-
Invictus has sparked something great here, and it's time to incentivize others within and from outside the community to really get their hands dirty creating some of the first DACs that look at problems beyond making a market as Bitshares does. There are dozens of great ideas bouncing around this forum, but lacking a good example to follow few are willing to jump in.
Angelshares has been a wildly successful fundraising effort, these funds are being put to use but the bottleneck in the sitaution is clearly Invictus.
Invictus recently allocated 10,000 PTS for use in their internal marketing budget (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqTwk-e7yzJydFZ3bVVWT0o1OUwzXzdESHFBY0FkUWc&usp=sharing#gid=0) - This represents one of the largest single expenditures to date, but just a fraction (less than 1%) of Invictus's PTS holdings. I believe this is the appropriate amount to offer for the first DAC that meets the following goals
- It Honors the Social Contract and grants at least 10% to both Angelshares and Protoshares holders
- It conforms to the characteristics of a true DAC, it must be Autonomous and it must be Decentralized
- It survives for at least six months
and the thing that makes it uniquely Invictus
- It is the most profitable for the token holders compared to other models over a three month time horizon
Obviously this is a long term bounty, but just announcing such a thing help people understand why they would actually want to hold PTS because there will obviously be people building these things, competing for the large prize. Even at current valuations, that's over 100BTC.
Because the prize is being awarded in fixed amount of a currency (PTS) that gains value based on people speculating on its future value, by the time you finally pay out the prize it should be ENORMOUS. And because the tokens are fungible, you will have inadvertently dragged everybody who is holding protoshares value up along with it.
I do not believe Bitshares or any derivatives should be included in this contest, but I have no problem with other invictus products being in the race since competition causes all players to up their game.
This is the right thing to do, and I believe the community at large should be behind this. Please post any comments or questions
-
I agree, this would be a good idea.
+5%
Hopefully we wont just see copy and paste jobs, the alt-coin industry is failing due to that. Even if someone comes up with a good idea, i'm sure if they ask for coding assistance they will get help.
-
100% in agreement. Wonderful idea Adam.
-
Adam - can you elaborate what you're referring to when you say "makes it uniquely Invictus"?
-
Good idea. I think they could launch this prize in connection with the Shark Tank incubator competition.
I suggested they should https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2775.msg34619
-
Adam - can you elaborate what you're referring to when you say "makes it uniquely Invictus"?
Daniel likes to say that Invictus is different from all the other 2.0 products because they're building profitable businesses for "share"holders. He has the economics of the situation right and others do not.
So it seems like if that's a defining factor, it's one Invictus will want to incentivize others to follow moving when they are spending funds to incentivize certain behaviors.
Good idea. I think they could launch this prize in connection with the Shark Tank incubator competition.
I suggested they should https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2775.msg34619
Yes, I totally agree - The "Shark Tank" can be the way people can get early seed funding for these projects which then chase after the big prize.
I would be willing to sit on the sharktank panel, advise and judge.
-
This makes a lot of sense. I wish I has a background in programming, there are so many opportunities out there right now with gigantic upsides!
-
I wish I could learn programming faster! Once I get good at it I've got a couple of ideas I want to try
-
I think it is a wonderful idea. I'm grateful you're still on board Adam. I was one of the folks who dove into Invictus and Protoshares after hearing the LTB podcast. After reading some of your comments I thought you had soured on I3. I think there may have been some communicative issues initially but it's going to work out. Seeing you extend yourself for the benefit of the community is reassuring. Thanks
-
I think it is a wonderful idea. I'm grateful you're still on board Adam. I was one of the folks who dove into Invictus and Protoshares after hearing the LTB podcast. After reading some of your comments I thought you had soured on I3. I think there may have been some communicative issues initially but it's going to work out. Seeing you extend yourself for the benefit of the community is reassuring. Thanks
To be perfectly honest I have soured on Invictus, I hope they will regain my trust as an investor by making realistic promises and delivering on them.
-
Well, then I am doubly assured. While you disagree with the management style you beleive the platform is sound or you wouldn't do this. It's early, I think they are good men with great ideas who are scrambling to launch. Kinda like making sausage, it ain't pretty.
-
why must the 3rd DAC do this?1.It Honors the Social Contract and grants at least 10% to both Angelshares and Protoshares holders
-
I'm always interested but right now my time is 150% overbooked. I canceled three speaking engagements and a trip to texas to work on the projects I have now, and today I missed a meeting with a very mainstream artist about a custom coin because of being triple booked.
So I'd love to help, but no. I will invest crypto in your effort if you create a proto-coin for a DAC making company that can follow its own rules. competition breeds efficiency.
-
We generally love the idea!
But help me to understand how this is different that what we've been talking about as a Shark Tank contest since the February newsletter:
Shark Tank Model. Given our crypto-Austrian view of economics, there’s naturally got to be a competition! We are considering the popular TV show Shark Tank as a model (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101229255).
Bring us your business plan, win the hearts and minds of our community, and get past the industry leaders on our Panel of Judges at our Las Vegas Beyond Bitcoin Summit and you could win our support in incubating your new company. What’s that include? Well, there are many things we could provide depending upon the nature of the help your new start-up may need. For example:
• A stipend to work in one of our incubators for a period of time.
• The legal fees to set up your company in its chosen favorable jurisdiction.
• Fully equipped office space at one of our incubator sites.
• Forum and web site support while you build you own base of supporters.
• Crypto-savvy legal, accounting, financial and tax support.
• Use of our trusted escrow services while you are building your own reputation.
• Consulting with Dan “bytemaster” Larimer and our team of innovators.
• Help with finding opportunities to speak at a major conference.
• Promotional support integrated with our own global marketing campaign.
Here are some of the judging criteria that might apply. What others have we missed?
1. Business model. How does your DAC make money for its shareholders?
2. Technical approach. What are the underlying technologies you will use?
3. Regulatory environment. Have you selected a favorable legal jurisdiction?
4. Team Qualifications. Does your proposed company have what it takes to succeed?
5. Diversity. Does your company bring participation from other regions of the globe.
6. Popularity. How much donation-backed grass-roots support do you have?
The competition might have room for, say, five finalists who would compete in our own shark tank. Your first task would be to earn the right to become one of those finalists. Here is how to start:
1. Start a discussion thread in our forum where you explain your idea to everyone.
2. Commit to honor the BitShares Social Contract as your first posting there.
3. Explain your qualifications, resources and the kind of start-up help you are seeking.
4. Submit a synopsis (2000 words max) as a .pdf file published in your forum thread.
5. Be chosen as a finalist by our “shark tank” Panel of Judges.
If you were chosen as a finalist, we can help set up an “angel shares” style escrow account for you to receive donations from patrons who believe in your idea and want to capture an early stake in it. It would be up to you to define a proposed social consensus that will attract donations to your cause. This is a way the BitShares community could “vote” for your idea and the amount you raise by some deadline would be a factor in the judges’ decision.
Then you might be invited to do the following:
1. Submit a formal proposal (10,000 words max) following rules to be published.
2. Present a 30-minute sales pitch to our judges and audience in Las Vegas.
3. Participate in a 20-minute question period with our audience and judges.
After up to five finalists have presented, the judges would announce the first BitShares shark tank winner. Even if you don’t win, the publicity and support gathered from the competition would give all finalists a big head start. The result could be up to five new DACs for PTS and AGS holders to own and support.
If you don’t have an idea for a DAC yet, our forum is full of exciting concepts, including those of our own we have shared. Think of the potential variations on BitShares X alone! Many of these DACs will eventually be developed by Invictus if no others step forward to accept the challenge. But we are hoping that by offering a helping hand, we can encourage many new companies to take their place with us as founders of this exciting new industry.
We are still at the early planning stages - this article is just to start a discussion on how best to build an industry of independent developers of incorruptible unmanned companies. Much of what we do will depend on whether there are enough qualified start-up candidates who want to participate. We will listen and seek opportunities wherever we can find them. Let us know what you think!
After reading that, how can you say that we have not offered a plan to involve third-party developers when that's the whole point of the above Featured Article and the Beyond Bitcoin conference and most of our marketing budget between now and then?
-
We generally love the idea!
But help me to understand how this is different that what we've been talking about as a Shark Tank contest since the February newsletter:
Shark Tank Model. Given our crypto-Austrian view of economics, there’s naturally got to be a competition! We are considering the popular TV show Shark Tank as a model (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101229255).
Bring us your business plan, win the hearts and minds of our community, and get past the industry leaders on our Panel of Judges at our Las Vegas Beyond Bitcoin Summit and you could win our support in incubating your new company. What’s that include? Well, there are many things we could provide depending upon the nature of the help your new start-up may need. For example:
• A stipend to work in one of our incubators for a period of time.
• The legal fees to set up your company in its chosen favorable jurisdiction.
• Fully equipped office space at one of our incubator sites.
• Forum and web site support while you build you own base of supporters.
• Crypto-savvy legal, accounting, financial and tax support.
• Use of our trusted escrow services while you are building your own reputation.
• Consulting with Dan “bytemaster” Larimer and our team of innovators.
• Help with finding opportunities to speak at a major conference.
• Promotional support integrated with our own global marketing campaign.
Here are some of the judging criteria that might apply. What others have we missed?
1. Business model. How does your DAC make money for its shareholders?
2. Technical approach. What are the underlying technologies you will use?
3. Regulatory environment. Have you selected a favorable legal jurisdiction?
4. Team Qualifications. Does your proposed company have what it takes to succeed?
5. Diversity. Does your company bring participation from other regions of the globe.
6. Popularity. How much donation-backed grass-roots support do you have?
The competition might have room for, say, five finalists who would compete in our own shark tank. Your first task would be to earn the right to become one of those finalists. Here is how to start:
1. Start a discussion thread in our forum where you explain your idea to everyone.
2. Commit to honor the BitShares Social Contract as your first posting there.
3. Explain your qualifications, resources and the kind of start-up help you are seeking.
4. Submit a synopsis (2000 words max) as a .pdf file published in your forum thread.
5. Be chosen as a finalist by our “shark tank” Panel of Judges.
If you were chosen as a finalist, we can help set up an “angel shares” style escrow account for you to receive donations from patrons who believe in your idea and want to capture an early stake in it. It would be up to you to define a proposed social consensus that will attract donations to your cause. This is a way the BitShares community could “vote” for your idea and the amount you raise by some deadline would be a factor in the judges’ decision.
Then you might be invited to do the following:
1. Submit a formal proposal (10,000 words max) following rules to be published.
2. Present a 30-minute sales pitch to our judges and audience in Las Vegas.
3. Participate in a 20-minute question period with our audience and judges.
After up to five finalists have presented, the judges would announce the first BitShares shark tank winner. Even if you don’t win, the publicity and support gathered from the competition would give all finalists a big head start. The result could be up to five new DACs for PTS and AGS holders to own and support.
If you don’t have an idea for a DAC yet, our forum is full of exciting concepts, including those of our own we have shared. Think of the potential variations on BitShares X alone! Many of these DACs will eventually be developed by Invictus if no others step forward to accept the challenge. But we are hoping that by offering a helping hand, we can encourage many new companies to take their place with us as founders of this exciting new industry.
