BitShares Forum

Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bytemaster on December 11, 2015, 10:36:08 pm

Title: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: bytemaster on December 11, 2015, 10:36:08 pm
There are far too many opportunities out there and prioritizing new features for BitShares becomes very challenging.  Polls/Voting, etc are not good means of prioritizing. Profit is perhaps the most important means of prioritizing.

So I would like to take some time to outline a plan I am devising for getting features lined up and prioritized based upon the concept of Fee Backed Assets (FBA).  For each of the following features I will create a UIA that represents stake in the future fees generated from that feature.  Community members / "investors" can place bids in an open auction to buy stake in these features.   These bids will represent current demand for the feature and help establish a price.   Once the price and depth get to a level that we feel justifies building the feature, we will sell the UIA into the buy wall.    We will keep the proceeds of this purchase locked up until the feature is delivered.  When the feature is delivered, the UIA will be converted into a FBA and the proceeds of the sale will become our private property.   

In addition to creating the UIA we will also create a corresponding worker proposal that is symbolic of shareholder support for enabling the feature.  The worker proposal must be funded before we will sell into the buy wall of the UIA.   

BitShares stakeholders will now have price information that indicates how the market values each potential feature.  This price information can in turn be used to inform them on which features they should vote for.   A highly valued feature means that the market believes that feature will generate significant ROI and therefore be profitable for BitShares holders. 

As a company, Cryptonomex is interested in working on the most profitable features.  Those features that we can sell for the highest price will get the highest priority. 

Examples of features for which we will be creating a UIA and/or worker:

1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems

The assumption for all features is that a working reference GUI will be provided to make the features accessible.  Each feature will be fully documented with a detailed design complete with UI wireframes prior to Cryptonomex taking any money.  We want to ensure that the community knows what they are bidding on and to maximize the price we can get for each feature.   Bidding can start early (prior to detailed documentation), and users can cancel their bids if they change their minds prior to us locking them in.   

So to get this started, please place your bids for the MAKER asset which will earn 20% of all liquidity incentivization rewards if the Liquidity Incentivization proposal is approved and executed.  Lets see how the community actually values this potential feature and then move on from there.

Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: puppies on December 11, 2015, 11:00:54 pm
Spectacular.  Perfect approach.  Let's do this.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Akado on December 11, 2015, 11:07:25 pm
So you're applying something similar to a prediction market by using this method right? According to what people bid the most and think will be most profitable, it will be the one which will have the most probability to be approved as a worker proposal.

Did I get this right? Just curious..
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: monsterer on December 11, 2015, 11:15:16 pm
So to get this started, please place your bids for the MAKER asset which will earn 20% of all liquidity incentivization rewards if the Liquidity Incentivization proposal is approved and executed.  Lets see how the community actually values this potential feature and then move on from there.

Where do we place our bids, and are you including [member=22994]Chronos[/member] counter proposal to make it fair?
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: donkeypong on December 11, 2015, 11:21:16 pm
This idea saves forum members countless hours of digging through and evaluating all these ideas. Well, we still need to research them and be convinced, but this is a great idea to use the system you have created to achieve consensus from the market itself. May the best products (and smartest sellers) win.

Community + Market = Community Market

(http://www.selfpublishingadvice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/farmersmarket-morguefile.jpg)

Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Xeldal on December 11, 2015, 11:23:53 pm
Millions of features, features for me
Millions of features, features for fees

Look out!

 8)
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Vizzini on December 11, 2015, 11:59:00 pm
So if Mr. Duke has 100,000 BTS to wager and Mr. Valentine has 100 BTS to wager, it is the Mr. Dukes of the world who will control the agenda. This sounds like pay to play. Am I mistaken?
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Troglodactyl on December 11, 2015, 11:59:59 pm
So to get this started, please place your bids for the MAKER asset which will earn 20% of all liquidity incentivization rewards if the Liquidity Incentivization proposal is approved and executed.  Lets see how the community actually values this potential feature and then move on from there.

Where do we place our bids, and are you including [member=22994]Chronos[/member] counter proposal to make it fair?

This.  Should bids be in BTS, BitUSD, BitCNY, or will Cryptonomex fill orders across several markets?
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Akado on December 12, 2015, 12:03:08 am
So if Mr. Duke has 100,000 BTS to wager and Mr. Valentine has 100 BTS to wager, it is the Mr. Dukes of the world who will control the agenda. This sounds like pay to play. Am I mistaken?

Assuming the fee backed model is the one being used, those are the same people paying to implement the feature. So if I pay more than you to someone to implement it, why would the ones implementing it accept a lower pay?

Plus, the more you pay, the more you risk.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: yvv on December 12, 2015, 12:03:42 am
@OP

Please, include a "smart wallet" feature into your list, which you discussed with Max Wright on bitshares TV. You were talking about a wallet which automatically converts currencies for users, such that if I have USD and I want to pay to merchant in Europe which accepts Euros, I don't need to go to trade books and leave orders. Instead, bitshares does this for me, and makes sure that I have the best rate by checking different paths, like USD -> BTS -> EUR, USD -> BTC -> EUR etc. This is the coolest feature of ripple imo, and if you miss it in bitshares it is not good.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: onceuponatime on December 12, 2015, 12:05:39 am
So if Mr. Duke has 100,000 BTS to wager and Mr. Valentine has 100 BTS to wager, it is the Mr. Dukes of the world who will control the agenda. This sounds like pay to play. Am I mistaken?

Mr Valentine sounds like a lover and should have no problem getting together a group of his most many intimate friends to play any game they can think of.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: tonyk on December 12, 2015, 12:11:12 am
Nice.

but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?


0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems


in my own list stealth is at number 7-9....after api polish etc.


In other words why do you have to screw you own great ideas, with your own illogical pre judgment BM?
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: onceuponatime on December 12, 2015, 12:14:16 am
Nice.

but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?


0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems


Just calling it "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Please present an argument.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: tonyk on December 12, 2015, 12:17:16 am
Nice.

but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?


0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems


Just calling it "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Please present an argument.


Well it is as sensible as the rest of them.
Why is it more sensible (deserves special treatment, in your mind)?

PS
And yes I can write an assay why it is no value feature. But why should I do it if you are the one paying for it and I do not mind having it on the BTS? All I want  really is needed features implemented BEFORE those non essential play features of yours.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: onceuponatime on December 12, 2015, 12:24:49 am
Nice.

but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?


0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems


Just calling it "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Please present an argument.


Well it is as sensible as the rest of them.
Why is it more sensible (deserves special treatment, in your mind)?

