BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: AdamBLevine on March 06, 2014, 11:27:26 pm
-
Invictus has said many times that what sets apart their platform from others, is good economics and a focus on profit. It is with that in mind that I present the DAC War of Profit (working title). A year from being announced, the first prize will be awarded to the DAC that achieves the greatest aggregate profitability for its token holders over a 30 day period of time compared to all other qualifying DACs.
The DACs must operate in the invictus ecosystem (must honor PTS at least, and must also honor AGS if they receive any funds via the Sharktank or other mechanisms)
Once the first prize has been awarded, the process repeats every six months with prizes according to the schedule below. This prize schedule seeks to give people time to build and develop profitable dacs following the Invictus model before requiring judgement to be made on who is successful. The entire invictus ecosystem wins since all competitors are competing to make profit for token holders, among whom Invictus is the largest.
Most Profitable DAC Awards - 100,000PTS over 5 years, represents less than 10% of AGS funds.
10,000PTS - 12mo
25,000PTS - 18mo
20,000PTS - 24mo
15,000PTS - 30mo
12,500PTS - 36mo
10,000PTS - 42mo
5,000PTS - 48mo
2,500PTS - 54mo
The keys controlling these funds should be held by a large number of trusted community advisors, not less than 10 and 20+ would be better with a 70% threshold required to release. Key Holders should be selected based on their ability to look at objective situations rather than what they stand to personally gain or wish to be true.
It would be ideal if the same DAC could not win more than once.
I don't believe Bitshares products should qualify for this competition as Invictus is drawing all employee salaries and costs from these funds already. That would be like paying someone to compete in your contest for the prize, makes zero sense. If employees want to in their spare time work on a non-Bitshares project thats fine, it grows the ecosystem. I would argue the community has already paid very well for Bitshares.
I do not want power in this process, I want the rules to be set once and never changed again. I want development teams to be able to look at the landscape and say "If I build for Invictus, I can shoot for that prize and compound my success". This is not mutually exclusive of any other plan, but is neccesary in addition to whatever else is done. Please ask questions or comment as appropriate.
-
Nice one, I like this , brings some friendly competition and good incentive for the developers to get the most out of their products and a fair way to distribute funds since everything can be measured.
-
+5%
-
Invictus has said many times that what sets apart their platform from others, is good economics and a focus on profit. It is with that in mind that I present the DAC War of Profit (working title). A year from being announced, the first prize will be awarded to the DAC that achieves the greatest aggregate profitability for its token holders over a 30 day period of time compared to all other qualifying DACs.
The DACs must operate in the invictus ecosystem (must honor PTS at least, and must also honor AGS if they receive any funds via the Sharktank or other mechanisms)
Once the first prize has been awarded, the process repeats every six months with prizes according to the schedule below. This prize schedule seeks to give people time to build and develop profitable dacs following the Invictus model before requiring judgement to be made on who is successful. The entire invictus ecosystem wins since all competitors are competing to make profit for token holders, among whom Invictus is the largest.
Most Profitable DAC Awards - 100,000PTS over 5 years, represents less than 10% of AGS funds.
10,000PTS - 12mo
25,000PTS - 18mo
20,000PTS - 24mo
15,000PTS - 30mo
12,500PTS - 36mo
10,000PTS - 42mo
5,000PTS - 48mo
2,500PTS - 54mo
The keys controlling these funds should be held by a large number of trusted community advisors, not less than 10 and 20+ would be better with a 70% threshold required to release. Key Holders should be selected based on their ability to look at objective situations rather than what they stand to personally gain or wish to be true.
It would be ideal if the same DAC could not win more than once.
I don't believe Bitshares products should qualify for this competition as Invictus is drawing all employee salaries and costs from these funds already. That would be like paying someone to compete in your contest for the prize, makes zero sense. If employees want to in their spare time work on a non-Bitshares project thats fine, it grows the ecosystem. I would argue the community has already paid very well for Bitshares.
I do not want power in this process, I want the rules to be set once and never changed again. I want development teams to be able to look at the landscape and say "If I build for Invictus, I can shoot for that prize and compound my success". This is not mutually exclusive of any other plan, but is neccesary in addition to whatever else is done. Please ask questions or comment as appropriate.