We are still at the early planning stages - this article is just to start a discussion on how best to build an industry of independent developers of incorruptible unmanned companies. Much of what we do will depend on whether there are enough qualified start-up candidates who want to participate. We will listen and seek opportunities wherever we can find them. Let us know what you think!
After reading that, how can you say that we have not offered a plan to involve third-party developers when that's the whole point of the above Featured Article and the Beyond Bitcoin conference and most of our marketing budget between now and then?
Because you're picking projects to fund rather than laying out the very basic things a successful dac requires, putting out a bounty and letting teams opt to go after your eco system
Right now you're making them pitch to you, and you've centralized the process on daniel. Just define what a successful ideal dac looks like after six months of operation and let the market decide, not any man!
-
Also, announcing it in the Newsletter is not what you do if you want people to actually know about it. How big exactly do you think this community is?
-
Also, announcing it in the Newsletter is not what you do if you want people to actually know about it. How big exactly do you think this community is?
In the recently posted video Daniel said that the other DACs will be on board in the next few years. So I guess they don't want to bring them to the table at this moment.
-
Also, announcing it in the Newsletter is not what you do if you want people to actually know about it. How big exactly do you think this community is?
+5%
-
Also, announcing it in the Newsletter is not what you do if you want people to actually know about it. How big exactly do you think this community is?
+5%
Announcing it in the newsletter (600+ subscribers).
Highlighting the newsletter here every time the opportunity arises.
Putting a big splash up on our web site about it.
Announcing it in interviews and videos and every conference we attend.
Its the whole center of marketing focus for the next six months.
Obviously, our mission will stand to benefit from finding more developers and deploying more DACs. So we are open to all possible suggestions on how to do so.
-
Because you're picking projects to fund rather than laying out the very basic things a successful dac requires, putting out a bounty and letting teams opt to go after your eco system
Right now you're making them pitch to you, and you've centralized the process on daniel. Just define what a successful ideal dac looks like after six months of operation and let the market decide, not any man!
The answer to your earlier question, I believe what I have proposed here is fundamentally different than your shark tank all-ideas-pass-through-invictus funnel. I think you should focus on being oracle gatekeepers after you've proven you're more than aspiring students. Bounties incentivize the participation of equals who don't need your money up front but want to know they've got stake when they deliver value with their venture.
-
Also, announcing it in the Newsletter is not what you do if you want people to actually know about it. How big exactly do you think this community is?
In the recently posted video Daniel said that the other DACs will be on board in the next few years. So I guess they don't want to bring them to the table at this moment.
We need to see a few DACs released this year. They don't all have to be sophisticated, they don't all have to be released by Invictus, just three DACs which we can hold up as examples and one of them could be Bitshares.
We have to show the world what a DAC is this year, not over 3 years because time moves faster in this space and 3 years is way too late.
-
If they were equals, they would already be building their projects and giving other people bounties, not waiting for bounties before getting started. We're all here because we're convinced that Bytemaster and the rest of the Invictus team is on to something and is offering something of value. There are good reasons for honoring the social consensus, and there's no reason for any developers to be left without a stake in their own ventures as you suggest.
-
Adam, tell me straight up: Do you think Noir and MMC are good investments? Would you rather have $100 of those two, or $100 of a random choice of the 5 or 6 known invictus DAC ideas?
edit: I know that's not the point you're making, but you can't really say anyone who can make copy/paste altcoins can actually deliver a profitable DAC
-
We want as many DACs to emerge as possible, as soon as possible. We are limited only by our ability to find qualified developers.
We have learned not to publish our most aggressive timetables because we always miss our most aggressive timetables.
We won't stop being aggressive.
But we are trying to learn to under-promise and over-deliver.
-
If they were equals, they would already be building their projects and giving other people bounties, not waiting for bounties before getting started. We're all here because we're convinced that Bytemaster and the rest of the Invictus team is on to something and is offering something of value. There are good reasons for honoring the social consensus, and there's no reason for any developers to be left without a stake in their own ventures as you suggest.
Invictus already hoovered up the available funds the community has for development of the ecosystem, that was called protoshares. Invictus is throughly vested in the success of the platform they started, but the point wasn't to give them millions of dollars they'll then dole out in little chunks to people who ask nice enough, it was to incentivize the development of an ecosystem. You do that with broad incentives otherwise you're bottlenecking the process to how fast you can approve projects and how good you are at picking them. Equals are teams who can execute and are wiling to work, but they can also choose to just start their own protoshares and sell their own tokens which gives THEM money instead of having to ask for it from Invictus.
Adam, tell me straight up: Do you think Noir and MMC are good investments? Would you rather have $100 of those two, or $100 of a random choice of the 5 or 6 known invictus DAC ideas?
edit: I know that's not the point you're making, but you can't really say anyone who can make copy/paste altcoins can actually deliver a profitable DAC
Memorycoin has an unknown premine I could not drag out, a founder who I feel has not represented the best interest of his coins in the past and is basically a bitcoin clone with regards to functionality. I am not interested in coins like this any more. Noirshares is a DC, Distributed Corp and has a developer behind it who has some baggage in his past but has a strong vision for the future and puts in long hours towards it. I hold both of these coins because I believe there is potential in Noirshares and can't be bothered to get rid of my memorycoins.
Also, announcing it in the Newsletter is not what you do if you want people to actually know about it. How big exactly do you think this community is?
In the recently posted video Daniel said that the other DACs will be on board in the next few years. So I guess they don't want to bring them to the table at this moment.
We need to see a few DACs released this year. They don't all have to be sophisticated, they don't all have to be released by Invictus, just three DACs which we can hold up as examples and one of them could be Bitshares.
We have to show the world what a DAC is this year, not over 3 years because time moves faster in this space and 3 years is way too late.
Yep, totally agree. The opportunity to get people involved is right now.
We want as many DACs to emerge as possible, as soon as possible. We are limited only by our ability to find qualified developers.
We have learned not to publish our most aggressive timetables because we always miss our most aggressive timetables.
We won't stop being aggressive.
But we are trying to learn to under-promise and over-deliver.
The problem is you are looking for qualified developers instead of defining the outcome you want to be created and then letting the market find the developers because the incentive is so big. You're off to a good start with 5% finders fees.
It's very good you're not publishing more aggressive timetables than you still do. You should be aggressive and work hard towards the goals, but you should also walk the talk and let the community do the distributed intelligence thing we're all so fond of theorizing.
Your motto is decentralized solutions for centralized problems, do you really not see how the structure you're trying to build is centralized and the inefficiencies that weakness has already caused?
-
Because you're picking projects to fund rather than laying out the very basic things a successful dac requires, putting out a bounty and letting teams opt to go after your eco system
Right now you're making them pitch to you, and you've centralized the process on daniel. Just define what a successful ideal dac looks like after six months of operation and let the market decide, not any man!
The answer to your earlier question, I believe what I have proposed here is fundamentally different than your shark tank all-ideas-pass-through-invictus funnel. I think you should focus on being oracle gatekeepers after you've proven you're more than aspiring students. Bounties incentivize the participation of equals who don't need your money up front but want to know they've got stake when they deliver value with their venture.
The kind of development that would ensue if they got these facts right!!! Noir Investment Group has not received a single donation, we'd like to prove the concept first.
-
If they were equals, they would already be building their projects and giving other people bounties, not waiting for bounties before getting started. We're all here because we're convinced that Bytemaster and the rest of the Invictus team is on to something and is offering something of value. There are good reasons for honoring the social consensus, and there's no reason for any developers to be left without a stake in their own ventures as you suggest.
I would post Bounties in the bounty section, but NO, only Invictus is allowed to do that, go ahead, try posting one and see.
-
Adam, tell me straight up: Do you think Noir and MMC are good investments? Would you rather have $100 of those two, or $100 of a random choice of the 5 or 6 known invictus DAC ideas?
edit: I know that's not the point you're making, but you can't really say anyone who can make copy/paste altcoins can actually deliver a profitable DAC
I wouldn't know about MMC, but i's sure owning dividends from every venture invested in is a pretty good investment.
-
You're off to a good start with 5% finders fees.
Exactly (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1709.msg28649#msg28649). I think we're seeing the exact same problem. I hope Invictus sees it as well.
Referral bounty, shark tank prizes, open bounty proposals, community purses (e.g. in support),
all these things are aimed at de-bottlenecking the allocation of work.
-
Because you're picking projects to fund rather than laying out the very basic things a successful dac requires, putting out a bounty and letting teams opt to go after your eco system
Right now you're making them pitch to you, and you've centralized the process on daniel. Just define what a successful ideal dac looks like after six months of operation and let the market decide, not any man!
The answer to your earlier question, I believe what I have proposed here is fundamentally different than your shark tank all-ideas-pass-through-invictus funnel. I think you should focus on being oracle gatekeepers after you've proven you're more than aspiring students. Bounties incentivize the participation of equals who don't need your money up front but want to know they've got stake when they deliver value with their venture.
I see Adams proposal as an alternative that is worth considering and the more approaches to enrich the ecosystem the better. It might indeed help to solve part of the I3 bottle neck problem for widening the ecosystem faster. The issue I see though is that funding makes sense at the beginning if a project. When one criteria is to be sucessful, which could me measured by a for example 10x increase in market cap, then the bounty would be granted when the developers have funds from ther early investment already anyway which makes the bounty less of an incentive.
-
I do not understand how this thread has gone on for so long. It seems more than evident that the simple issue is that there are not enough competent developers in the space. The point of what invictus is doing right now with bitshares is to launch a viable product and from that product create an easy to use template for people to make dacs.
Additionally if there were a competent dac developer than I would expect him/her to develop without the need of some sort of bounty reward as developers will get paid relative to the success of their dac. This suggests that either developers do not have the skills to create these dacs yet or they do not have the confidence in their ideas and implementations to start developing.
I think that everyone here should be cognizant of the fact that this is a company and not just some open source project. They have a full time team whose livelihood is dependent upon the success of this product. Although the forum is an open space for the exchange of ideas, your participation on this forum does not make you an employee of their company. How can you be mad at them for not allowing bounties that would distract from their main goal, which is to complete their flagship dac, particularly when you barzwizi do not plan on honoring the ags/pts agreement?
If bitshares is successfully released and there is no further DAC development than perhaps these concerns may be warranted, but as for right now these complaints are not productive, just distracting.
-
So if Bitshares is unsuccessful, the ecosystem is dead?
I don't think that's how it works. Invictus makes their livelihood from paying themselves from Angelshares and missing self imposed deadlines.
"Additionally if there were a competent dac developer than I would expect him/her to develop without the need of some sort of bounty reward as developers will get paid relative to the success of their dac. This suggests that either developers do not have the skills to create these dacs yet or they do not have the confidence in their ideas and implementations to start developing. "
Why would a competent team design a DAC that expands Invictus's ecosystem when Invictus holds all the money, all the power to distribute it and revokes bounties when they think they're not going as Invictus thought they would. If you are competent, you can just start your own ecosystem - It's not hard, and again look around this forum - How many people do you think are here that makes the community so valuable? Not as many as a month ago, or two months ago. There are other games in town, and they WANT people developing for their ecosystem.
If Invictus waits for people to realize what a great idea it is to develop for their ecosystem and give 20% of their money supply to people from whom they have recieved nothing but who will demand 20% or not be willing to help as we've seen with Barwizi and MMC.