I guess i have been grandfathered in by Cryptonomex since I came up with the idea and made my offer before the present discussion even began. But I am dependent upon the same vote as everyone else. If a Worker proposal doesn't get voted in, my offer to fund a Privacy Mode feature is dead in the water.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: bytemaster on December 12, 2015, 12:27:48 am
Nice.

but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?


0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems


Just calling it "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Please present an argument.


Well it is as sensible as the rest of them.
Why is it more sensible (deserves special treatment, in your mind)?

It deserves special treatment because [member=49]onceuponatime[/member] has already been grandfathered in.  I don't want to take the deal he earned and auction off his profits.  Also, he was planing to pay in fiat which is much appreciated.  Furthermore, I think his plan is further developed than some of the others.   

Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Empirical1.2 on December 12, 2015, 12:38:26 am
 +5% Good idea.

Obviously the price per feature alone won't be a very good indicator as it has to be taken in the context of how long it would take to develop.

I.e a feature offering $10k that would take 3 days would presumably be prioritized over a feature offering $20k that would take 3 weeks.

Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Vizzini on December 12, 2015, 12:41:16 am
So if Mr. Duke has 100,000 BTS to wager and Mr. Valentine has 100 BTS to wager, it is the Mr. Dukes of the world who will control the agenda. This sounds like pay to play. Am I mistaken?

Mr Valentine sounds like a lover and should have no problem getting together a group of his most many intimate friends to play any game they can think of.

Just examples of rich and poor. I took the names from the iconic movie Trading Places.

For this set of proposals, I understand how the market can function to help make these choices, since you are right that these would be the same people paying for it.

But don't get any ideas about this being a voting model for BitShares, because it is a piss poor idea to charge someone to vote and to reward those who have the most to wager.

(http://philmaxwell.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/polltaxbanner.jpg)
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: tonyk on December 12, 2015, 12:42:55 am
Nice.

but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?


0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems


Just calling it "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Please present an argument.


Well it is as sensible as the rest of them.
Why is it more sensible (deserves special treatment, in your mind)?

It deserves special treatment because [member=49]onceuponatime[/member] has already been grandfathered in.  I don't want to take the deal he earned and auction off his profits.  Also, he was planing to pay in fiat which is much appreciated.  Furthermore, I think his plan is further developed than some of the others.   



Unfortunately this is my take on the whole issue as well....the main difference being someone paying in cash....seeing said cash clouds any other reasonable judgment.

The other unfortunate fact is even with his great generosity , love for the project and willingness to take a huge risk for BTS .... he is sadly lacking the ability [actually stubbornly refusing to do so] to properly judge what is best of his beloved (his and mine) project.

Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: bytemaster on December 12, 2015, 12:55:29 am
I created a STEALTH asset to help gauge demand and give feedback / pricing information to the community.   

Obviously before a feature can be implemented the following factors must align:

1. It must be approved by shareholders
2. It must have sufficient liquidity to cover the cost of development
3. It must be the most profitable for us (requiring us to sell the smallest fraction of the total asset supply to cover our costs as possible)

Each FBA is like a mini company, Cryptonomex (or other developers) are like the founders of a startup looking to raise capital.  They want to give away as little equity in their work as possible. 
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Empirical1.2 on December 12, 2015, 12:57:50 am
Nice.

but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?


0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems


Just calling it "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Please present an argument.


Well it is as sensible as the rest of them.
Why is it more sensible (deserves special treatment, in your mind)?

It deserves special treatment because [member=49]onceuponatime[/member] has already been grandfathered in.  I don't want to take the deal he earned and auction off his profits.  Also, he was planing to pay in fiat which is much appreciated.  Furthermore, I think his plan is further developed than some of the others.   



Unfortunately this is my take on the whole issue as well....the main difference being someone paying in cash....seeing said cash clouds any other reasonable judgment.

The other unfortunate fact is even with his great generosity , love for the project and willingness to take a huge risk for BTS .... he is sadly lacking the ability [actually stubbornly refusing to do so] to properly judge what is best of his beloved (his and mine) project.

There won't be a lot more demand for BTS shares/transfers whether they have Stealth or not, until investors see that BTS can offer a competitive BitAsset imo. So yes doing Stealth first doesn't make a lot of sense to me but if the money is on the table I don't blame them.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: onceuponatime on December 12, 2015, 01:02:15 am
Nice.

but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?


0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems


Just calling it "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Please present an argument.


Well it is as sensible as the rest of them.
Why is it more sensible (deserves special treatment, in your mind)?

It deserves special treatment because [member=49]onceuponatime[/member] has already been grandfathered in.  I don't want to take the deal he earned and auction off his profits.  Also, he was planing to pay in fiat which is much appreciated.  Furthermore, I think his plan is further developed than some of the others.   



Unfortunately this is my take on the whole issue as well....the main difference being someone paying in cash....seeing said cash clouds any other reasonable judgment.

The other unfortunate fact is even with his great generosity , love for the project and willingness to take a huge risk for BTS .... he is sadly lacking the ability [actually stubbornly refusing to do so] to properly judge what is best of his beloved (his and mine) project.

It is true that I lack many of the skills that you and others might have in this modern age and on this Forum. This is because I am probably much older than you and did my schooling before there were computers. There weren't even calculators when I went to school!

That doesn't mean that I lack common sense or discernment and discrimination. I'm sure that I have spent more time living on the streets than either you or even Martin 38PTSwarrior. I have traveled and lived in dozens of countries. I have degrees in Business Management and Economics and have worked (before the smell got too bad) as a special investigator for a Federal Government. I have slept under bridges and I have slept in palaces.

I think that I am as good a judge of character as anyone on this Forum. And I invest in people.

Perhaps your famous and cutting edge cynicism could be enhanced by a dash of Humility?
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: bytemaster on December 12, 2015, 01:02:37 am
In my humble opinion, BTS is so much more than Smart Coins at this point in time.   We shouldn't let that one feature shape our whole worldview.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Thom on December 12, 2015, 01:26:55 am
Millions of features, features for me
Millions of features, features for fees

Look out!

 8)

Peaches == Features

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW_shbshUp4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW_shbshUp4)
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Empirical1.2 on December 12, 2015, 01:34:46 am
In my humble opinion, BTS is so much more than Smart Coins at this point in time.   We shouldn't let that one feature shape our whole worldview.

Whether it's more liquid Smartcoins or an even more awesome, popular sellable product/UIA,  the ability to transfer them privately will surely increase potential demand for them and as a result increase the value of BTS shares.