Finally some constructive stuff instead off all this accusations I think this is the best way to make progress. Let see what the community thinks. I agree with this model.
-
I don't always agree with you Adam, but do so more often than not. And I mostly like and am enthusiastic about this proposal of yours.
Now you will say that I am "too close" to this because I am a larger AGS holder than PTS holder, and you would probably be right. But in an attempt at helping me to become more objective, would you please extrapolate upon your reasoning as to why both PTS and AGS should not both be awarded a 10% stake in applicants' entries to this contest? (I do agree that Invictus should not be eligible to enter).
It seems to me to be difficult/impossible to separate out what benefit would be received by applicants tangentially from AGS funding. And therefore we AGS holders would be to some extent subsidizing PTS holders.
-
I don't always agree with you Adam, but do so more often than not. And I mostly like and am enthusiastic about this proposal of yours.
Now you will say that I am "too close" to this because I am a larger AGS holder than PTS holder, and you would probably be right. But in an attempt at helping me to become more objective, would you please extrapolate upon your reasoning as to why both PTS and AGS should not both be awarded a 10% stake in applicants' entries to this contest? (I do agree that Invictus should not be eligible to enter).
It seems to me to be difficult/impossible to separate out what benefit would be received by applicants tangentially from AGS funding. And therefore we AGS holders would be to some extent subsidizing PTS holders.
Invictus has specified that AGS is only supposed to be honored if AGS funds are used to develop the software. Otherwise the requirement is only PTS, unless I misunderstood? I am attempting to make as few requirements as possible while honoring "the deal".
To your specific question, you've got the logic backwards. Invictus says people should give 20% of money supply to AGS/PTS holders, and the argument is it gets you access to early adopters who are influential and important to have on your side. Ok, i'll buy that about PTS I guess, but If you're not getting some of the Angelshares money I'm unclear why you would want to honor Angelshares. You do this allocation at the beginning of the process, if that falls right when Invictus is doing their sharktank event than you can confirm you got money from AGS, then honor in the genesis block but what happens if you don't fall around that time?
There is no reason to honor these things. If Invictus had created a tradable crypto called Angelshares and people listed dac proposals, and funders gave the angelshares to the projects they want to fund, you'd have the ability for the community to make its own decisions and allocate resources as they deem efficient. That is not the case, the bottleneck is invictus so there isn't a reason to honor AGS because its not AGS holders you have to impress, just invictus.
-
I don't always agree with you Adam, but do so more often than not. And I mostly like and am enthusiastic about this proposal of yours.
Now you will say that I am "too close" to this because I am a larger AGS holder than PTS holder, and you would probably be right. But in an attempt at helping me to become more objective, would you please extrapolate upon your reasoning as to why both PTS and AGS should not both be awarded a 10% stake in applicants' entries to this contest? (I do agree that Invictus should not be eligible to enter).
It seems to me to be difficult/impossible to separate out what benefit would be received by applicants tangentially from AGS funding. And therefore we AGS holders would be to some extent subsidizing PTS holders.
Invictus has specified that AGS is only supposed to be honored if AGS funds are used to develop the software. Otherwise the requirement is only PTS, unless I misunderstood? I am attempting to make as few requirements as possible while honoring "the deal".
Technically they don't have to honor PTS either if they don't use the software, since the license is that's the only place that the consensus exists as a "requirement". I3's not going to be suing anyone for breaking it though, so market response is the only thing that really matters. So I believe 10%/10% is the minimum to "honor the social consensus", which you should do if you feel like you got help from the PTS/AGS community as a whole (many of the benefits of AGS spending are indirect). Those are the numbers I3 is committing to for their DACs, at least.
-
Invictus has said many times that what sets apart their platform from others, is good economics and a focus on profit. It is with that in mind that I present the DAC War of Profit (working title). A year from being announced, the first prize will be awarded to the DAC that achieves the greatest aggregate profitability for its token holders over a 30 day period of time compared to all other qualifying DACs.