I understand it's not fully clear how this looks when you're inside it, but take a few steps back and apply your standards to invictus's behavior, priorities and statements.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t31/977614_435178253295609_466575167_o.jpg)
-
I do not understand how this thread has gone on for so long. It seems more than evident that the simple issue is that there are not enough competent developers in the space. The point of what invictus is doing right now with bitshares is to launch a viable product and from that product create an easy to use template for people to make dacs.
Additionally if there were a competent dac developer than I would expect him/her to develop without the need of some sort of bounty reward as developers will get paid relative to the success of their dac. This suggests that either developers do not have the skills to create these dacs yet or they do not have the confidence in their ideas and implementations to start developing.
I think that everyone here should be cognizant of the fact that this is a company and not just some open source project. They have a full time team whose livelihood is dependent upon the success of this product. Although the forum is an open space for the exchange of ideas, your participation on this forum does not make you an employee of their company. How can you be mad at them for not allowing bounties that would distract from their main goal, which is to complete their flagship dac, particularly when you barzwizi do not plan on honoring the ags/pts agreement?
If bitshares is successfully released and there is no further DAC development than perhaps these concerns may be warranted, but as for right now these complaints are not productive, just distracting.
ags/pts agreement?
agreement with who?
-
agreement with who?
You're making this point in several threads. Of course you are free to not participate in the contract/agreement.
It seems like you are just also surprised that this causes other people to not want to support your venture. You don't do your part, the counterparty doesn't do their part.
"We don't need you! Why are we being shunned?"
-
agreement with who?
You're making this point in several threads. Of course you are free to not participate in the contract/agreement.
It seems like you are just also surprised that this causes other people to not want to support your venture. You don't do your part, the counterparty doesn't do their part.
"We don't need you! Why are we being shunned?"
Toast: Why would anyone want to honor the invictus social contract for 10/10 as it currently exists now. Put yourself in the shoes of a developer deciding between this, ethereum or another platform, or building your own by forking one of the many options out there including Bitshares as soon as it releases but selling the 100% of tokens to people at a lower rate than the market price for BTS and keeping the money for your project.
What has Invictus done to demonstrate the value of giving 20% of a new money supply to AGS/PTS holders
-
What has Invictus done to demonstrate the value of giving 20% of a new money supply to AGS/PTS holders
I wish someone would do it so we could see... because of this I agree with the motive behind your bounty, I just think it would be insta-claimed by a shitty altcoin. Actually that might be valuable because we would have had someone go through the process of initializing a genesis block with PTS/AGS. Maybe changing the wording on that bounty to be like your suggestion would be good.
-
agreement with who?
You're making this point in several threads. Of course you are free to not participate in the contract/agreement.
It seems like you are just also surprised that this causes other people to not want to support your venture. You don't do your part, the counterparty doesn't do their part.
"We don't need you! Why are we being shunned?"
Point of correction, it's pointless to even mention it because i was at the fore-front writing it. What does it say if i who wrote it, find it to be inadaquate? They even cancelled the bounty..........maybe because they saw that there was no real incentive to follow it.
If only you knew the support i have.
-
What has Invictus done to demonstrate the value of giving 20% of a new money supply to AGS/PTS holders
I wish someone would do it so we could see... because of this I agree with the motive behind your bounty, I just think it would be insta-claimed by a shitty altcoin. Actually that might be valuable because we would have had someone go through the process of initializing a genesis block with PTS/AGS. Maybe changing the wording on that bounty to be like your suggestion would be good.
Okay so you don't undertand the bounty idea.
It was "Invictus defines the metrics by which a successful DAC should be judged"
then you say "The most profitable DAC that honors the social contract after 12 months gets 20,000 PTS - The Most profitable DAC that honors the social contract after 18 months gets 15,000PTS, after 2 years 10,000PTS etc.
You do not define what a successful dac looks like, only how you judge it when a bunch of DACs are competing for the prize. You ASSUME you will be successful and allow the market enough time to deliver what you're asking for because the prize is big.
You start with high amounts because you believe PTS will succeed, and so after 18 months 15,000PTS will be worth more than 20,000PTS was six months before that. BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL WITH BUILDING THE ECOSYSTEM.
We have never done bounties like this, Invictus only has tasks and chores they want someone to do for them. That is not a good bounty campaign, that is overpaying for specific tasks because your pool of people who even see it's available is too small.
If we're expecting Invictus to pick all "winning" DACs that can be funded, it sounds like we're in for a bad time. Invictus has been terrible at important decisions so far, I don't see why adding public spectacle would change that.
-
What happened to the people who start up their own next big thing whether it be an app, game, website or DAC in their spare time? If you have a great idea and the skill-set to do it, just go for it and pick up some funding along the way or when it's ready for launch to pay lawyers or a marketing team. You'll be your own investor, paying with time.
-
What happened to the people who start up their own next big thing whether it be an app, game, website or DAC in their spare time? If you have a great idea and the skill-set to do it, just go for it and pick up some funding along the way or when it's ready for launch to pay lawyers or a marketing team. You'll be your own investor, paying with time.
yes...and the demand to pay 20% "taxes"?
-
What happened to the people who start up their own next big thing whether it be an app, game, website or DAC in their spare time? If you have a great idea and the skill-set to do it, just go for it and pick up some funding along the way or when it's ready for launch to pay lawyers or a marketing team. You'll be your own investor, paying with time.
Here, every time you wonder "Why wouldn't someone just do it for free, when they're not working at their paying job, and then give away 20% of the money supply for nothing" just think of this
WHY WOULD THEY?
-
What has Invictus done to demonstrate the value of giving 20% of a new money supply to AGS/PTS holders
I wish someone would do it so we could see... because of this I agree with the motive behind your bounty, I just think it would be insta-claimed by a shitty altcoin. Actually that might be valuable because we would have had someone go through the process of initializing a genesis block with PTS/AGS. Maybe changing the wording on that bounty to be like your suggestion would be good.
Okay so you don't undertand the bounty idea.
It was "Invictus defines the metrics by which a successful DAC should be judged"
then you say "The most profitable DAC that honors the social contract after 12 months gets 20,000 PTS - The Most profitable DAC that honors the social contract after 18 months gets 15,000PTS, after 2 years 10,000PTS etc.
You do not define what a successful dac looks like, only how you judge it when a bunch of DACs are competing for the prize. You ASSUME you will be successful and allow the market enough time to deliver what you're asking for because the prize is big.
You start with high amounts because you believe PTS will succeed, and so after 18 months 15,000PTS will be worth more than 20,000PTS was six months before that. BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL WITH BUILDING THE ECOSYSTEM.
We have never done bounties like this, Invictus only has tasks and chores they want someone to do for them. That is not a good bounty campaign, that is overpaying for specific tasks because your pool of people who even see it's available is too small.
If we're expecting Invictus to pick all "winning" DACs that can be funded, it sounds like we're in for a bad time. Invictus has been terrible at important decisions so far, I don't see why adding public spectacle would change that.
No we are not expecting invictus to pick "winning" DAC's. I expect winning DAC's to be those that use bitshares x as platform for development. Those that do use bitshares x as a template for their projects will be more inclined to honor the ags/pts agreement.
-
What has Invictus done to demonstrate the value of giving 20% of a new money supply to AGS/PTS holders
I wish someone would do it so we could see... because of this I agree with the motive behind your bounty, I just think it would be insta-claimed by a shitty altcoin. Actually that might be valuable because we would have had someone go through the process of initializing a genesis block with PTS/AGS. Maybe changing the wording on that bounty to be like your suggestion would be good.
Okay so you don't undertand the bounty idea.
It was "Invictus defines the metrics by which a successful DAC should be judged"
then you say "The most profitable DAC that honors the social contract after 12 months gets 20,000 PTS - The Most profitable DAC that honors the social contract after 18 months gets 15,000PTS, after 2 years 10,000PTS etc.
You do not define what a successful dac looks like, only how you judge it when a bunch of DACs are competing for the prize. You ASSUME you will be successful and allow the market enough time to deliver what you're asking for because the prize is big.
You start with high amounts because you believe PTS will succeed, and so after 18 months 15,000PTS will be worth more than 20,000PTS was six months before that. BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL WITH BUILDING THE ECOSYSTEM.
We have never done bounties like this, Invictus only has tasks and chores they want someone to do for them. That is not a good bounty campaign, that is overpaying for specific tasks because your pool of people who even see it's available is too small.
If we're expecting Invictus to pick all "winning" DACs that can be funded, it sounds like we're in for a bad time. Invictus has been terrible at important decisions so far, I don't see why adding public spectacle would change that.
No we are not expecting invictus to pick "winning" DAC's. I expect winning DAC's to be those that use bitshares x as platform for development. Those that do use bitshares x as a template for their projects will be more inclined to honor the ags/pts agreement.
devs want something more suited to their individual requirements, that still does not justify the 20% "tax".
-
Okay so you don't undertand the bounty idea.
It was "Invictus defines the metrics by which a successful DAC should be judged"
then you say "The most profitable DAC that honors the social contract after 12 months gets 20,000 PTS - The Most profitable DAC that honors the social contract after 18 months gets 15,000PTS, after 2 years 10,000PTS etc.
You do not define what a successful dac looks like, only how you judge it when a bunch of DACs are competing for the prize. You ASSUME you will be successful and allow the market enough time to deliver what you're asking for because the prize is big.
You start with high amounts because you believe PTS will succeed, and so after 18 months 15,000PTS will be worth more than 20,000PTS was six months before that. BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL WITH BUILDING THE ECOSYSTEM.
We have never done bounties like this, Invictus only has tasks and chores they want someone to do for them. That is not a good bounty campaign, that is overpaying for specific tasks because your pool of people who even see it's available is too small.
If we're expecting Invictus to pick all "winning" DACs that can be funded, it sounds like we're in for a bad time. Invictus has been terrible at important decisions so far, I don't see why adding public spectacle would change that.
You're totally right, I re-read the OP and now agree with you even more.
In case you missed it I'm collecting things to talk about with I3 in person, you've been writing a lot and I don't want good stuff you say to be missed:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3420.0
-
adam +5%
And i completly agree with your thouhgts and words Adam! For me biggest disadvantage here is my language barrier!
As asenski mentioned before, you're talking from my mind! And i believe you could guess how difficultit is to understand all things goint on here,
if you just even must read all day in your home language to stay informed. Many things went wrong here in past.
Failed bounties (jan, barwizi, super3, etc.), changing bounties after they were activited and so on!
And the website task. Sry, but its really a joke. Since 5 month, and no finished website currently.
Its one of the first things .. i would get ready to inform users and community members.
Lack of communication. No central place where to store important infos ...
Iam a little bit tired to talk about all things again. And i am also tired of contribute my time and at least wasting time,
cause bounties etc. changed or closed! No to missunderstand me, i believe in and love all ideas behind the hole III ecosystem,
but iam tired of the lack of communication and much other things going on here.
edit: In my opinion thats caused why many really experienced devs and designers leave the train and looking for new alternative projects, even they contribute a lot of time and didn't get paid etc .well! From german section i know about 4 really good devs who leave the train past weeks before! Its a pity
my 5 cents
-
Am I to go and beg Invictus to invest in my vision? I mean I could but ultimately they will hold the power and my vision would be very limited by their choices and decisions.