However without sellable product, stealth transfers won't necessarily increase the value of BTS unless the belief is that BTS is currently undervalued because potential shareholders are reluctant to buy this amazingly undervalued company without privacy.

So I would think focusing on SmartCoin or  other 'better than Smartcoin' product would ideally precede Stealth, not critical though.


Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: tonyk on December 12, 2015, 01:40:23 am
Nice.

but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?


0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems


Just calling it "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Please present an argument.


Well it is as sensible as the rest of them.
Why is it more sensible (deserves special treatment, in your mind)?

It deserves special treatment because [member=49]onceuponatime[/member] has already been grandfathered in.  I don't want to take the deal he earned and auction off his profits.  Also, he was planing to pay in fiat which is much appreciated.  Furthermore, I think his plan is further developed than some of the others.   



Unfortunately this is my take on the whole issue as well....the main difference being someone paying in cash....seeing said cash clouds any other reasonable judgment.

The other unfortunate fact is even with his great generosity , love for the project and willingness to take a huge risk for BTS .... he is sadly lacking the ability [actually stubbornly refusing to do so] to properly judge what is best of his beloved (his and mine) project.

It is true that I lack many of the skills that you and others might have in this modern age and on this Forum. This is because I am probably much older than you and did my schooling before there were computers. There weren't even calculators when I went to school!

That doesn't mean that I lack common sense or discernment and discrimination. I'm sure that I have spent more time living on the streets than either you or even Martin 38PTSwarrior. I have traveled and lived in dozens of countries. I have degrees in Business Management and Economics and have worked (before the smell got too bad) as a special investigator for a Federal Government. I have slept under bridges and I have slept in palaces.

I think that I am as good a judge of character as anyone on this Forum. And I invest in people.

Perhaps your famous and cutting edge cynicism could be enhanced by a dash of Humility?

apparently it is your time to dance to the sound of the music you ordered.... enjoy

PS
In the mean time I will highly appreciate if not being fed the  crap of the supposed 'choice' of a million features, when there is no choice but the predetermined one....
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Tuck Fheman on December 12, 2015, 01:45:54 am
Peaches == Features

Movin' to the country,
Gonna get a lot of features
Features come from a can
They were put there by Dan
On a farm far from town
If I had my little way
I'd get more features every day


Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Stan on December 12, 2015, 01:55:19 am
...This is because I am probably much older than you and did my schooling before there were computers. There weren't even calculators when I went to school!

Me too.  (Well, our school mainframe did have 8 kilobytes of core memory.)  The HP-45 scientific calculator (with Reverse Polish Notation) first came out when I was a Sophomore EE student.   

While others were sniffing glue, I was sniffing that calculator. 
I still put it into the microwave once in a while for a few seconds, just to relive that "new calculator smell".
Better than "new car smell" IMHO.

(http://www.hpmuseum.org/3qs/453q.jpg)
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: tonyk on December 12, 2015, 02:00:22 am
...This is because I am probably much older than you and did my schooling before there were computers. There weren't even calculators when I went to school!

Me too.  (Well, our school mainframe did have 8 kilobytes of core memory.)  The HP-45 scientific calculator (with Reverse Polish Notation) first came out when I was a Sophomore EE student.   

While others were sniffing glue, I was sniffing that calculator. 
I still put it into the microwave once in a while for a few seconds, just to relive that "new calculator smell".
Better than "new car smell" IMHO.

(http://www.hpmuseum.org/3qs/453q.jpg)

Kind of sad when in 2015, 'the millions of features' actually boils down to 'the feature for me (and all of us)" is the same calculator of 1981, as the  Grandfathered :) option...

 :(
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: onceuponatime on December 12, 2015, 02:19:46 am
...This is because I am probably much older than you and did my schooling before there were computers. There weren't even calculators when I went to school!

Me too.  (Well, our school mainframe did have 8 kilobytes of core memory.)  The HP-45 scientific calculator (with Reverse Polish Notation) first came out when I was a Sophomore EE student.   

While others were sniffing glue, I was sniffing that calculator. 
I still put it into the microwave once in a while for a few seconds, just to relive that "new calculator smell".
Better than "new car smell" IMHO.

(http://www.hpmuseum.org/3qs/453q.jpg)

Kind of sad when in 2015, 'the millions of features' actually boils down to 'the feature for me (and all of us)" is the same calculator of 1981, as the  Grandfathered :) option...

 :(

God, Tony! You are one of the people that I would invest in!  (I actually bought some GreenPoints although I did sell them again when you jumped ship - I'm not stupid).
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: GaltReport on December 12, 2015, 02:23:28 am
Nice.

but then again why is this voting... for only after "the stealth non-sense is implemented"?


0. Stealth
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems


Just calling it "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Please present an argument.


Well it is as sensible as the rest of them.
Why is it more sensible (deserves special treatment, in your mind)?

It deserves special treatment because [member=49]onceuponatime[/member] has already been grandfathered in.  I don't want to take the deal he earned and auction off his profits.  Also, he was planing to pay in fiat which is much appreciated.  Furthermore, I think his plan is further developed than some of the others.   



Unfortunately this is my take on the whole issue as well....the main difference being someone paying in cash....seeing said cash clouds any other reasonable judgment.

The other unfortunate fact is even with his great generosity , love for the project and willingness to take a huge risk for BTS .... he is sadly lacking the ability [actually stubbornly refusing to do so] to properly judge what is best of his beloved (his and mine) project.

It is true that I lack many of the skills that you and others might have in this modern age and on this Forum. This is because I am probably much older than you and did my schooling before there were computers. There weren't even calculators when I went to school!

That doesn't mean that I lack common sense or discernment and discrimination. I'm sure that I have spent more time living on the streets than either you or even Martin 38PTSwarrior. I have traveled and lived in dozens of countries. I have degrees in Business Management and Economics and have worked (before the smell got too bad) as a special investigator for a Federal Government. I have slept under bridges and I have slept in palaces.

I think that I am as good a judge of character as anyone on this Forum. And I invest in people.

Perhaps your famous and cutting edge cynicism could be enhanced by a dash of Humility?

 +5%.  As I've told my son, it's nice to be smart...but character trumps intellect IMHO.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Thom on December 12, 2015, 02:24:48 am
In my humble opinion, BTS is so much more than Smart Coins at this point in time.   We shouldn't let that one feature shape our whole worldview.

Whether it's more liquid Smartcoins or an even more awesome, popular sellable product/UIA,  the ability to transfer them privately will surely increase potential demand for them and as a result increase the value of BTS shares.

However without sellable product, stealth transfers won't necessarily increase the value of BTS unless the belief is that BTS is currently undervalued because potential shareholders are reluctant to buy this amazingly undervalued company without privacy.