The DACs must operate in the invictus ecosystem (must honor PTS at least, and must also honor AGS if they receive any funds via the Sharktank or other mechanisms)
Once the first prize has been awarded, the process repeats every six months with prizes according to the schedule below. This prize schedule seeks to give people time to build and develop profitable dacs following the Invictus model before requiring judgement to be made on who is successful. The entire invictus ecosystem wins since all competitors are competing to make profit for token holders, among whom Invictus is the largest.
Most Profitable DAC Awards - 100,000PTS over 5 years, represents less than 10% of AGS funds.
10,000PTS - 12mo
25,000PTS - 18mo
20,000PTS - 24mo
15,000PTS - 30mo
12,500PTS - 36mo
10,000PTS - 42mo
5,000PTS - 48mo
2,500PTS - 54mo
The keys controlling these funds should be held by a large number of trusted community advisors, not less than 10 and 20+ would be better with a 70% threshold required to release. Key Holders should be selected based on their ability to look at objective situations rather than what they stand to personally gain or wish to be true.
It would be ideal if the same DAC could not win more than once.
I don't believe Bitshares products should qualify for this competition as Invictus is drawing all employee salaries and costs from these funds already. That would be like paying someone to compete in your contest for the prize, makes zero sense. If employees want to in their spare time work on a non-Bitshares project thats fine, it grows the ecosystem. I would argue the community has already paid very well for Bitshares.
I do not want power in this process, I want the rules to be set once and never changed again. I want development teams to be able to look at the landscape and say "If I build for Invictus, I can shoot for that prize and compound my success". This is not mutually exclusive of any other plan, but is neccesary in addition to whatever else is done. Please ask questions or comment as appropriate.
+5%
-
I don't always agree with you Adam, but do so more often than not. And I mostly like and am enthusiastic about this proposal of yours.
Now you will say that I am "too close" to this because I am a larger AGS holder than PTS holder, and you would probably be right. But in an attempt at helping me to become more objective, would you please extrapolate upon your reasoning as to why both PTS and AGS should not both be awarded a 10% stake in applicants' entries to this contest? (I do agree that Invictus should not be eligible to enter).
It seems to me to be difficult/impossible to separate out what benefit would be received by applicants tangentially from AGS funding. And therefore we AGS holders would be to some extent subsidizing PTS holders.
Invictus has specified that AGS is only supposed to be honored if AGS funds are used to develop the software. Otherwise the requirement is only PTS, unless I misunderstood? I am attempting to make as few requirements as possible while honoring "the deal".
Allright. In the interests of maximizing benefit to the overall project I set aside any perceived slight unfairness and give your proposal my enthusiastic endorsement. Minimum Viable Product and all that :)
-
I don't always agree with you Adam, but do so more often than not. And I mostly like and am enthusiastic about this proposal of yours.
Now you will say that I am "too close" to this because I am a larger AGS holder than PTS holder, and you would probably be right. But in an attempt at helping me to become more objective, would you please extrapolate upon your reasoning as to why both PTS and AGS should not both be awarded a 10% stake in applicants' entries to this contest? (I do agree that Invictus should not be eligible to enter).
It seems to me to be difficult/impossible to separate out what benefit would be received by applicants tangentially from AGS funding. And therefore we AGS holders would be to some extent subsidizing PTS holders.
Invictus has specified that AGS is only supposed to be honored if AGS funds are used to develop the software. Otherwise the requirement is only PTS, unless I misunderstood? I am attempting to make as few requirements as possible while honoring "the deal".
Allright. In the interests of maximizing benefit to the overall project I set aside any perceived slight unfairness and give your proposal my enthusiastic endorsement. Minimum Viable Product and all that :)
Adam, I have greatly valued your amazing contributions to the cryptocurrency movement. I feel that I have also made significant contributions in my own way (for instance, being the first large donor to Armory so that Alan could quit his day job and give full time to its development - long before his round of Angel funding where Trace Mayer and others got in on expectation of personal gain).
LetsTalkBitcoin is a cornerstone in my opinion, and brought me to bitshares.
Now comes the "however" (you knew there was going to be one, didn't you?)