Or do I do 20% for AGS/PTS holders and then another 20% of funding the same way? Will people not be sick of these funding rounds?
I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on these matters. I think it's really important. Let me give you my take on it by putting myself in your shoes, and then tell me what I'm missing.
You allocate 20% to the community here and you would get people's attention and judgement. If everyone here loves your idea then Invictus will necessarily follow up on it, as Daniel Larimer has numerously declared that Invictus works for the PTS/AGS shareholders.
Once you have the favor of this community, you'll be placed centrally on the new website they are building, which will fast-track you ahead of everyone else in terms of publicity. You'll have all infrastructure necessary, and everyone will look to Invictus to see how they are treating you, so Invictus has to overcompensate you on all points for your allocation. First child will be spoiled!
And you'd still have 80-whatever-% left to do a fundraiser on your own.
I can't see how it's not a good deal atm. It just seems that nobody realizes it because Invictus has been lagging in their promotional efforts. If I had been an apt developer I'd go for it no question; like it or not, Invictus are first-movers in the realm of fundraising, and the funds will show their power in the next months. You just have to convince regular joe PTS/AGS shareholder that you have a decent product and you're set for the moon.
Make it coincide with their new website launch and you'll moon^2. If you really have something and aren't just puffing air, then I can't imagine why you wouldn't take this opportunity that lies right in front of you. You'll be set for life if you just do it good enough, and first.
-
Okay so you don't undertand the bounty idea.
It was "Invictus defines the metrics by which a successful DAC should be judged"
then you say "The most profitable DAC that honors the social contract after 12 months gets 20,000 PTS - The Most profitable DAC that honors the social contract after 18 months gets 15,000PTS, after 2 years 10,000PTS etc.
You do not define what a successful dac looks like, only how you judge it when a bunch of DACs are competing for the prize. You ASSUME you will be successful and allow the market enough time to deliver what you're asking for because the prize is big.
You start with high amounts because you believe PTS will succeed, and so after 18 months 15,000PTS will be worth more than 20,000PTS was six months before that. BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL WITH BUILDING THE ECOSYSTEM.
We have never done bounties like this, Invictus only has tasks and chores they want someone to do for them. That is not a good bounty campaign, that is overpaying for specific tasks because your pool of people who even see it's available is too small.
If we're expecting Invictus to pick all "winning" DACs that can be funded, it sounds like we're in for a bad time. Invictus has been terrible at important decisions so far, I don't see why adding public spectacle would change that.
You're totally right, I re-read the OP and now agree with you even more.
In case you missed it I'm collecting things to talk about with I3 in person, you've been writing a lot and I don't want good stuff you say to be missed:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3420.0
I did not miss it. Invictus reads the forums, and it's how they've asked their investors to interact with them. They should respond in the way they requested we interact with them.
-
What happened to the people who start up their own next big thing whether it be an app, game, website or DAC in their spare time? If you have a great idea and the skill-set to do it, just go for it and pick up some funding along the way or when it's ready for launch to pay lawyers or a marketing team. You'll be your own investor, paying with time.
Here, every time you wonder "Why wouldn't someone just do it for free, when they're not working at their paying job, and then give away 20% of the money supply for nothing" just think of this
WHY WOULD THEY?
For the community kickstarting your project?
[edit]
Listen I do understand the issue here but me as a person would not be held back by not getting funding if I believe in something and have no problem giving back to the community , without it no-one would be even dreaming about these things in the first place so 20% is a small price to pay in my opinion.
[/edit]
-
The bounty system does not work and we will not continue to use it for the development of large scale projects. Developers do not like it and we end up having to pay more than we would otherwise AND having to judge it AND having to deal with hurt feelings of the losers.
We will be using bounties only for very small tasks going forward. I took the bounty approach following Adam's advice and quite frankly it was a disaster for most things. There were some successful efforts. We are going to move to a tip system for people who take initiative and find things that need done and make a positive contribution.
We already have a bounty out for a straightforward DAC to modify Bitcoin with TaPOS and dividends.
We are funding the development of BitShares Music with a 3rd party
We are actively recruiting people who what to take a lead on several different DAC ideas.
-
What happened to the people who start up their own next big thing whether it be an app, game, website or DAC in their spare time? If you have a great idea and the skill-set to do it, just go for it and pick up some funding along the way or when it's ready for launch to pay lawyers or a marketing team. You'll be your own investor, paying with time.
Here, every time you wonder "Why wouldn't someone just do it for free, when they're not working at their paying job, and then give away 20% of the money supply for nothing" just think of this
WHY WOULD THEY?
For the community kickstarting your project?
[edit]
Listen I do understand the issue here but me as a person would not be held back by not getting funding if I believe in something and have no problem giving back to the community , without it no-one would be even dreaming about these things in the first place so 20% is a small price to pay in my opinion.
[/edit]
Dude, you're missing the point. If Invictus was the only game in town you could concievably be right but you're saying "well they're only giving away 20% and then can fundraise with the other 80%" but you still aren't explaining what value they are getting from the 20% they give up? The reason you aren't addressing this is because there is no good reason, the community is small and already at capacity on projects they can help with. So you're giving people coins so they'll be more interested in buying more coins from you? That makes zero sense. If the idea is good and I think the team can execute, I'm going to invest whether they honor PTS or not. In fact, it's better if they don't honor PTS since I don't see the value in honoring PTS besides the fact that I hold some personally and so benefit.
I see why *I* would want people to honor the thing and give me free money, but I don't see what advantage they have and I don't see why that would be better than just doing what they want with 100%.
You say it's a small price to pay, I think that depends on what you're buying and as a guy who is helping develop five new token based systems I can tell you 20% is an ENORMOUS amount even when you're trading it for something valuable. We are only giving away 30% of LTBCoins to the audience over a five year period of time because even though they're a huge part of what we're building, there are more important uses for the initial token distribution. I am allocating 10% for infrastructure development and will be laying out a long term bounty system as I have suggested invictus do.
The whole point of systems like this is they are more efficient. When you insert arbitrary value-sucking bullshit, you remove the advantage and you lead to people preparing to fork IMMEDIATELy as we've already seen just because they percieve this community as weak and vulnerable. They're not wrong.
-
Am I to go and beg Invictus to invest in my vision? I mean I could but ultimately they will hold the power and my vision would be very limited by their choices and decisions.
Or do I do 20% for AGS/PTS holders and then another 20% of funding the same way? Will people not be sick of these funding rounds?
I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on these matters. I think it's really important. Let me give you my take on it by putting myself in your shoes, and then tell me what I'm missing.
You allocate 20% to the community here and you would get people's attention and judgement. If everyone here loves your idea then Invictus will necessarily follow up on it, as Daniel Larimer has numerously declared that Invictus works for the PTS/AGS shareholders.
Once you have the favor of this community, you'll be placed centrally on the new website they are building, which will fast-track you ahead of everyone else in terms of publicity. You'll have all infrastructure necessary, and everyone will look to Invictus to see how they are treating you, so Invictus has to overcompensate you on all points for your allocation. First child will be spoiled!
And you'd still have 80-whatever-% left to do a fundraiser on your own.
I can't see how it's not a good deal atm. It just seems that nobody realizes it because Invictus has been lagging in their promotional efforts. If I had been an apt developer I'd go for it no question; like it or not, Invictus are first-movers in the realm of fundraising, and the funds will show their power in the next months. You just have to convince regular joe PTS/AGS shareholder that you have a decent product and you're set for the moon.
Make it coincide with their new website launch and you'll moon^2. If you really have something and aren't just puffing air, then I can't imagine why you wouldn't take this opportunity that lies right in front of you. You'll be set for life if you just do it good enough, and first.
It's not just Invictus. Yes, we have a responsibility to vet anything that uses AGS funds, but as we said in the Shark Tank newsletter article:
Bring us your business plan, win the hearts and minds of our community, and get past the industry leaders on our Panel of Judges at our Las Vegas Beyond Bitcoin Summit and you could win our support in incubating your new company.
You view it as "begging" but I spent my whole career writing proposals to funding sources of all kinds. Such sources don't just throw money in the street. They all have a process to make sure the money is used effectively.
We have defined a good-faith process that involves everybody as described in that article. It offers to put funding in the hands of those who need help to get started based upon a public merit-based competition.
Nothing stops people from pursuing other models. This is the one we have developed so far and we will keep refining it.
We don't believe people with the resources to develop and deploy a DAC need any more incentive to do so. A successful DAC is its own reward.
We choose to help those who don't have the resources by removing obstacles in their paths.
-
Am I to go and beg Invictus to invest in my vision? I mean I could but ultimately they will hold the power and my vision would be very limited by their choices and decisions.
Or do I do 20% for AGS/PTS holders and then another 20% of funding the same way? Will people not be sick of these funding rounds?
I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on these matters. I think it's really important. Let me give you my take on it by putting myself in your shoes, and then tell me what I'm missing.
You allocate 20% to the community here and you would get people's attention and judgement. If everyone here loves your idea then Invictus will necessarily follow up on it, as Daniel Larimer has numerously declared that Invictus works for the PTS/AGS shareholders.
Once you have the favor of this community, you'll be placed centrally on the new website they are building, which will fast-track you ahead of everyone else in terms of publicity. You'll have all infrastructure necessary, and everyone will look to Invictus to see how they are treating you, so Invictus has to overcompensate you on all points for your allocation. First child will be spoiled!
And you'd still have 80-whatever-% left to do a fundraiser on your own.
I can't see how it's not a good deal atm. It just seems that nobody realizes it because Invictus has been lagging in their promotional efforts. If I had been an apt developer I'd go for it no question; like it or not, Invictus are first-movers in the realm of fundraising, and the funds will show their power in the next months. You just have to convince regular joe PTS/AGS shareholder that you have a decent product and you're set for the moon.
Make it coincide with their new website launch and you'll moon^2. If you really have something and aren't just puffing air, then I can't imagine why you wouldn't take this opportunity that lies right in front of you. You'll be set for life if you just do it good enough, and first.
It's not just Invictus. Yes, we have a responsibility to vet anything that uses AGS funds, but as we said in the Shark Tank newsletter article:
Bring us your business plan, win the hearts and minds of our community, and get past the industry leaders on our Panel of Judges at our Las Vegas Beyond Bitcoin Summit and you could win our support in incubating your new company.
You view it as "begging" but I spent my whole career writing proposals to funding sources of all kinds. Such sources don't just throw money in the street. They all have a process to make sure the money is used effectively.
We have defined a good-faith process that involves everybody as described in that article. It offers to put funding in the hands of those who need help to get started based upon a public merit-based competition.
Nothing stops people from pursuing other models. This is the one we have developed so far and we will keep refining it.
We don't believe people with the resources to develop and deploy a DAC need any more incentive to do so. A successful DAC is its own reward.
We choose to help those who don't have the resources by removing obstacles in their paths.
You spent your whole career writing proposals, and you want to bring the legacy, bottlenecked system into Invictus? Way to build the new paradigm
-
Adam , I told you my point of view, it's not a regular business kind of view or the 'best' view but if I know some people in the community can make my project skyrocket why not? I don't care about the others who do 'nothing' , they're in luck and so am I on a grander scale so for me it's no problem and luckily I'm still in control of my own life and actions.