So I would think focusing on SmartCoin or  other 'better than Smartcoin' product would ideally precede Stealth, not critical though.

Although I am sympathetic to this position, I do believe that privacy is a fundamentally important feature. That implementing it should have already been well underway is irrelevant here.

The same argument could have been made for 100K TPS, and in fact CNX finally did realize a slower TPS, far less than 100K TPS, is perfectly acceptable and yet exceeds BitShares 1.0 performance by a large margin, thus a significant improvement.

The point is it was an investment in infrastructure anticipating future adoption of BitShares. Who would have signed up for 100K TPS back in the 1.0 era over wallet improvements and stability? I know I wouldn't have, yet BM saw the value in a new architecture that not only provides 100K+ TPS but so many more benefits as well.

It's not difficult to see how much of a barrier it is to those with lots of wealth to go public and place a significant portion of that wealth on the BitShares blockchain for all to see, scrutinize, target and try to get a chunk of. I know the concept of privacy it counter to the mainstream norm these days, even in this community, but it is a very important foundational principle to this ecosystem and to preserve and strengthen freedom.

I'll admit I don't know what the best approach is to prioritize improvements and implement new features to give BitShares the most optimal chance for growth and adoption. I can get so focused on a narrow view of things at times and in that tunnel vision choices seem easier. And of course trade-offs are always easier in retrospect. What's obvious to Stan & Dan may not be obvious to many of us. Historical judgements and choices made here fuel my skepticism and cloud my perspective of the future.

However, I gotta say the approach described by the OP is one I believe will help qualify what to focus on based on the hard empirical evidence of what people are willing to pay for. I like this very much. But I am still concerned we're trying to sprint to the finish line and overlooking other important, less exciting factors that directly impact adoption, especially by developers, such as quality, detailed documentation, tutorials and API "how to" examples. I did like what BM said here:

Quote
The assumption for all features is that a working reference GUI will be provided to make the features accessible.  Each feature will be fully documented with a detailed design complete with UI wireframes prior to Cryptonomex taking any money.  We want to ensure that the community knows what they are bidding on and to maximize the price we can get for each feature.   Bidding can start early (prior to detailed documentation), and users can cancel their bids if they change their minds prior to us locking them in.

The context sounds like he feels there's more of an incentive to be more thorough and rigorous regarding docs and UI / UX prototyping b/c it is tied to maximizing the profit from his work. It improves quality, and quality sells better. I think he is right on the money.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: luckybit on December 12, 2015, 03:17:46 am
[member=5]bytemaster[/member] what you've done is recreated an innovation game called "Buy a Feature".

http://www.innovationgames.com/buy-a-feature/

http://www.uxforthemasses.com/buy-the-feature/
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: luckybit on December 12, 2015, 03:25:17 am
So if Mr. Duke has 100,000 BTS to wager and Mr. Valentine has 100 BTS to wager, it is the Mr. Dukes of the world who will control the agenda. This sounds like pay to play. Am I mistaken?

Definitely not "Pay to Play". It's actually an innovation game called "Buy a Feature".
Buy a Feature is classified as an innovation game. There is a lot of literature and examples which Bytemaster and others can learn from. We might be able to implement these innovation games into everything and not just FBA.

For example if people could use the market to signal demand for certain features, or like or dislike levels, it could improve the UX. It's basically a way to help developers to prioritize new ideas and develop only features which people really want.

Quote
THE GAME
Buy A FeatureCreate a list of potential features and provide each with a price. Just like for a real product, the price can be based on development costs, customer value, or something else. Although the price can be the actual cost you intend to charge for the feature, this is usually not required. Customers buy features that they want in the next release of your product using play money you give them. Make certain that some features are priced high enough that no one customer can buy them. Encourage customers to pool their money to buy especially important and/or expensive features. This will help motivate negotiations between customers as to which features are most important.

This game works best with four to seven customers in a group, so that you can create more opportunities for customers to pool their money through negotiating.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation_game
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: onceuponatime on December 12, 2015, 03:28:58 am
[member=5]bytemaster[/member] what you've done is recreated an innovation game called "Buy a Feature".

http://www.innovationgames.com/buy-a-feature/

http://www.uxforthemasses.com/buy-the-feature/

Wow! Did you run across that before or after this thread came up?
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on December 12, 2015, 03:44:50 am
When the feature is delivered, the UIA will be converted into a FBA and the proceeds of the sale will become our private property.   

In addition to creating the UIA we will also create a corresponding worker proposal that is symbolic of shareholder support for enabling the feature.  The worker proposal must be funded before we will sell into the buy wall of the UIA.   

BitShares stakeholders will now have price information that indicates how the market values each potential feature.  This price information can in turn be used to inform them on which features they should vote for.   A highly valued feature means that the market believes that feature will generate significant ROI and therefore be profitable for BitShares holders. 


I have a few questions.

1. When you say the UIA will be converted to an FBA, is this part of how the FBA feature will work when implemented, or is this something you are doing manually somehow?

2. Will the corresponding Worker created with the UIA be something also done manually, or will this be a feature as well of the FBA implementation?

3. What happens when the auction indicates a feature doesn't have enough support to be developed. How are the funds that were collected handled then?

4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

This is all very similar to what I proposed as the working process for how FBAs should work with a few twists, which I like.

The one thing that will be necessary for this to work effectively I think will be presentation and information given on each feature so that investors can decide if they want to invest or not. In other words, whatever is presented really has to be sold, otherwise the a lack luster response may only be the results community investors not really getting the information in a way that sold them.

I do think it will give an overall better measure for the direction to take. Before each is proposed however, the fundamental groundwork of doing proper market research still as to take place. This is more like a final step to confirm whatever data summation was done.

I am very excited about this approach. This opens up a whole new arena of possibilities.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Thom on December 12, 2015, 06:20:41 am
I do think it will give an overall better measure for the direction to take. Before each is proposed however, the fundamental groundwork of doing proper market research still as to take place. This is more like a final step to confirm whatever data summation was done.

Good questions!

Although not comprehensive, the presale of the UIA is itself market research. It may or may not be useful, depending on the target audience the feature is aiming at. If a representative portion of the target audience of the feature is part of this community it is useful as market research.

However if not, it must be publicized and brought to the attention of whoever outside of this community, wherever that audience may be. And in that case I wonder if explaining the feature will represent much value, since the audience would also need to be sold on the ecosystem in with this feature is only one part. In that case the sales pitch may be quite difficult.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: tonyk on December 12, 2015, 01:04:48 pm
In my humble opinion, BTS is so much more than Smart Coins at this point in time.   We shouldn't let that one feature shape our whole worldview.