You edited the post that I responded to after my response.
I responded as I did, despite misgivings, because you are a VIP and very influential in the community. I therefore attempted to generate some consensus and mollify you as I was able.
But now I no longer think that I understand your point of view or motivation. I am finding Stan's responses on your other (related) thread to be thoughtful and convincing and valid attempts to answer your concerns - though obviously not what you want to hear. Have you acquired a pre-conceived notion of how it should be with the result that you don't hear responses that don't fit your formula?
By editing your post after I had responded, it looks as if I am agreeing to it in its entirety. That is not true.
I think that your contest has merits, but I think contestants for the prize should be limited to those who honor both PTS and AGS holders with minimum 10% Otherwise, let those who want to contribute to a prize for this contest do so.
I wasn't deceived when I donated my PTS and BTC to angelshares. Are you thinking that you were?
-
I don't always agree with you Adam, but do so more often than not. And I mostly like and am enthusiastic about this proposal of yours.
Now you will say that I am "too close" to this because I am a larger AGS holder than PTS holder, and you would probably be right. But in an attempt at helping me to become more objective, would you please extrapolate upon your reasoning as to why both PTS and AGS should not both be awarded a 10% stake in applicants' entries to this contest? (I do agree that Invictus should not be eligible to enter).
It seems to me to be difficult/impossible to separate out what benefit would be received by applicants tangentially from AGS funding. And therefore we AGS holders would be to some extent subsidizing PTS holders.
Invictus has specified that AGS is only supposed to be honored if AGS funds are used to develop the software. Otherwise the requirement is only PTS, unless I misunderstood? I am attempting to make as few requirements as possible while honoring "the deal".
Allright. In the interests of maximizing benefit to the overall project I set aside any perceived slight unfairness and give your proposal my enthusiastic endorsement. Minimum Viable Product and all that :)
Adam, I have greatly valued your amazing contributions to the cryptocurrency movement. I feel that I have also made significant contributions in my own way (for instance, being the first large donor to Armory so that Alan could quit his day job and give full time to its development - long before his round of Angel funding where Trace Mayer and others got in on expectation of personal gain).
LetsTalkBitcoin is a cornerstone in my opinion, and brought me to bitshares.
Now comes the "however" (you knew there was going to be one, didn't you?)
You edited the post that I responded to after my response.
I responded as I did, despite misgivings, because you are a VIP and very influential in the community. I therefore attempted to generate some consensus and mollify you as I was able.
But now I no longer think that I understand your point of view or motivation. I am finding Stan's responses on your other (related) thread to be thoughtful and convincing and valid attempts to answer your concerns - though obviously not what you want to hear. Have you acquired a pre-conceived notion of how it should be with the result that you don't hear responses that don't fit your formula?
By editing your post after I had responded, it looks as if I am agreeing to it in its entirety. That is not true.
I think that your contest has merits, but I think contestants for the prize should be limited to those who honor both PTS and AGS holders with minimum 10% Otherwise, let those who want to contribute to a prize for this contest do so.
I wasn't deceived when I donated my PTS and BTC to angelshares. Are you thinking that you were?
+1
-
I don't always agree with you Adam, but do so more often than not. And I mostly like and am enthusiastic about this proposal of yours.
Now you will say that I am "too close" to this because I am a larger AGS holder than PTS holder, and you would probably be right. But in an attempt at helping me to become more objective, would you please extrapolate upon your reasoning as to why both PTS and AGS should not both be awarded a 10% stake in applicants' entries to this contest? (I do agree that Invictus should not be eligible to enter).
It seems to me to be difficult/impossible to separate out what benefit would be received by applicants tangentially from AGS funding. And therefore we AGS holders would be to some extent subsidizing PTS holders.
Invictus has specified that AGS is only supposed to be honored if AGS funds are used to develop the software. Otherwise the requirement is only PTS, unless I misunderstood? I am attempting to make as few requirements as possible while honoring "the deal".
