if they sold all their PTS, it wouldn't be enough to fund things. Note, Invictus already has some outside funding.
2. AngelShares funds go to the DAC team. If you were to get Invictus AngelShares, you would fund the expansion of Invictus. Get another team's AngelShares, you would fund that team.
3. You did give me the idea that it might still be a good idea for a team to release it's own ProtoShares. It would be up to the team.
-
Forgive me if I mis-understand something,
but I think angleshares could be a natural part of 3I as an DAC,
just like the model they have proposed before.
For example, a possible model should be like this:
1. Every software project of 3I should have a new (angle)share/coin branched from the mother DAC share, and use coding as POW because the new project is directly benifited by coding itself. There is already some software available like Bithub to do this (https://github.com/WhisperSystems/BitHub)
2. This new share should accept as many currencies as possible, and donors acquire this new share in current exchange rate. In this way, this project is funded and the new share is backed by the donated money, just like fiat currencies are backed by gold.
3. To honor protoshare, protoshare holders should have 1:1 amount of this new share relative to their protoshares.
And these are also the three ways to obtain such new share
(i. e. 1. Mining by coding 2. Exchange by funding 3. obtain PTS)
The big picture: Everyone here is really keen on decentralization. But, there's a problem. Invictus is a centralized company. What to do? Well, because Invictus loves decentralized entities too, they came up with the idea of ProtoShares. ProtoShares does not benefit Invictus. They mine them just like everyone else does. If they sold the PTS, then they would have no stake in the future of DACs. Now, this is important. The future of DACs. Nothing guarantees that Invictus will be a part of that future. The projects are open source. Anyone can copy them and start their own DAC. If this happened, then it would also benefit the new company to honor the PTS social promise/contract. If they didn't, that company would have to start a whole new community fresh. They would have no network effect to propel them.
Now, Invictus needs funding. Every company needs funding. What to do? AngelShares gives any team of DAC developers a chance at funding. If the idea is good and the team is good, then funding should be easy to obtain. However, if the team starts to fail (this includes invictus) then people can stop buying the AngelShares and even trade them for another team of developer's AngelShares.
PTS is the glue that binds the DAC movement. AngelShares is the engine that move it forward. Technically, any team of Developers is free to release their AngelShares however they want. Invictus hasn't officially released their AngelShare model but it seems to be a system where you pay them to mine Invictus AngleShares for you.
Exactly. The key is every DAC/project needs funding.
As a donor, one may wanna be specific where his money goes:
1. To the DAC(3I) at kickstarting stage. This purpose is served well by PTS for 3I.
2. To a project of the DAC. This could be where angleshares go.
So PTS is like the root dorectory of '3I system' and angleshares are sub-folders.
In this way, angleshares should not be recognized as duplicate/dilution of PTS.
The problem with the whole Angelshares thing is we don't really want to trust a centralized company even if its 3I. Look at what happened to Bitfunder, or BTCT.
3I is in the United States just like those others were. If it's done following the Mastercoin model then it could work but if it's traded on an exchange then it might have legal vulnerability. I just don't know and this needs more planning.
Mining doesn't have any of these risks but I do understand the problem of raising funds and that you need some kind of Kickstarter.
]
I do worry some about the legal stuff. I had heard that they were looking into retaining legal help. But I don't know anything about it.
-
3. You did give me the idea that it might still be a good idea for a team to release it's own ProtoShares. It would be up to the team.
A new team needs another AngelSahres, not another Protoshares.
-
3. You did give me the idea that it might still be a good idea for a team to release it's own ProtoShares. It would be up to the team.
A new team needs another AngelSahres, not another Protoshares.
Yeah, you're right because we want PTS to be the glue that binds. But perhaps the DAC team could still have a giveaway or something to get people excited and get more shares out into the universe.
-
Forgive me if I mis-understand something,
but I think angleshares could be a natural part of 3I as an DAC,
just like the model they have proposed before.
For example, a possible model should be like this:
1. Every software project of 3I should have a new (angle)share/coin branched from the mother DAC share, and use coding as POW because the new project is directly benifited by coding itself. There is already some software available like Bithub to do this (https://github.com/WhisperSystems/BitHub)
2. This new share should accept as many currencies as possible, and donors acquire this new share in current exchange rate. In this way, this project is funded and the new share is backed by the donated money, just like fiat currencies are backed by gold.
3. To honor protoshare, protoshare holders should have 1:1 amount of this new share relative to their protoshares.
And these are also the three ways to obtain such new share
(i. e. 1. Mining by coding 2. Exchange by funding 3. obtain PTS)
The big picture: Everyone here is really keen on decentralization. But, there's a problem. Invictus is a centralized company. What to do? Well, because Invictus loves decentralized entities too, they came up with the idea of ProtoShares. ProtoShares does not benefit Invictus. They mine them just like everyone else does. If they sold the PTS, then they would have no stake in the future of DACs. Now, this is important. The future of DACs. Nothing guarantees that Invictus will be a part of that future. The projects are open source. Anyone can copy them and start their own DAC. If this happened, then it would also benefit the new company to honor the PTS social promise/contract. If they didn't, that company would have to start a whole new community fresh. They would have no network effect to propel them.
Now, Invictus needs funding. Every company needs funding. What to do? AngelShares gives any team of DAC developers a chance at funding. If the idea is good and the team is good, then funding should be easy to obtain. However, if the team starts to fail (this includes invictus) then people can stop buying the AngelShares and even trade them for another team of developer's AngelShares.
PTS is the glue that binds the DAC movement. AngelShares is the engine that move it forward. Technically, any team of Developers is free to release their AngelShares however they want. Invictus hasn't officially released their AngelShare model but it seems to be a system where you pay them to mine Invictus AngleShares for you.
Exactly. The key is every DAC/project needs funding.
As a donor, one may wanna be specific where his money goes:
1. To the DAC(3I) at kickstarting stage. This purpose is served well by PTS for 3I.
2. To a project of the DAC. This could be where angleshares go.
So PTS is like the root dorectory of '3I system' and angleshares are sub-folders.
In this way, angleshares should not be recognized as duplicate/dilution of PTS.
The problem with the whole Angelshares thing is we don't really want to trust a centralized company even if its 3I. Look at what happened to Bitfunder, or BTCT.
3I is in the United States just like those others were. If it's done following the Mastercoin model then it could work but if it's traded on an exchange then it might have legal vulnerability. I just don't know and this needs more planning.
Mining doesn't have any of these risks but I do understand the problem of raising funds and that you need some kind of Kickstarter.
To avoid trusting any centralized company, the angleshares could act much like bounty.
So funding is raised for the whole project and paid proportionally to the dev team that complete individual tasks of the project. If the original team leaves in the half way, another team can take over and earn the rest funding.
To achieve decentralization, the funding-for-bounty mechanism should be practiced by the angleshares software.
For example, the software could include the following features:
1. Funding addresses to collect funding, and is held by the software mechanism but not anyone.
2. the SPEC of the product. the SPEC should be recorded in individual tasks of the project.
3. the dev team list. to be registered on this list, a dev team could propose the SPEC or accomplish at least one task of this project.
4. a confirmation/voting mechanism to elect the dev team who gets the bounty/funding for each task.
So after the first task is done, the bounty could be the fuel for the second one.