Even the creator of the bitAssets himself will be surprised what they can accomplish if the square wheels are progressively removed from them [aka as early as next Wedneday you might see surprising changes in their behaviour]
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: luckybit on December 12, 2015, 01:12:14 pm
[member=5]bytemaster[/member] what you've done is recreated an innovation game called "Buy a Feature".

http://www.innovationgames.com/buy-a-feature/

http://www.uxforthemasses.com/buy-the-feature/

Wow! Did you run across that before or after this thread came up?

I've been talking about gamification and innovation games since many months ago. I've got a lot of posts and sent many PMs.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: cass on December 12, 2015, 01:51:01 pm
[i would over my help on UI/UX sketching ... if needed ..]
(but not free of charge)
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on December 12, 2015, 02:32:03 pm
I do think it will give an overall better measure for the direction to take. Before each is proposed however, the fundamental groundwork of doing proper market research still as to take place. This is more like a final step to confirm whatever data summation was done.

Good questions!

Although not comprehensive, the presale of the UIA is itself market research. It may or may not be useful, depending on the target audience the feature is aiming at. If a representative portion of the target audience of the feature is part of this community it is useful as market research.

However if not, it must be publicized and brought to the attention of whoever outside of this community, wherever that audience may be. And in that case I wonder if explaining the feature will represent much value, since the audience would also need to be sold on the ecosystem in with this feature is only one part. In that case the sales pitch may be quite difficult.


The point I was making in my posting though was that unless it is properly researched prior to the UIA sale, the messaging and the features and how they are set out could miss the mark, and thus not be successful in the sale. If the research was done right from the beginning, then it will hit on all the right pains and gains with the feature sets put forth in the a more correct priority, then the UIA will be successful.

The point is the UIA success or failure will be a result of the market research done prior to the offering. The UIA in itself is only a confirmation of that research hitting the right mark if it's sale is wildly successful. On the other hand, it's failure could also be due to the lack of proper research and planning to build what will address the markets wants and needs. This is really good news for those putting their money into this.. because if it does sell well, then its a good signal that it will do well. If not so well, means back to the drawing board, and no money lost. Which still brings me to my previous question about if a UIA sale is a failure in the sense of it didn't sell well enough.. what happens then?
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: puppies on December 12, 2015, 02:46:07 pm
The UIA is not sold until there is enough demand.  You can always cancel your bids up until that time. 
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Thom on December 12, 2015, 03:08:38 pm
The UIA is not sold until there is enough demand.  You can always cancel your bids up until that time.

BM mentioned this "bidding" process in the STEALTH feature thread with a link into the OL wallet. I'm reading this on a system that doesn't have an OL wallet, would someone explain exactly what this bidding process is and how it's done?

A UIA is just an asset, you buy it or you don't. The bidding is something else which I am not familiar with in this context.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: theredpill on December 12, 2015, 03:26:26 pm
[member=5]bytemaster[/member], on priority order:

1 - Set the borrow fee and the vesting fee to 1 BTS

2 - Set maker fee 1 BTS and taker to 0.4% non lifetime 0.1 lifetime

3 - Implement a reward to the first order on the book with real money, not this MAKER UIA. this UIA only appeals to BTS people, those who believe that this exchange gonna succeed and collect a lot of fees (few people that probably already invested their money on us), those who don't do not gonna put their real money to provide liquidity on exchange to this UIA.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Bhuz on December 12, 2015, 03:31:31 pm
A UIA is just an asset, you buy it or you don't. The bidding is something else which I am not familiar with in this context.

Thanks.

Bidding is just put a buy order (also called bid order)
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: santaclause102 on December 12, 2015, 04:49:55 pm
BitShares stakeholders will now have price information that indicates how the market values each potential feature.  This price information can in turn be used to inform them on which features they should vote for.   A highly valued feature means that the market believes that feature will generate significant ROI and therefore be profitable for BitShares holders. 
To get this straight...

If you want accurate prices for all those features / FBAs wouldn't all FBA markets offered to investors have to have the same percantage of tx fees that goes to the FBA vs BTS holders as well as the same percentage that goes to CNX vs to the FBA investors?
I guess that there is no need to change the CNX vs FBA-Investor allocation accross different FBAs. But BTS holders probably still want to see FBAs/features that require just a tiny bit of coding work to have less tx fees allocated to the FBA (vs BTS) than with an FBA takes a lot of time to code. 
CNX' (or whatever other company is doing the work) incentive to not set the FBA vs BTS price too high and set it lower for FBAs that don't require that much work is to get BTS-stakeholder approval  for the worker.
Conclusion: The prediction / price discovery should work fine as long as the BTS holders vs FBA holders (CNX and FBA investors) relation is roughly according to how much funding the proposal asks for from FBA investors compared to other FBAs/features. If that is not the case BTS holder may feel overcharged and may want to replace the FBA that was experienced to be overly expensive with another one that is less expensive.
Resulting questions: How much funding should result in what BTS:FBA relation?
Another question is: What if a better feature which targets the same market (e.g. the bond market) is proposed as a normal worker proposal or a FBA sometimes in the future? Will the initial FBA investors just loose their investment when the other tx type is used more? That would make sense to me and would be analoque to the FBA as a small company analogy. But shouldnt it be recognized that the existence of any FBA completely depends on a social (soft) consesnus between FBA holders and BTS holders: In fact, BTS holders could at any time just vote for a worker proposal that changes nothing but allocates all tx fees from a respective feature to BTS holders that in part have gone to the FBA holders that funded the respective feature. If it is such a  soft social consensus than it must be as explicite as possible to work (so that the different camps can't bend arguments easily). Then again the resulting question is: How much change to the code of a FBA qualifies for it to be a new feature with a different allocation?
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Samupaha on December 12, 2015, 04:51:56 pm
4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Akado on December 12, 2015, 05:04:47 pm
Another question is: What if a better feature which targets the same market (e.g. the bond market) is proposed as a normal worker proposal or a FBA sometimes in the future?

I would like to know this too
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on December 13, 2015, 03:17:29 am
4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.

It's a bad thing because it complicates the messaging of the refer program tremendously. It takes it from, "you get a piece of all their transactions for the lifetime of their account", too, "sometimes you get a piece of the transactions depending on what they are doing in bitshares and what they are using" .. which then derails the entire messaging into wanting to find out when and where that ultimately leads to 'damn this is just too complicated', or 'geez it looks like you only get some in a few cases.. why bother?', or worse 'this looks like you are tricking people into thinking you get something for refers when really they only get it for a few things.'