Allright. In the interests of maximizing benefit to the overall project I set aside any perceived slight unfairness and give your proposal my enthusiastic endorsement. Minimum Viable Product and all that :)
Adam, I have greatly valued your amazing contributions to the cryptocurrency movement. I feel that I have also made significant contributions in my own way (for instance, being the first large donor to Armory so that Alan could quit his day job and give full time to its development - long before his round of Angel funding where Trace Mayer and others got in on expectation of personal gain).
LetsTalkBitcoin is a cornerstone in my opinion, and brought me to bitshares.
Now comes the "however" (you knew there was going to be one, didn't you?)
You edited the post that I responded to after my response.
I responded as I did, despite misgivings, because you are a VIP and very influential in the community. I therefore attempted to generate some consensus and mollify you as I was able.
But now I no longer think that I understand your point of view or motivation. I am finding Stan's responses on your other (related) thread to be thoughtful and convincing and valid attempts to answer your concerns - though obviously not what you want to hear. Have you acquired a pre-conceived notion of how it should be with the result that you don't hear responses that don't fit your formula?
By editing your post after I had responded, it looks as if I am agreeing to it in its entirety. That is not true.
I think that your contest has merits, but I think contestants for the prize should be limited to those who honor both PTS and AGS holders with minimum 10% Otherwise, let those who want to contribute to a prize for this contest do so.
I wasn't deceived when I donated my PTS and BTC to angelshares. Are you thinking that you were?
+5%
-
The DACs must operate in the invictus ecosystem (must honor PTS at least, and must also honor AGS if they receive any funds via the Sharktank or other mechanisms)
Most Profitable DAC Awards - 100,000PTS over 5 years, represents less than 10% of AGS funds.
If you are using AGS funds as rewards, you absolutely must make it so those that made the AGS funds exist benefit.
-
So you want to take 10% of the entire AGS funding and you want to give it to 8 of the largest players? But as a DAC builder you don't want to give 10% of your own venture back to the community of AGS investors? What if the market doesn't move in the way you think it should move - years in advance? Is your fee structure correct? Would you stick to the terms outlined here no matter what or would you be willing to change it?
Why should AGS holders only be awarded for DACs funded by AGS? What if AGS-DAC solves common functions that every DAC could then duplicate? Is it now free for you to use at your own will? Or do you start walling off functionality and do it your own way? Do we want to start splitting people into camps based on which type of shares they want to honor? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to encourage everyone to work together as much as possible?
Is putting the community in a perpetual competition against each other really a good idea? I think this could discourage people from wanting to help each other out - especially the largest DAC developers in the market. We are an open source community. We can all build on top of what we do as a community. Right now we have more DACs than developers. We need to focus on the core product before trying to squeeze out every last share of an immature platform.
I really think after reading these forums these last few days, we need to unify PTS and AGS, as described by bytemaster in another post. Not for a while, not until they both run their course. Because honestly, in a couple of years, why would anyone new to the community give a shit about trying to decide whether to honor the religion of the shareholders who paid money vs. the religion of the shareholderss that plugged a bunch of computers into a wall. Then they would have to go through the forums and read about an ongoing civil war and get confused as hell trying to figure out who to support. This would make things much simpler, seeing as people are already confused now. AGS would become liquid, and PTS would upgrade to a TaPOS system. And do you know what would be the best part about this? You could drop the clunky Bitshares AGS and Bitshares PTS monikers, and that one unified unit could then simply be known as a BitShare. Anyone could buy into the community and be on the same level of expectation as everyone else in the community.
So what do I honestly think about this competition? I like it, but only if we do it one year at a time. After the first one ends, the community should vote whether or not to have one for the next year. No need to commit ourselves so far out in advance.
-
+1
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
So you want to take 10% of the entire AGS funding and you want to give it to 8 of the largest players? But as a DAC builder you don't want to give 10% of your own venture back to the community of AGS investors? What if the market doesn't move in the way you think it should move - years in advance? Is your fee structure correct? Would you stick to the terms outlined here no matter what or would you be willing to change it?
Why should AGS holders only be awarded for DACs funded by AGS? What if AGS-DAC solves common functions that every DAC could then duplicate? Is it now free for you to use at your own will? Or do you start walling off functionality and do it your own way? Do we want to start splitting people into camps based on which type of shares they want to honor? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to encourage everyone to work together as much as possible?