-
It's not just Invictus. Yes, we have a responsibility to vet anything that uses AGS funds, but as we said in the Shark Tank newsletter article:
Bring us your business plan, win the hearts and minds of our community, and get past the industry leaders on our Panel of Judges at our Las Vegas Beyond Bitcoin Summit and you could win our support in incubating your new company.
You view it as "begging" but I spent my whole career writing proposals to funding sources of all kinds. Such sources don't just throw money in the street. They all have a process to make sure the money is used effectively.
We have defined a good-faith process that involves everybody as described in that article. It offers to put funding in the hands of those who need help to get started based upon a public merit-based competition.
Nothing stops people from pursuing other models. This is the one we have developed so far and we will keep refining it.
We don't believe people with the resources to develop and deploy a DAC need any more incentive to do so. A successful DAC is its own reward.
We choose to help those who don't have the resources by removing obstacles in their paths.
You spent your whole career writing proposals, and you want to bring the legacy, bottlenecked system into Invictus? Way to build the new paradigm
Adam,
We obviously disagree on what constitutes responsible management of resources. We have promised to use our best judgement to build the industry for the long term. I outlined all the factors that drive our decision making process here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988)
You consistently ignore most of these factors while you lobby to gain control over funds that were donated as a vote of confidence in our offer to manage them responsibly.
I would encourage you (or someone you nominate) to offer your services as an alternative Industry Developer with a different vision. Tell everyone how you will manage their contributions and solicit their donations.
I think it would be healthy to give people the option of several developers
each with a different vision and management style.
I would happily support you or your like-minded nominee in the role of Industry Developer. We might even post your angel address right beside ours and give you your own page to explain how you would use other people's funds differently. This would let everyone vote with their donations - the sincerest form of expressing a preferred approach.
I think two or more cooperating Industry Developers each pursuing alternative approaches would be healthier for the community than the current insurgent process of sewing dissatisfaction and discord within the community. That only hurts all the stakeholders here and drives away newcomers before they even get a chance to understand the potential.
What do you say? Truce?
-
That only hurts all the stakeholders here and drives away newcomers before they even get a chance to understand the potential.
Word on!
-
Adam,
We obviously disagree on what constitutes responsible management of resources. We have promised to use our best judgement to build the industry for the long term. I outlined all the factors that drive our decision making process here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988)
You consistently ignore most of these factors while you lobby to gain control over funds that were donated as a vote of confidence in our offer to manage them responsibly.
I would encourage you (or someone you nominate) to offer your services as an alternative Industry Developer with a different vision. Tell everyone how you will manage their contributions and solicit their donations.
I think it would be healthy to give people the option of several developers
each with a different vision and management style.
I would happily support you or your like-minded nominee in the role of Industry Developer. We might even post your angel address right beside ours and give you your own page to explain how you would use other people's funds differently. This would let everyone vote with their donations - the sincerest form of expressing a preferred approach.
I think two or more cooperating Industry Developers each pursuing alternative approaches would be healthier for the community than the current insurgent process of sewing dissatisfaction and discord within the community. That only hurts all the stakeholders here and drives away newcomers before they even get a chance to understand the potential.
What do you say? Truce?
This sounds reasonable.
-
It's not just Invictus. Yes, we have a responsibility to vet anything that uses AGS funds, but as we said in the Shark Tank newsletter article:
Bring us your business plan, win the hearts and minds of our community, and get past the industry leaders on our Panel of Judges at our Las Vegas Beyond Bitcoin Summit and you could win our support in incubating your new company.
You view it as "begging" but I spent my whole career writing proposals to funding sources of all kinds. Such sources don't just throw money in the street. They all have a process to make sure the money is used effectively.
We have defined a good-faith process that involves everybody as described in that article. It offers to put funding in the hands of those who need help to get started based upon a public merit-based competition.
Nothing stops people from pursuing other models. This is the one we have developed so far and we will keep refining it.
We don't believe people with the resources to develop and deploy a DAC need any more incentive to do so. A successful DAC is its own reward.
We choose to help those who don't have the resources by removing obstacles in their paths.
You spent your whole career writing proposals, and you want to bring the legacy, bottlenecked system into Invictus? Way to build the new paradigm
Adam,
We obviously disagree on what constitutes responsible management of resources. We have promised to use our best judgement to build the industry for the long term. I outlined all the factors that drive our decision making process here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988)
You consistently ignore most of these factors while you lobby to gain control over funds that were donated as a vote of confidence in our offer to manage them responsibly.
I would encourage you (or someone you nominate) to offer your services as an alternative Industry Developer with a different vision. Tell everyone how you will manage their contributions and solicit their donations.
I think it would be healthy to give people the option of several developers
each with a different vision and management style.
I would happily support you or your like-minded nominee in the role of Industry Developer. We might even post your angel address right beside ours and give you your own page to explain how you would use other people's funds differently. This would let everyone vote with their donations - the sincerest form of expressing a preferred approach.
I think two or more cooperating Industry Developers each pursuing alternative approaches would be healthier for the community than the current insurgent process of sewing dissatisfaction and discord within the community. That only hurts all the stakeholders here and drives away newcomers before they even get a chance to understand the potential.
What do you say? Truce?
I think two or more cooperating Industry Developers each pursuing alternative approaches would be healthier for the community than the current
those who choose to cooperate are moved "off topic".
I would encourage you (or someone you nominate) to offer your services as an alternative Industry Developer with a different vision. Tell everyone how you will manage their contributions and solicit their donations.
Invictus has already cornered the available funding.
My solution is simple, I have begun creating clean templates with guides for the software side of things, now all people have to do is apply their business models. Rather than shunning these people like you did to me, let them be, you do not own the industry and should not dictate policy, let the community decide by way of interest , not you trying to hide us away "off topic".
-
It's not just Invictus. Yes, we have a responsibility to vet anything that uses AGS funds, but as we said in the Shark Tank newsletter article:
Bring us your business plan, win the hearts and minds of our community, and get past the industry leaders on our Panel of Judges at our Las Vegas Beyond Bitcoin Summit and you could win our support in incubating your new company.
You view it as "begging" but I spent my whole career writing proposals to funding sources of all kinds. Such sources don't just throw money in the street. They all have a process to make sure the money is used effectively.
We have defined a good-faith process that involves everybody as described in that article. It offers to put funding in the hands of those who need help to get started based upon a public merit-based competition.
Nothing stops people from pursuing other models. This is the one we have developed so far and we will keep refining it.
We don't believe people with the resources to develop and deploy a DAC need any more incentive to do so. A successful DAC is its own reward.
We choose to help those who don't have the resources by removing obstacles in their paths.
You spent your whole career writing proposals, and you want to bring the legacy, bottlenecked system into Invictus? Way to build the new paradigm
Adam,
We obviously disagree on what constitutes responsible management of resources. We have promised to use our best judgement to build the industry for the long term. I outlined all the factors that drive our decision making process here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988)
You consistently ignore most of these factors while you lobby to gain control over funds that were donated as a vote of confidence in our offer to manage them responsibly.
I would encourage you (or someone you nominate) to offer your services as an alternative Industry Developer with a different vision. Tell everyone how you will manage their contributions and solicit their donations.
I think it would be healthy to give people the option of several developers
each with a different vision and management style.
I would happily support you or your like-minded nominee in the role of Industry Developer. We might even post your angel address right beside ours and give you your own page to explain how you would use other people's funds differently. This would let everyone vote with their donations - the sincerest form of expressing a preferred approach.
I think two or more cooperating Industry Developers each pursuing alternative approaches would be healthier for the community than the current insurgent process of sewing dissatisfaction and discord within the community. That only hurts all the stakeholders here and drives away newcomers before they even get a chance to understand the potential.
What do you say? Truce?
+5%
-
Stan,
I'm not trying to gain control of funds. It is insulting you would insinuate I am wasting my breath here on anything other than trying to help you fix the mess you have created. If you cared about not scaring away investors, invictus would have a blog. I looked at my post history, I told you that, in my own name, in public on this forum the first week of January. I told Daniel privately for weeks. I expressed my concerns to Brian multiple times, and he blew me off. There are basic things you guys have refused to do for reasons that are unfathomable to me, but it's led to the place we are now. Still not even a blog.
With the long term bounties, I am trying to get Invictus to allocate funds to whomever best fulfills what Invictus defines as a profitable DAC. I am asking this be done in such a way that is consistent with incentivizing teams who have the ability to make long term strategic plans. instead of only using funds to pay for internal company operations, basic payroll and bounty-chores with the promise to give away more funds to people who convince you their idea is good enough. Stan, I don't know how you can look at how things have gone so far and say anything other than you guys have been wrong about more important things than you've been right on, and the deal has had to change several times because of that wrongness.
I've laid out my proposal calmly and simply many times both publicly and privately, I even shared a paper with daniel on it weeks ago entitled "The collaborative roadmap - incentivizing R&D with bounties" from my Distributed Minufacturing project that explains the logic behind this. I have done my best to bring these changes about because I feel like you guys are talking about decentralization and building centralized solutions to control funds which was never the deal.
You can choose to take this personally or insinuate whatever you want about me but I think it should be pretty clear I have been a personally supporter of your project, want you guys to succeed and I feel strongly enough you're on the wrong path to be spending my time talking at you. Why would I do that, am I a hater? No..... Just a long time investor who has watched you set and fail to meet target after target, and who no longer trusts you. I am not alone in that, it's just that most people just leave.
As mentioned I'll lay out my suggested bounties but I have zero interest in fundraising. You guys took in millions of dollars already, what the hell are you doing with that money if not incentivizing the long term growth of the ecosystem? Where in the AGS agreement did it say "and invictus will try one experiment to incentivize participation per annum with these funds, never more than one at a time" because I didn't get that memo. The point of collecting this much money up front is to have it to guarantee you can spend it at a later point when it is more valuable because you have succeeded.
You are looking at this money and saying "well, we better surivive on this for the next few years!" but again, I didn't realize the point of this was to pay invictus salaries - I thought it was to incentivize the growth of the ecosystem.
You've got to spend money to make money, outcome oriented bounties are the only way you can 100% guarantee you are not spending money on anything other than the solution you're looking for, and while the downside of these is they require larger prizes and more time, that is an advantage talking about a deflationary, ecosystem based cryptocurrency since the prize will be worth more when its awarded than when it is offered.
Tell me what points I'm missing, I hear you complaining about how unfair I am to do so but I'm happy to address whatever you require further elaboration on.
-
Stan,
I'm not trying to gain control of funds. It is insulting you would insinuate I am wasting my breath here on anything other than trying to help you fix the mess you have created. If you cared about not scaring away investors, invictus would have a blog. I looked at my post history, I told you that, in my own name, in public on this forum the first week of January. I told Daniel privately for weeks. I expressed my concerns to Brian multiple times, and he blew me off. There are basic things you guys have refused to do for reasons that are unfathomable to me, but it's led to the place we are now. Still not even a blog.
+5%
-
Adam,
We obviously disagree on what constitutes responsible management of resources. We have promised to use our best judgement to build the industry for the long term. I outlined all the factors that drive our decision making process here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988)
You consistently ignore most of these factors while you lobby to gain control over funds that were donated as a vote of confidence in our offer to manage them responsibly.