The refer program to "bring users" is only going to be as good as the opportunity it brings to those that promote it. If you marginalize it by excluding it through out the bitshares space, then all these new FBAs will have to go on their own marketing efforts to get users instead of leveraging the base that will be more excited and more incentive to spend money to promote the new features knowing the base they are targeting is going to directly result in refer income generated from the specific feature they referred them for.

The point is the refer system is not a stand alone to just bring in new users, it is an intrinsic marketing element that every part of the bitshare ecosystem can and will benefit from. While the share % out of a 20% portion will be smaller, it still can do the job of providing a marketing arm for all the new FBAs that come to the table.

Just because you build it, and investors are excited about it, doesn't mean they will come.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: KenMonkey on December 13, 2015, 04:08:49 am
Polls/Voting, etc are not good means of prioritizing. Profit is perhaps the most important means of prioritizing.

As a company, Cryptonomex is interested in working on the most profitable features.  Those features that we can sell for the highest price will get the highest priority. 

It's important to realize some features are not directly profitable, but will result in more ease-of-use, security, or comfort for the user. For example I'd love to see the API improved (which will increase liquidity!) and also enabling 2FA to log into my wallet (btw is that crazy?).

This is a good idea, I'm hopeful that it takes off, but I also hope the "free" features like GUI improvements don't go by the wayside.

May the profit be with you!
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Thom on December 13, 2015, 06:41:59 am
A UIA is just an asset, you buy it or you don't. The bidding is something else which I am not familiar with in this context.

Thanks.

Bidding is just put a buy order (also called bid order)

Thx for trying bhuz, I need a little more to understand. Could you elaborate to clarify? I've never heard of a "bid order"
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: puppies on December 13, 2015, 06:53:30 am
A UIA is just an asset, you buy it or you don't. The bidding is something else which I am not familiar with in this context.

Thanks.

Bidding is just put a buy order (also called bid order)

Thx for trying bhuz, I need a little more to understand. Could you elaborate to clarify? I've never heard of a "bid order"

It is literally just placing an order to buy.  In a market you have offers to buy at different prices, or bids. 
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: CLains on December 13, 2015, 12:10:18 pm
The next level thing in BitShares is always some unexpected, ingenious plot twist. Out of nowhere we suddenly merged committee code implementations with UIAs with dividends with cut-of-fees with crowd-funding with prediction markets with worker proposals.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Thom on December 13, 2015, 03:55:51 pm
A UIA is just an asset, you buy it or you don't. The bidding is something else which I am not familiar with in this context.

Thanks.

Bidding is just put a buy order (also called bid order)

Thx for trying bhuz, I need a little more to understand. Could you elaborate to clarify? I've never heard of a "bid order"

It is literally just placing an order to buy.  In a market you have offers to buy at different prices, or bids.

Thx puppies. I can't seem to keep all these terms and the contexts they're used in straight in my mind. Terms are thrown around and it's difficult sometimes for me to see the correlation, especially when English is a secondary language for some posters.

You say "In a market you have offers to buy at different prices, or bids.", but not ALL markets behave as an auction or negotiation. Walk into most retail stores and there is no negotiation, the price is the price, take it or leave it. In BitShares 1.0 I had a UIA which I offered at $10BitUSD. Buyers that wanted one of those ponied up $10BitUSD for every one of the UIAs they wanted. They could buy half of one at $5.00 BitUSD, but the price was fixed.

So how can I discern when people discuss markets when the model is like the above vs. an auction? I would think the way to make that obvious is to use the terms BUY or BID, but what do I know.

In this FBA context it was also confusing b/c of the way the UIA is also used to gauge support for the feature. Also, the OP mentions a specific cost of the UIA which is tied to the amount of funding to be raised, so "bidding" or placing an order that is at some other price per share is like a negotiation or counter offer. Because of these variations it would be helpful to be more explicit in what action should be used to accomplish the intent.

Bidding brings to mind auctions, which is a negotiation of price.

Quite a different picture than saying a feature costs $20000, 100000 UIAs issued at $0.20 each (actually the equivalent BTS, or 50 - 60 BTS per UIA) so buy as many UIAs as you want to represent your interest in the feature. If you want a majority interest you would buy (not offer a bid for but to actually buy) at least 50001 UIAs.

I'm getting confused by the mixing of fixed funding costs vs. bidding which is a negotiable (i.e. variable) offer at some price.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Xeldal on December 13, 2015, 04:20:30 pm
You say "In a market you have offers to buy at different prices, or bids.", but not ALL markets behave as an auction or negotiation. Walk into most retail stores and there is no negotiation, the price is the price, take it or leave it.

Its the same thing really.  The various bids or buys, are like various competing retail stores all competing for your dollars.  The highest bid is the only relevant bid if they can satisfy the amount you're looking to buy.  So the highest bid is the no negotiation, take it or leave it price.

Of course you can negotiate by placing a sell order(ask) above this price but you risk no one being willing to meet it.  You can do the same at a retail store (trying to get a discount) but you may not get it.   

Quote
I'm getting confused by the mixing of fixed funding costs vs. bidding which is a negotiable (i.e. variable) offer at some price.
Everything is negotiable.
The variable bidding allows everyone to reflect and gauge the relative importance of a proposed feature and to change their mind based on this and other information to perhaps support a different feature, without actually spending any money until finalized; or for a developer to lower their price target based on lower demand.  If there aren't enough bids on a particular feature it won't get done.  If a feature is perceived far more valuable then some fixed proposed cost, it will be bid up to whatever people are willing to pay.

For example if people feel the Stealth feature is worth more than 45k they can bid the price up above the 12 BTS/STEALTH.  This particular deal is a little different, in that OnceUpon gets all the STEALTH regardless, but with bids above 12 he might be incentivized to sell some for an instant profit.  Bids below 12, I think are meaningless, because the entire sum is being bought at 12, as a given.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: yvv on December 13, 2015, 05:00:31 pm
You say "In a market you have offers to buy at different prices, or bids.", but not ALL markets behave as an auction or negotiation. Walk into most retail stores and there is no negotiation, the price is the price, take it or leave it.

Its the same thing really.  The various bids or buys, are like various competing retail stores all competing for your dollars.  The highest bid is the only relevant bid if they can satisfy the amount you're looking to buy.  So the highest bid is the no negotiation, take it or leave it price.

Of course you can negotiate by placing a sell order(ask) above this price but you risk no one being willing to meet it.  You can do the same at a retail store (trying to get a discount) but you may not get it.