Is putting the community in a perpetual competition against each other really a good idea? I think this could discourage people from wanting to help each other out - especially the largest DAC developers in the market. We are an open source community. We can all build on top of what we do as a community. Right now we have more DACs than developers. We need to focus on the core product before trying to squeeze out every last share of an immature platform.
I really think after reading these forums these last few days, we need to unify PTS and AGS, as described by bytemaster in another post. Not for a while, not until they both run their course. Because honestly, in a couple of years, why would anyone new to the community give a shit about trying to decide whether to honor the religion of the shareholders who paid money vs. the religion of the shareholderss that plugged a bunch of computers into a wall. Then they would have to go through the forums and read about an ongoing civil war and get confused as hell trying to figure out who to support. This would make things much simpler, seeing as people are already confused now. AGS would become liquid, and PTS would upgrade to a TaPOS system. And do you know what would be the best part about this? You could drop the clunky Bitshares AGS and Bitshares PTS monikers, and that one unified unit could then simply be known as a BitShare. Anyone could buy into the community and be on the same level of expectation as everyone else in the community.
So what do I honestly think about this competition? I like it, but only if we do it one year at a time. After the first one ends, the community should vote whether or not to have one for the next year. No need to commit ourselves so far out in advance.
+5% AGS holders always carry more risk, specially now as the benefit of AGS over PTS is gone. But the idea of promoting new DACs is excellent.
-
AGS holders always carry more risk, specially now as the benefit of AGS over PTS is gone. But the idea of promoting new DACs is excellent.
Which is amply reflected in the current AGS price. You carry more risks, but you get more AGS for your money too.
-
Let's see: I donated 1 PTS when it was worth $13.2 and got 2 AGS which then spawned 2x3.3= 6.6 XTS.
So, if XTS starts out anywhere above $2, then 2x6.6=13.2 and I am already liquid and in the black again!
And that's before
my 2 AGS to do that over and over again all the other DAC families and
my 6.6 XTS to do that over and over again for all the other BitShares X exchanges.
Of course its always risky doing math in public, but you get the general idea. AGS holders will get so liquid they can go for a swim.
-
If Invictus had created a tradable crypto called Angelshares and people listed dac proposals, and funders gave the angelshares to the projects they want to fund, you'd have the ability for the community to make its own decisions and allocate resources as they deem efficient.
As mentioned in another thread, what you describe above is how Link Protocol was developed by donations from the Feathercoin community.
http://blockchain-link.com/#future (http://blockchain-link.com/#future)
-
So you want to take 10% of the entire AGS funding and you want to give it to 8 of the largest players? But as a DAC builder you don't want to give 10% of your own venture back to the community of AGS investors? What if the market doesn't move in the way you think it should move - years in advance? Is your fee structure correct? Would you stick to the terms outlined here no matter what or would you be willing to change it?
Why should AGS holders only be awarded for DACs funded by AGS? What if AGS-DAC solves common functions that every DAC could then duplicate? Is it now free for you to use at your own will? Or do you start walling off functionality and do it your own way? Do we want to start splitting people into camps based on which type of shares they want to honor? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to encourage everyone to work together as much as possible?
Is putting the community in a perpetual competition against each other really a good idea? I think this could discourage people from wanting to help each other out - especially the largest DAC developers in the market. We are an open source community. We can all build on top of what we do as a community. Right now we have more DACs than developers. We need to focus on the core product before trying to squeeze out every last share of an immature platform.
I really think after reading these forums these last few days, we need to unify PTS and AGS, as described by bytemaster in another post. Not for a while, not until they both run their course. Because honestly, in a couple of years, why would anyone new to the community give a shit about trying to decide whether to honor the religion of the shareholders who paid money vs. the religion of the shareholderss that plugged a bunch of computers into a wall. Then they would have to go through the forums and read about an ongoing civil war and get confused as hell trying to figure out who to support. This would make things much simpler, seeing as people are already confused now. AGS would become liquid, and PTS would upgrade to a TaPOS system. And do you know what would be the best part about this? You could drop the clunky Bitshares AGS and Bitshares PTS monikers, and that one unified unit could then simply be known as a BitShare. Anyone could buy into the community and be on the same level of expectation as everyone else in the community.