I would encourage you (or someone you nominate) to offer your services as an alternative Industry Developer with a different vision. Tell everyone how you will manage their contributions and solicit their donations.
I think it would be healthy to give people the option of several developers
each with a different vision and management style.
I would happily support you or your like-minded nominee in the role of Industry Developer. We might even post your angel address right beside ours and give you your own page to explain how you would use other people's funds differently. This would let everyone vote with their donations - the sincerest form of expressing a preferred approach.
I think two or more cooperating Industry Developers each pursuing alternative approaches would be healthier for the community than the current insurgent process of sewing dissatisfaction and discord within the community. That only hurts all the stakeholders here and drives away newcomers before they even get a chance to understand the potential.
What do you say? Truce?
This sounds reasonable.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Stan,
I'm not trying to gain control of funds. It is insulting you would insinuate I am wasting my breath here on anything other than trying to help you fix the mess you have created. If you cared about not scaring away investors, invictus would have a blog. I looked at my post history, I told you that, in my own name, in public on this forum the first week of January. I told Daniel privately for weeks. I expressed my concerns to Brian multiple times, and he blew me off. There are basic things you guys have refused to do for reasons that are unfathomable to me, but it's led to the place we are now. Still not even a blog.
With the long term bounties, I am trying to get Invictus to allocate funds to whomever best fulfills what Invictus defines as a profitable DAC. I am asking this be done in such a way that is consistent with incentivizing teams who have the ability to make long term strategic plans. instead of only using funds to pay for internal company operations, basic payroll and bounty-chores with the promise to give away more funds to people who convince you their idea is good enough. Stan, I don't know how you can look at how things have gone so far and say anything other than you guys have been wrong about more important things than you've been right on, and the deal has had to change several times because of that wrongness.
I've laid out my proposal calmly and simply many times both publicly and privately, I even shared a paper with daniel on it weeks ago entitled "The collaborative roadmap - incentivizing R&D with bounties" from my Distributed Minufacturing project that explains the logic behind this. I have done my best to bring these changes about because I feel like you guys are talking about decentralization and building centralized solutions to control funds which was never the deal.
You can choose to take this personally or insinuate whatever you want about me but I think it should be pretty clear I have been a personally supporter of your project, want you guys to succeed and I feel strongly enough you're on the wrong path to be spending my time talking at you. Why would I do that, am I a hater? No..... Just a long time investor who has watched you set and fail to meet target after target, and who no longer trusts you. I am not alone in that, it's just that most people just leave.
As mentioned I'll lay out my suggested bounties but I have zero interest in fundraising. You guys took in millions of dollars already, what the hell are you doing with that money if not incentivizing the long term growth of the ecosystem? Where in the AGS agreement did it say "and invictus will try one experiment to incentivize participation per annum with these funds, never more than one at a time" because I didn't get that memo. The point of collecting this much money up front is to have it to guarantee you can spend it at a later point when it is more valuable because you have succeeded.
You are looking at this money and saying "well, we better surivive on this for the next few years!" but again, I didn't realize the point of this was to pay invictus salaries - I thought it was to incentivize the growth of the ecosystem.
You've got to spend money to make money, outcome oriented bounties are the only way you can 100% guarantee you are not spending money on anything other than the solution you're looking for, and while the downside of these is they require larger prizes and more time, that is an advantage talking about a deflationary, ecosystem based cryptocurrency since the prize will be worth more when its awarded than when it is offered.
Tell me what points I'm missing, I hear you complaining about how unfair I am to do so but I'm happy to address whatever you require further elaboration on.
+5%
-
Adam,
No offense intended. We are just constantly talking past each other. You don't hear me, let me try to assure you that I do hear you. I love it when we are able to implement your suggestions. Sometimes there are reasons we can't. See my responses in bold below.
Stan,
I'm not trying to gain control of funds. It is insulting you would insinuate I am wasting my breath here on anything other than trying to help you fix the mess you have created. If you cared about not scaring away investors, invictus would have a blog. I looked at my post history, I told you that, in my own name, in public on this forum the first week of January. I told Daniel privately for weeks. I expressed my concerns to Brian multiple times, and he blew me off. There are basic things you guys have refused to do for reasons that are unfathomable to me, but it's led to the place we are now. Still not even a blog.
We listened, and explained that the new website would have a blog. They are loading our greatest hits into it right now. Adding a blog to a soon-to-be decommissioned web site was deemed a nice-to-have that didn't make the cut. I heard you when you said "blogs are cheap". Populating them isn't when it takes key staff time. I'd like to be writing the next article for it right now.
With the long term bounties, I am trying to get Invictus to allocate funds to whomever best fulfills what Invictus defines as a profitable DAC. I am asking this be done in such a way that is consistent with incentivizing teams who have the ability to make long term strategic plans. instead of only using funds to pay for internal company operations, basic payroll and bounty-chores with the promise to give away more funds to people who convince you their idea is good enough. Stan, I don't know how you can look at how things have gone so far and say anything other than you guys have been wrong about more important things than you've been right on, and the deal has had to change several times because of that wrongness.
We listened, and explained that we had chosen to focus on removing obstacles from people who want to start DACs but don't have the resources. We explained that a profitable DAC is its own reward and doesn't need after-the-fact funding. We have always offered to support and promote anyone who develops an AGS/PTS honoring DAC, whether they need development help or not. We explained that we are trying to optimize the big picture and listed dozens of factors that must be traded off to achieve a balanced approach overall. This means that every one of these factors will be less than optimal so that the whole can be as good as we can make it. Our current situation exceeds our wildest dreams from four months ago, despite our incompetence. We are very grateful.
I've laid out my proposal calmly and simply many times both publicly and privately, I even shared a paper with daniel on it weeks ago entitled "The collaborative roadmap - incentivizing R&D with bounties" from my Distributed Minufacturing project that explains the logic behind this. I have done my best to bring these changes about because I feel like you guys are talking about decentralization and building centralized solutions to control funds which was never the deal.
We listened appreciatively, and aggressively tried the bounty approach as all have witnessed. We found that it did not work well in most cases and only led frustration and disappointment on all sides. We decided to try a more traditional approach of vetting and hiring people or companies with a proven track record and spending extra time to carefully define the requirements. While we will still use bounties for smaller jobs, we are not interested at all in making much bigger bounties where there is an even bigger disappointment for everyone at the end. We are interested in funding more formal unsolicited or solicited proposals after proper due-diligence on our part.
You can choose to take this personally or insinuate whatever you want about me but I think it should be pretty clear I have been a personally supporter of your project, want you guys to succeed and I feel strongly enough you're on the wrong path to be spending my time talking at you. Why would I do that, am I a hater? No..... Just a long time investor who has watched you set and fail to meet target after target, and who no longer trusts you. I am not alone in that, it's just that most people just leave.
I think the source of this disconnect is expectation management. We have tried the bold experiment of sharing our ideas and aspirations and hopes and dreams from their very inception. We let everyone watch the sausage being made - and it ain't pretty. Giving potential supporters the inside view of our thinking means that you will see that thinking change. You get to participate in changing it! So to then complain as we invent and learn and iterate that you don't trust us not to change is to miss the point. Of course we will change. Trust that. Those who want a company that develops and iterates behind closed doors and doesn't release anything until they are positively sure it won't ever change should invest in Coca Cola. Watching the sausage get made IS the investment opportunity we are offering.
"All right, guys, uh, listen. This is a blues riff in "B", watch me for the changes, and try and keep up" -- Marty McFly, Back to the Future.
As mentioned I'll lay out my suggested bounties but I have zero interest in fundraising. You guys took in millions of dollars already, what the hell are you doing with that money if not incentivizing the long term growth of the ecosystem? Where in the AGS agreement did it say "and invictus will try one experiment to incentivize participation per annum with these funds, never more than one at a time" because I didn't get that memo. The point of collecting this much money up front is to have it to guarantee you can spend it at a later point when it is more valuable because you have succeeded.
You are looking at this money and saying "well, we better surivive on this for the next few years!" but again, I didn't realize the point of this was to pay invictus salaries - I thought it was to incentivize the growth of the ecosystem.
I addressed this in great detail here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988)
You've got to spend money to make money, outcome oriented bounties are the only way you can 100% guarantee you are not spending money on anything other than the solution you're looking for, and while the downside of these is they require larger prizes and more time, that is an advantage talking about a deflationary, ecosystem based cryptocurrency since the prize will be worth more when its awarded than when it is offered.
As we said before, a successful DAC is its own incentive. We want to engage in helping developers at the beginning, not after they have succeeded and don't need our help. This is simply a difference in opinion on what will be most effective and what constitutes faithful stewardship of the funds with which we have been entrusted.
Tell me what points I'm missing, I hear you complaining about how unfair I am to do so but I'm happy to address whatever you require further elaboration on.
I addressed this in great detail here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988)
-
Stan, are you telling me you are not willing to devote 100,000 PTS over five years as I defined because the way Invictus chose to implement bounties for things they needed done in the short term did not work?
I just want to be clear you're saying no.
-
Stan, are you telling me you are not willing to devote 100,000 PTS over five years as I defined because the way Invictus chose to implement bounties for things they needed done in the short term did not work?
I just want to be clear you're saying no.
No, you heard me say yesterday "Maybe we can do both." You also heard me say tonight what our higher priorities are and why. You also heard me ask yesterday for the community to weigh in on how many would be interested in either pre- or post-funding. If post-funding is strongly preferred, we could well go with that. If we get no candidates for pre-funding, we will set that idea aside. Most of our leadership team is at the conference and we haven't had time to get together and discuss it.
My honest feedback about what I think is just more sausage you get to watch being made.
:)
-
We found that it did not work well in most cases and only led frustration and disappointment on all sides. We decided to try a more traditional approach of vetting and hiring people or companies with a proven track record and spending extra time to carefully define the requirements. While we will still use bounties for smaller jobs, we are not interested at all in making much bigger bounties where there is an even bigger disappointment for everyone at the end.
Things change fast, please humor me - Based on this part of your above statement it seems to me you are saying no. Am I incorrect? I made my specific proposal according to your request, so it's not hypothetical what I'm asking be done. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3448.0
-
So far I've got a score of
Adam 4 - Stan 1
Can someone start developing an Argument DAC?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It's not a game.
-
We found that it did not work well in most cases and only led frustration and disappointment on all sides. We decided to try a more traditional approach of vetting and hiring people or companies with a proven track record and spending extra time to carefully define the requirements. While we will still use bounties for smaller jobs, we are not interested at all in making much bigger bounties where there is an even bigger disappointment for everyone at the end.
Things change fast, please humor me - Based on this part of your above statement it seems to me you are saying no. Am I incorrect? I made my specific proposal according to your request, so it's not hypothetical what I'm asking be done. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3448.0
No, you heard me say yesterday "Maybe we can do both." You also heard me say tonight what our higher priorities are and why. You also heard me ask yesterday for the community to weigh in on how many would be interested in either pre- or post-funding. If post-funding is strongly preferred, we could well go with that. If we get no candidates for pre-funding, we will set that idea aside. Most of our leadership team is at the conference and we haven't had time to get together and discuss it.
My honest feedback about what I think is just more sausage you get to watch being made.