There are actually terms for these two types of trades: market order and limit order. Market order is like checking different retail stores, choosing the cheapest one and accepting their prices. In bitshares you just accept lowest ask price. Limit order is when you say: this is the highest price I am willing to pay. If an offer with lower price is available, you take it, if not, you wait until somebody  accepts your offer.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: jtme on December 13, 2015, 05:16:47 pm
4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.

I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split.  Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: carpet ride on December 13, 2015, 05:38:31 pm
4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.

I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split.  Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !

Agree with these concerns.  Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset.  With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA.  I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: jakub on December 13, 2015, 05:41:55 pm
It's a bad thing because it complicates the messaging of the refer program tremendously. It takes it from, "you get a piece of all their transactions for the lifetime of their account", too, "sometimes you get a piece of the transactions depending on what they are doing in bitshares and what they are using" .. which then derails the entire messaging into wanting to find out when and where that ultimately leads to 'damn this is just too complicated', or 'geez it looks like you only get some in a few cases.. why bother?', or worse 'this looks like you are tricking people into thinking you get something for refers when really they only get it for a few things.'

The refer program to "bring users" is only going to be as good as the opportunity it brings to those that promote it. If you marginalize it by excluding it through out the bitshares space, then all these new FBAs will have to go on their own marketing efforts to get users instead of leveraging the base that will be more excited and more incentive to spend money to promote the new features knowing the base they are targeting is going to directly result in refer income generated from the specific feature they referred them for.
As much as I like the FBA concept, BunkerChain Labs has a point that features implemented via FBAs are not very friendly for the Referral Program (as they undermine its revenue pool or at least make it more obscure).
I'd appreciate [member=5]bytemaster[/member] 's comment on this aspect.

EDIT: Now I've come to the conclusion that FBAs might bring about new features that wouldn't have come into existence in any other way.
So ideally FBAs will generate new revenue opportunities, thus they will not "steal" any existing revenue streams from the Referral Program.
But still it's a valid point that FBAs will make the Referral Program revenue structure more obscure as there will be several exceptions regarding what's included in the RP revenue stream and what's not.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Thom on December 13, 2015, 05:51:53 pm
Thx [member=448]Xeldal[/member] and [member=40079]yvv[/member] for your replies to my confusion. Your replies do help.

4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.

I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split.  Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !

Agree with these concerns.  Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset.  With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA.  I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.

This again? C'mon, go back and read the thread. Stan addressed the reason for the 80 / 20 split. In essence, it has become the "traditional" split for most efforts around here, like the referral program. I see this objection as just cloaked envy.

As to "no business plan", that is a valid concern, but nothing new around here. Most everything done around here is fly by night / seat of the pants, without market research, prototypes or the usual planning that goes into most business ventures. It's entrepreneurship, but with more risk and speculation. Lots more intuition and guesswork.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: jtme on December 13, 2015, 06:01:55 pm
Thx [member=448]Xeldal[/member] and [member=40079]yvv[/member] for your replies to my confusion. Your replies do help.

4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.

I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split.  Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !

Agree with these concerns.  Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset.  With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA.  I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.

This again? C'mon, go back and read the thread. Stan addressed the reason for the 80 / 20 split. In essence, it has become the "traditional" split for most efforts around here, like the referral program. I see this objection as just cloaked envy.

As to "no business plan", that is a valid concern, but nothing new around here. Most everything done around here is fly by night / seat of the pants, without market research, prototypes or the usual planning that goes into most business ventures. It's entrepreneurship, but with more risk and speculation. Lots more intuition and guesswork.

Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: CLains on December 13, 2015, 06:10:13 pm
Thx [member=448]Xeldal[/member] and [member=40079]yvv[/member] for your replies to my confusion. Your replies do help.

4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.

I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split.  Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !

Agree with these concerns.  Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset.  With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA.  I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.

This again? C'mon, go back and read the thread. Stan addressed the reason for the 80 / 20 split. In essence, it has become the "traditional" split for most efforts around here, like the referral program. I see this objection as just cloaked envy.

As to "no business plan", that is a valid concern, but nothing new around here. Most everything done around here is fly by night / seat of the pants, without market research, prototypes or the usual planning that goes into most business ventures. It's entrepreneurship, but with more risk and speculation. Lots more intuition and guesswork.

Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: carpet ride on December 13, 2015, 06:12:23 pm
Thx [member=448]Xeldal[/member] and [member=40079]yvv[/member] for your replies to my confusion. Your replies do help.

4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.

I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split.  Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !

Agree with these concerns.  Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset.  With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA.  I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.

This again? C'mon, go back and read the thread. Stan addressed the reason for the 80 / 20 split. In essence, it has become the "traditional" split for most efforts around here, like the referral program. I see this objection as just cloaked envy.

As to "no business plan", that is a valid concern, but nothing new around here. Most everything done around here is fly by night / seat of the pants, without market research, prototypes or the usual planning that goes into most business ventures. It's entrepreneurship, but with more risk and speculation. Lots more intuition and guesswork.

We wouldn't want to feel married to a feature if it doesn't successfully drive revenue.  If the FBA holder does not hold up his end of the bargain, which is driving transaction growth, shareholders and entrepreneurs will be inclined to circumvent, steal or compete with the feature.

I may be off base --- how married are we to this entrepreneur / feature if it's implemented?
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Thom on December 13, 2015, 07:32:19 pm
We wouldn't want to feel married to a feature if it doesn't successfully drive revenue.  If the FBA holder does not hold up his end of the bargain, which is driving transaction growth, shareholders and entrepreneurs will be inclined to circumvent, steal or compete with the feature.

Why is that a problem? Business ventures come and go all the time, it's only when they get subsidized, propped up or bailed out that artificial advantages and corruption of the market occurs, changing it from a free market to a coercive and manipulative one. If the private transfer feature fails for any reason and a competitor is willing to risk stepping in to compete the process may repeat with a new approach and new conditions. Or, the feature fails and disappears b/c it just isn't viable. That's the free market.

OnceUpon is taking on all of the risk so he is entitled to 100% of the benefit. That's NOT 100% of the fees collected, b/c 20% of those fees are overhead paid to the ecosystem, thus helping to sustain the ecosystem.

Furthermore, he is being highly generous by his willingness to sell his controlling interest in the FBA revenue stream to a 3rd party that will hopefully offer that revenue stream to the community.

That is the part of the plan which is the most foggy IMO, b/c until private transfers are implemented and the STEALTH FBA begins to produce revenue, nobody has any idea what value it represents, it sheer speculation. Moreover, it is a sticky matter to dictate to a buyer of a thing what they can or can't do with it after they own it. So what control OnceUp has over the revenue stream AFTER he sells it cannot be known, especially right now before the revenue stream exists.