:)
-
Come on stan
Yesterday you said "we might do both" and today you said
"We found that it did not work well in most cases and only led frustration and disappointment on all sides. We decided to try a more traditional approach of vetting and hiring people or companies with a proven track record and spending extra time to carefully define the requirements. While we will still use bounties for smaller jobs, we are not interested at all in making much bigger bounties where there is an even bigger disappointment for everyone at the end."
That sure looks like a no. Do you regularly say you are not interested at all in things you might later say yes to? Is there any wonder why things are so unclear?
I am restricting my posts to you on single topic issues since you are so difficult to pin down even when your own words, from today, are staring you right in the face
-
I, for one, do not want your ego on any such shark tank panel
Adam - can you elaborate what you're referring to when you say "makes it uniquely Invictus"?
Daniel likes to say that Invictus is different from all the other 2.0 products because they're building profitable businesses for "share"holders. He has the economics of the situation right and others do not.
So it seems like if that's a defining factor, it's one Invictus will want to incentivize others to follow moving when they are spending funds to incentivize certain behaviors.
Good idea. I think they could launch this prize in connection with the Shark Tank incubator competition.
I suggested they should https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2775.msg34619
Yes, I totally agree - The "Shark Tank" can be the way people can get early seed funding for these projects which then chase after the big prize.
I would be willing to sit on the sharktank panel, advise and judge.
-
Come on stan
Yesterday you said "we might do both" and today you said
"We found that it did not work well in most cases and only led frustration and disappointment on all sides. We decided to try a more traditional approach of vetting and hiring people or companies with a proven track record and spending extra time to carefully define the requirements. While we will still use bounties for smaller jobs, we are not interested at all in making much bigger bounties where there is an even bigger disappointment for everyone at the end."
That sure looks like a no. Do you regularly say you are not interested at all in things you might later say yes to? Is there any wonder why things are so unclear?
I am restricting my posts to you on single topic issues since you are so difficult to pin down even when your own words, from today, are staring you right in the face
Adam let me point you up something but in a less aggressive manner that you acting in the last few days did you really missed that part ?:
Most of our leadership team is at the conference and we haven't had time to get together and discuss it.
Let me know I can put it in red for you....
-
Good luck guys
-
As a developer and AGS investor I have a very simple question: shouldn't the investors in AGS have the say on what DAC proposals get funded?
If Invictus makes all these decisions, isn't this like saying invictus team are smarter in picking up winners than the combined wisdom of all investors?
That said as a developer I don't see an incentive to give away 20% other than the fact that I am also vested in AGS.
And yes good luck!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Absolutely! We value all inputs - then it's our job to figure out an optimized solution.
Read our newsletter Shark Tank proposal. You'll see several ways where we ask AGS members have a say. They get to evaluate and comment on all published proposals. They get to support the ones they like angel-style. They get to attend the conference and ask questions of the finalists directly.
Obviously we can't implement everyone's conflicting opinions, so we use our judgement.
We think about this stuff 24x7. That's what the AGS community hired us to do when we offered to serve as their lead developer. We consider many, many factors and plan for the long term as discussed here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988
Naturally, we are not infallible, but collectively we do spend about 100 man-hours a day more than the average forum member thinking about all the ramifications.
In the end, somebody has to make the call. That's why ship captains are hired and why they don't ask the passengers and crew to vote on every command decision.
That doesn't mean we aren't listening. :)
-
Let me fill you all in on how we are doing business. I travel to conferences, meet people on skype, and discuss opportunities with everyone in the industry. When ever anyone has a good idea for a DAC that can actually be implemented, then we partner with them to help make it a reality. What we provide is time, consulting, and the contribution of our own R&D to the core blockchain transaction design and all of the relevant economic engineering. We then let our partners focus on all user-facing issues including branding, user interface, marketing, and business development. In exchange for getting our help in this partnership everyone we talk to is usually willing to go 50/50 with us on the venture and they consider our minimal 20/80 split to be a major win for them.
Sure someone could create a DAC without us, but I can tell you that despite a $1 million dollar hack-a-thon sponsored by BitAngels for people to develop and propose innovative DAC ideas (similar to our planned Shark Tank) the winning proposal came from Super3 for the creation of a decentralized storage service based in a large part on his consultation with me on my prior work on Tornet (https://github.com/bytemaster/tornet) which I was working on prior to inventing BitShares X. I was one of the judges in this competition and many of the BitAngels crew recognized the weak showing. If $1 million dollars in bounties results in the best ideas still being inspired in part from my work, then I can assure you the value of our consultation and perspective is easily worth 20%.
Someone could go it alone, but their chances of success increase if they can work with us.
This conference we landed a partnership with a *major* player in the music industry who has both the funding, connections, and desire to fully back the development of BitShares Music. In other words, the major DACs will likely be developed in partnership with us and thus honor AGS and PTS because despite the best attempts to propose new DACs, I have yet to see any truly viable (complete) DAC ideas coming from outside us.
-
Let me fill you all in on how we are doing business. I travel to conferences, meet people on skype, and discuss opportunities with everyone in the industry. When ever anyone has a good idea for a DAC that can actually be implemented, then we partner with them to help make it a reality. What we provide is time, consulting, and the contribution of our own R&D to the core blockchain transaction design and all of the relevant economic engineering. We then let our partners focus on all user-facing issues including branding, user interface, marketing, and business development. In exchange for getting our help in this partnership everyone we talk to is usually willing to go 50/50 with us on the venture and they consider our minimal 20/80 split to be a major win for them.
Sure someone could create a DAC without us, but I can tell you that despite a $1 million dollar hack-a-thon sponsored by BitAngels for people to develop and propose innovative DAC ideas (similar to our planned Shark Tank) the winning proposal came from Super3 for the creation of a decentralized storage service based in a large part on his consultation with me on my prior work on Tornet (https://github.com/bytemaster/tornet) which I was working on prior to inventing BitShares X. I was one of the judges in this competition and many of the BitAngels crew recognized the weak showing. If $1 million dollars in bounties results in the best ideas still being inspired in part from my work, then I can assure you the value of our consultation and perspective is easily worth 20%.
Someone could go it alone, but their chances of success increase if they can work with us.
This conference we landed a partnership with a *major* player in the music industry who has both the funding, connections, and desire to fully back the development of BitShares Music. In other words, the major DACs will likely be developed in partnership with us and thus honor AGS and PTS because despite the best attempts to propose new DACs, I have yet to see any truly viable (complete) DAC ideas coming from outside us.
define truly viable (complete) DAC ideas
-
FYI... if we release a bounty then it is no-longer a 3rd party DAC because AGS funds would be paying for it. The proposal to allocate 30% of the PTS we received from AGS to a single 3rd party DAC and then to suggest that AGS should not be honored is outrageous.
-
FYI... if we release a bounty then it is no-longer a 3rd party DAC because AGS funds would be paying for it. The proposal to allocate 30% of the PTS we received from AGS to a single 3rd party DAC and then to suggest that AGS should not be honored is outrageous.
If it is a bounty then that is true since it's paid out of AGS and it is basically owned by III.
-
FYI... if we release a bounty then it is no-longer a 3rd party DAC because AGS funds would be paying for it. The proposal to allocate 30% of the PTS we received from AGS to a single 3rd party DAC and then to suggest that AGS should not be honored is outrageous.
If it is a bounty then that is true since it's paid out of AGS and it is basically owned by III.
False. The whole concept of "owned by III" is bogus. We are operating in the role of an honest broker "foundation" with respect to AGS. We give everything away in cash or services. The only thing we own is what we mined or purchased just like everyone else.
AGS is not III.
AGS is a large community of people with a demonstrated willingness to give money to develop this industry. It is the absolutely BEST select group of individuals in the whole wide world for a DAC developer to be courting.
-
FYI... if we release a bounty then it is no-longer a 3rd party DAC because AGS funds would be paying for it. The proposal to allocate 30% of the PTS we received from AGS to a single 3rd party DAC and then to suggest that AGS should not be honored is outrageous.
If it is a bounty then that is true since it's paid out of AGS and it is basically owned by III.
False. The whole concept of "owned by III" is bogus. We are operating in the role of a not-for-profit foundation with respect to AGS. We give everything away in cash or services. The only thing we own is what we mined or purchased just like everyone else.
AGS is not III.
AGS is a large community of people with a demonstrated willingness to give money to develop this industry. It is the absolutely BEST select group of individuals in the whole wide world for a DAC developer to be courting.
Actually, you are wrong. III posts the bounties and vets them, making decisions without consultation. If that is not ownership, what is? keep in mind that i am researching for one such bounty, which when submitted becomes a product of III.
Your statement is the one that is bogus.
AGS is not III.
AGS is controlled by III, control is a major part of ownership.
Your choice to say you do not own it, is just a pointless exercise since you will exert control over it.
-
This Adam guy needs to get a life. He complains that he's 150% booked and doesn't have time for anything, yet he spends an inordinate amount of time making forum postings that flog a dead horse. Invictus is right to prioritize (Bitshares X, Music, Insurance, etc.) and 80% is more than generous, given the strong level of support + the community. I am very excited about the DACs in the pipeline. It would be ridiculous to spend all the PTS right now at the low price level; this will buy much more after the launch of Bitshares X plus the Las Vegas event.
-
FYI... if we release a bounty then it is no-longer a 3rd party DAC because AGS funds would be paying for it. The proposal to allocate 30% of the PTS we received from AGS to a single 3rd party DAC and then to suggest that AGS should not be honored is outrageous.
If it is a bounty then that is true since it's paid out of AGS and it is basically owned by III.
False. The whole concept of "owned by III" is bogus. We are operating in the role of an honest broker "foundation" with respect to AGS. We give everything away in cash or services. The only thing we own is what we mined or purchased just like everyone else.
AGS is not III.
AGS is a large community of people with a demonstrated willingness to give money to develop this industry. It is the absolutely BEST select group of individuals in the whole wide world for a DAC developer to be courting.
Actually, you are wrong. III posts the bounties and vets them, making decisions without consultation. If that is not ownership, what is? keep in mind that i am researching for one such bounty, which when submitted becomes a product of III.
Your statement is the one that is bogus.
AGS is not III.
AGS is controlled by III, control is a major part of ownership.
Your choice to say you do not own it, is just a pointless exercise since you will exert control over it.
Custodianship. Stewardship. Trusteeship.
Management of what belongs to others for their benefit.
Captain of a Cruise Ship. Pilot of an Aircraft.
All are examples of control without ownership.
-
FYI... if we release a bounty then it is no-longer a 3rd party DAC because AGS funds would be paying for it. The proposal to allocate 30% of the PTS we received from AGS to a single 3rd party DAC and then to suggest that AGS should not be honored is outrageous.
If it is a bounty then that is true since it's paid out of AGS and it is basically owned by III.
False. The whole concept of "owned by III" is bogus. We are operating in the role of an honest broker "foundation" with respect to AGS. We give everything away in cash or services. The only thing we own is what we mined or purchased just like everyone else.
AGS is not III.
AGS is a large community of people with a demonstrated willingness to give money to develop this industry. It is the absolutely BEST select group of individuals in the whole wide world for a DAC developer to be courting.
Actually, you are wrong. III posts the bounties and vets them, making decisions without consultation. If that is not ownership, what is? keep in mind that i am researching for one such bounty, which when submitted becomes a product of III.
Your statement is the one that is bogus.
AGS is not III.
AGS is controlled by III, control is a major part of ownership.
Your choice to say you do not own it, is just a pointless exercise since you will exert control over it.
Custodianship. Stewardship. Trusteeship.
Management of what belongs to others for their benefit.
Captain of a Cruise Ship. Pilot of an Aircraft.
All are examples of control without ownership.
The point escapes you completely.
-
Good luck guys
so , Adam left this community ? the former CEO left 3I the same way ?
-
Good luck guys
so , Adam left this community ? the former CEO left 3I the same way ?
The former CEO comes back to post (free) advertisements for his new project, but not to further the discussion or aims of this project.
-
It's not a game.
It's all fun and games ... until money is involved.
This conference we landed a partnership with a *major* player in the music industry who has both the funding, connections, and desire to fully back the development of BitShares Music.
+5%
AGS is a large community of people with a demonstrated willingness to give money to develop this industry. It is the absolutely BEST select group of individuals in the whole wide world for a DAC developer to be courting.
+5%
This Adam guy ...
lulz
Excellent discussion. All of the ideas suggested sound promising and should be explored at some level (at the least). I liked Stan's idea of offering both the (evolving) III plan + Adam's bounty strategy.
I'll throw in that I liked Travis Savo's (Kevlar) method of funding Link Protocol development ...
http://blockchain-link.com/#future
-
Every new dac is its own bounty. If you must wait until after it is proven the bounty is meaningless.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Why do you created a conflict with Adam? How do you plan to reach a large audience of LTB network without his help?
-
Why do you created a conflict with Adam? How do you plan to reach a large audience of LTB network without his help?
By advertising on LTB
-
By advertising on LTB
Like Nxt? It's not good enough. We need personal interview with him.
-
There has been and there will be again in the future I'm sure.
-
By advertising on LTB
Like Nxt? It's not good enough. We need personal interview with him.
Agreed. Every time the NXT update commercial comes on, my brain shuts off; its just not... captivating. I'm really looking forward to the interviews coming out of the Texas conference.
-
I think Invictus already has shown they have more interesting and engaging people than NXT. I like NXT and I own some, but you are right that it is an example of how not to market; we don't even know who most of the NXT people are. Does Invictus need this bitter Adam guy in order to market its DAC? Absolutely not; there are other ways to promote a product than on one person's site. From what I've read, I'd steer well clear of working with him.
-
... this bitter Adam guy ... From what I've read, I'd steer well clear of working with him.
Links or it didn't happen. ;)
-
I don't quite get this discussion. The AGS funding was all sent in voluntarily based on trust that the BitShares team would use it efficiently to build the DAC ecosystem. Part of that trust is that the team would be receptive to the best ideas from the community, but which are best is subjective and determined by those with the private keys. If community members wanted to keep direct ultimate control of these funds, they shouldn't given up control of them in the first place. Pressuring those entrusted with these funds by the community to give direct control of a portion to a subset of the community against their better judgement would turn this into a redistribution platform rather than voluntary trust based stewardship.
There's a massive reward for building a truly successful DAC and being one of the earliest investors in it. Any sort of artificial reward based on contrived standards of success only incentivizes faking success well enough to meet the standards.
-
I don't quite get this discussion. The AGS funding was all sent in voluntarily based on trust that the BitShares team would use it efficiently to build the DAC ecosystem. Part of that trust is that the team would be receptive to the best ideas from the community, but which are best is subjective and determined by those with the private keys. If community members wanted to keep direct ultimate control of these funds, they shouldn't given up control of them in the first place. Pressuring those entrusted with these funds by the community to give direct control of a portion to a subset of the community against their better judgement would turn this into a redistribution platform rather than voluntary trust based stewardship.
There's a massive reward for building a truly successful DAC and being one of the earliest investors in it. Any sort of artificial reward based on contrived standards of success only incentivizes faking success well enough to meet the standards.
+5%
-
I don't quite get this discussion. The AGS funding was all sent in voluntarily based on trust that the BitShares team would use it efficiently to build the DAC ecosystem.
This is exactly how I feel about how the argument in this post devolved.
I think this is also relevant, from the Angelshares announcement post...
"What happens to all the donations?"
100% of the proceeds go to growing the crypto-equity industry. Zero percent will be retained as profits Invictus.
Funds will be used to encourage new developers with salaries, grants, contracts, and bounties to build everything from small components to entire new DACs. They will be used provide a free high-quality Developer's Toolkit giving DAC developers a huge head start. They will be used for advertisements, conferences, promotions and give-aways to stimulate interest in the new industry and to provide opportunities for everyone to contribute. They will be used for legal advocacy for the ecosystem in many jurisdictions. Anything that we believe will grow the value of BitShares PTS and all DACs that honor the contributions of PTS and AGS holders.
It is beyond our control to prevent a copycat from forking our open source code in a way that fails to honor our promises. It is up to the market to reject this, or not. If you do not like our proposed allocation, do not trust the market to reject copycats, or do not trust us to deliver then please take your money, fund competition, and build your own DACs that fit your preferred allocation strategy.
Particularly...
(Angelshares will be used for) anything that we believe will grow the value of BitShares PTS and all DACs that honor the contributions of PTS and AGS holders.
and
If you do not like our proposed allocation, do not trust the market to reject copycats, or do not trust us to deliver then please take your money, fund competition, and build your own DACs that fit your preferred allocation strategy.
I think Adam just feels that trust was broken based on his many interactions and conversations with the Invictus staff. He trusted Invictus to deliver a certain product within a certain timeframe and that hasn't materialized. He's angry about that and it's obvious. The personal attacks on Adam are completely unjustified because no one besides Adam and the staff at Invictus with whom he communicated know what was said in those conversations (unless they all occured on these forums of course). Everyone really just needs to cool down because personal attacks get us nowhere.
When I first saw the Angelshares announcement, I'll admit I was annoyed because I felt it was diluting the value of the Protoshares I was holding. But once I read through the announcement and stewed on it for a bit, I began to understand why it was necessary and that, in fact, it was a good thing.
Based on the content of the announcement, I viewed it much like a Kickstarter where the reward you get for pledging your bitcoin or protoshares was a future stake, proportional to your pledge, in all the DACs created by Invictus or the community of developers they hoped to foster.
I still trust Invictus to deliver, much like I would trust a Kickstarter with a good product that misses their initial deadlines or has delays because they want to improve the product before it ships (if you've ever contributed to a Kickstarter, you know more often then not there are significant delays). Let's remember that holders of Angelshares do not hold equity in Invictus itself, and while their suggestions may be valid, it is ultimately Invictus's decision to steer the company in the direction they see fit to reach their vision.
Don't forget, by the nature of their position, the staff at Invictus has a pretty big stake in making it sure it's successful.
-
I don't quite get this discussion. The AGS funding was all sent in voluntarily based on trust that the BitShares team would use it efficiently to build the DAC ecosystem. Part of that trust is that the team would be receptive to the best ideas from the community, but which are best is subjective and determined by those with the private keys. If community members wanted to keep direct ultimate control of these funds, they shouldn't given up control of them in the first place. Pressuring those entrusted with these funds by the community to give direct control of a portion to a subset of the community against their better judgement would turn this into a redistribution platform rather than voluntary trust based stewardship.
There's a massive reward for building a truly successful DAC and being one of the earliest investors in it. Any sort of artificial reward based on contrived standards of success only incentivizes faking success well enough to meet the standards.
+1
ANGELshares. I think it's important to uphold the perspective that AGS are voluntary angel investments because one believes in the future work of the Invictus team.
-
On Missing Deadlines
One of the most common (and valid) complaints about Invictus is our missed deadlines. (Alas, we've only managed to average about one major new milestone per month). I come from a program management background and I can tell you that I have learned from the School of Hard Knocks that missing deadlines is universally considered The Second Deadly Sin of program managers. (The first being, of course, cost overruns!)
After 38 years in the business, I also know every program manager trick in the book. (Having pulled them and having had them pulled on me.)
One of the best tricks is to keep two sets of schedules: an aggressive internal one for the engineering team and a conservative one that you show your customers. The art is to try to grow that buffer between the two, while using it to absorb unexpected delays which are sure to occur. If you do it right (and are uncommonly lucky) your customers never see a slip. You are viewed as a Good Program Manager.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Scotty%20Principle (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Scotty%20Principle)
Unfortunately, we decided at the beginning to be completely transparent to "our customers". Therefore, we don't get to have two schedules. If I tell you customers a particular conservative deadline, the engineering team will know about it subconsciously regardless of any more aggressive schedule I give them. The only way to get the same kind of urgency for the team is to publish the aggressive schedule so they all know that we will be embarrassed when we miss it. So we all work lots of overtime to avoid that embarrassment.
This gives me a choice: conservative with less pressure or aggressive with more embarrassment.
I'm sure we all agree that we want to keep up the pressure!
So that inherently means we have to put up with more embarrassment too.
Welcome to the wonderful world of transparent development.
Watching sausage making is never pretty.
(But what a powerful advantage for diligent investors!)
-
On Missing Deadlines
One of the most common (and valid) complaints about Invictus is our missed deadlines. (Alas, we've only managed to average about one major new milestone per month). I come from a program management background and I can tell you that I have learned from the School of Hard Knocks that missing deadlines is universally considered The Second Deadly Sin of program managers. (The first being, of course, cost overruns!)
After 38 years in the business, I also know every program manager trick in the book. (Having pulled them and having had them pulled on me.)
One of the best tricks is to keep two sets of schedules: an aggressive internal one for the engineering team and a conservative one that you show your customers. The art is to try to grow that buffer between the two, while using it to absorb unexpected delays which are sure to occur. If you do it right (and are uncommonly lucky) your customers never see a slip. You are viewed as a Good Program Manager.
Unfortunately, we decided at the beginning to be completely transparent to "our customers". Therefore, we don't get to have two schedules. If I tell you customers a particular conservative deadline, the engineering team will know about it subconsciously regardless of any more aggressive schedule I give them. The only way to get the same kind of urgency for the team is to publish the aggressive schedule so they all know that we will be embarrassed when we miss it. So we all work lots of overtime to avoid that embarrassment.
This gives me a choice: conservative with less pressure or aggressive with more embarrassment.
I'm sure we all agree that we want to keep up the pressure!
So that inherently means we have to put up with more embarrassment too.
Welcome to the wonderful world of transparent development.
Watching sausage making is never pretty.
(But what a powerful advantage for diligent investors!)
Make them sausages 5 times faster!!!!!! we hungry!!!!
I'm tired of buying cheap PTS.
-
The integrity of invictus continues to shine though. Let's try to show patience....the challenges are legion and the journey has only just begun.
-
The integrity of invictus continues to shine though. Let's try to show patience....the challenges are legion and the journey has only just begun.
Nicely stated.
-
10000 PTS bounty, i'll do the code for you and you can run it.
-
So what I was getting at and I believe what Adam is getting at is something along the lines of this:
http://www.coindesk.com/new-decentralized-crowdfunding-platform-reshape-bitcoin-landscape/
Invictus has captured the PTS/BTC funds, but has FULL control over what gets funded. However I was hoping this would be a platform where if someone has an idea and the investors believe in it, they would be able to crowd fund it with the allocated funds represented by their AGS/PTS.
I do understand that's not how Invictus business model works. But it is food for thought.