Just for the sake of argument lets say private transfers are wildly successful and OnceUp sells his entire stake in the FBA revenue stream to a 3rd party that says they'll offer some of it to the public but that 3rd party changes their mind and decides to keep 100% of his proceeds (80% of the fees). That is their right to do, barring some license or contractual agreement with OnceUp to the contrary. In such a scenario there is nothing stopping someone else from offering a competing solution and trying to capture a portion of that lucrative revenue pie. If their "new and improved" private transfer feature has value, can be marketed effectively to capture a portion of the market and return proceeds to the community as OnceUp intended, it might succeed in capturing a significant portion of the market or applying enough pressure on the incumbent feature provider to start offering dividends.

Point is we can't be certain of what the future brings but denying an investor the rewards of his investment and expecting an entitlement to the upsides but not the downsides is totally contrary to the free market principles this ecosystem is built on.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Akado on December 14, 2015, 10:34:48 am
Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?

You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.

No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.

Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: santaclause102 on December 14, 2015, 10:42:50 am
Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?

You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.

No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.

Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.
The only answer to these quantitative questions is price establishing competition. But then we are back to questions like: How much change to the code of a FBA qualifies for it to be a new feature with a different allocation? And if the question is answered so that any newly proposed FBA that is targeting the same market would break the initial social consesnsus on the initial FBA that "cornered" that market then the next question is: Shouldnt there be initially sufficient competition between various FBA entrepreneuers to compete to "corner" a market so that the BTS holders can choose the best deal instead of going with the first proposal that arbitrarly sets the tx fee allocation.

More critique at:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20575.msg265645.html#msg265645
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Akado on December 14, 2015, 10:48:03 am
Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?

You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.

No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.

Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.
The only answer to these quantitative questions is price establishing competition. But then we are back to questions like: How much change to the code of a FBA qualifies for it to be a new feature with a different allocation?

The full argument is here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20575.msg265645.html#msg265645

There's no thing as competition for a risk this high in this early stage. I see it more as every investor being more some kind of a gift/opportunity.

This, because from a investor's point of view it doesn't make much sense to get such amounts of money into this when the chance of return is so low atm. I'm sure there are other kinds of investmentes where you can get your money back in a shorter time frame and with more chances of getting it back. My opinion only. Crypto is a niche atm, so on top of having someone willing to take such a huge risk, it needs to be into crypto wich is extremely difficult
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: santaclause102 on December 14, 2015, 10:54:37 am
Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?

You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.

No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.

Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.
The only answer to these quantitative questions is price establishing competition. But then we are back to questions like: How much change to the code of a FBA qualifies for it to be a new feature with a different allocation?

The full argument is here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20575.msg265645.html#msg265645

There's no thing as competition for a risk this high in this early stage. I see it more as every investor being more some kind of a gift/opportunity.

This, because from a investor's point of view it doesn't make much sense to get such amounts of money into this when the chance of return is so low atm. I'm sure there are other kinds of investmentes where you can get your money back in a shorter time frame and with more chances of getting it back. My opinion only. Crypto is a niche atm, so on top of having someone willing to take such a huge risk, it needs to be into crypto wich is extremely difficult
That might be. But if we dont assume that everyone does things for a profit then it can easily happen that by such an argumentation the "perceived volonteers/gifters" can easily take advantage of a larger group of people (BTS holders) through such talk... In the end you will never know whether people believe that there is a good profit to be made if you don't allow / plan for competiton. 

Btw: The above is very much related to https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20575.msg265647.html#msg265647
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Akado on December 14, 2015, 11:10:14 am
Well, no one will throw 50k at BitShares out of good will without expecting it back... I think.

I didn't mean to say we shouldn't allow competition. I meant that at this early in the game, there is no competition because we're too small. BitShares is the cryptoindustry is a niche inside a niche. It's very difficult to find competition this early. Maybe in 5-10 years..

Unless we let the community do that itself, which I think is the point of fba
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: santaclause102 on December 14, 2015, 11:17:24 am
Quote
I meant that at this early in the game, there is no competition because we're too small.
I would agree in general. But then the question about how to handly new featrures that target the same market (note that the difference between a new feature and an upgrade to it is a continuum and hard to distinguish) doesnt become less relevant. 
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: jtme on December 14, 2015, 11:48:08 am
Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?

You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.

No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.

Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.

The 90/10 was 10 for the network, 90 for the entrepreneurs. So it was very generous thinking.
I was  asking why 80/20 , why there was never serious discussion about this crucial split number.
And I remember well in the original stealth proposal the split should revert in favour to network
after certain amount of fees collected. It was more generous and then become more greedy.
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Akado on December 14, 2015, 11:57:28 am
Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?

You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.

No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.

Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.

The 90/10 was 10 for the network, 90 for the entrepreneurs. So it was very generous thinking.
I was  asking why 80/20 , why there was never serious discussion about this crucial split number.
And I remember well in the original stealth proposal the split should revert in favour to network
after certain amount of fees collected. It was more generous and then become more greedy.

I'm sorry I misunderstood you. Then I agree with you. I thought you meant 90 for the network and 10 for investor
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Thom on December 14, 2015, 06:07:32 pm
You own the network, but who pays for development?

oops, sorry for the double post

THERE'S A MAGICAL LINK ABOVE YOUR POST ONLY SIGHTED PEOPLE CAN READ LABELED "Remove".

Sorry to shout, but I thought you might at least have good hearing  8)
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Akado on December 14, 2015, 06:15:05 pm
I'm being quoted in a signature. I feel wise let me enjoy
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Thom on December 14, 2015, 06:25:36 pm
I'm being quoted in a signature. I feel wise let me enjoy

 :) Enjoy your 5 sig quotes Akado. Maybe you'll get more, perhaps the sock puppet will take some away. Enjoy what may come :)
Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Bitcoinfan on December 15, 2015, 09:11:08 pm

So I would like to take some time to outline a plan I am devising for getting features lined up and prioritized based upon the concept of Fee Backed Assets (FBA).  For each of the following features I will create a UIA that represents stake in the future fees generated from that feature. 

2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)

[member=5]bytemaster[/member],

That's two for two -- Sooner or later I knew you'd come around... 

FBA:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16133.0/viewresults.html

Augur/Truthcoin:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,3916.0.html


Title: Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
Post by: Akado on December 15, 2015, 09:38:23 pm
so atm we only have assets for stealth and maker? No bond, prediction markets and gambling assets?