So what do I honestly think about this competition? I like it, but only if we do it one year at a time. After the first one ends, the community should vote whether or not to have one for the next year. No need to commit ourselves so far out in advance.
I think it should be a reward in Angelshares. There is no benefit to rewarding in Protoshares because the receiver could just treat it as cash and sell it. Angelshares can't be sold which is a good thing for something like this.
Additionally we could just create Awardshares which also can't be sold and make people buy them with Protoshares.
-
Invictus has said many times that what sets apart their platform from others, is good economics and a focus on profit. It is with that in mind that I present the DAC War of Profit (working title). A year from being announced, the first prize will be awarded to the DAC that achieves the greatest aggregate profitability for its token holders over a 30 day period of time compared to all other qualifying DACs.
The DACs must operate in the invictus ecosystem (must honor PTS at least, and must also honor AGS if they receive any funds via the Sharktank or other mechanisms)
Once the first prize has been awarded, the process repeats every six months with prizes according to the schedule below. This prize schedule seeks to give people time to build and develop profitable dacs following the Invictus model before requiring judgement to be made on who is successful. The entire invictus ecosystem wins since all competitors are competing to make profit for token holders, among whom Invictus is the largest.
Most Profitable DAC Awards - 100,000PTS over 5 years, represents less than 10% of AGS funds.
10,000PTS - 12mo
25,000PTS - 18mo
20,000PTS - 24mo
15,000PTS - 30mo
12,500PTS - 36mo
10,000PTS - 42mo
5,000PTS - 48mo
2,500PTS - 54mo
The keys controlling these funds should be held by a large number of trusted community advisors, not less than 10 and 20+ would be better with a 70% threshold required to release. Key Holders should be selected based on their ability to look at objective situations rather than what they stand to personally gain or wish to be true.
It would be ideal if the same DAC could not win more than once.
I don't believe Bitshares products should qualify for this competition as Invictus is drawing all employee salaries and costs from these funds already. That would be like paying someone to compete in your contest for the prize, makes zero sense. If employees want to in their spare time work on a non-Bitshares project thats fine, it grows the ecosystem. I would argue the community has already paid very well for Bitshares.
I do not want power in this process, I want the rules to be set once and never changed again. I want development teams to be able to look at the landscape and say "If I build for Invictus, I can shoot for that prize and compound my success". This is not mutually exclusive of any other plan, but is neccesary in addition to whatever else is done. Please ask questions or comment as appropriate.
How would you measure "aggregate profitability" is your proposal?
-
Reading all this makes me wonder whether it would not simplify things to merge AGS and PTS into one tradable TaPOS DAC... Read that as a suggestion somewhere else before...
-
Has nobody else noticed how bizarre Adam's proposal is? To give $1m to the most profitable DAC? If any DAC is even remotely successful, its devs will (if they set it up right) make hundreds of millions of dollars. Why would Invictus waste a piddling $1m five years from now on a company that will be worth billions? The AGS funds should be invested up front to give DAC devs a leg up right now, when speed is absolutely critical. Long-term bounties for successful DACs would be an egregious waste of funds.
-
Has nobody else noticed how bizarre Adam's proposal is? To give $1m to the most profitable DAC? If any DAC is even remotely successful, its devs will (if they set it up right) make hundreds of millions of dollars. Why would Invictus waste a piddling $1m five years from now on a company that will be worth billions? The AGS funds should be invested up front to give DAC devs a leg up right now, when speed is absolutely critical. Long-term bounties for successful DACs would be an egregious waste of funds.
It's impossible to say how much in dollars any DAC will make. Bitshares might not even make hundreds of millions of dollars. If cryptocurrency catches on then you could be right but who is going to take the risk without incentive?
I recommend we use outcome based rewards but I don't think it should be in dollars but in shares. Why are we measuring in dollars?
A while back I mentioned the need to set up a system to reward theoretical progress. We should be rewarding people who produce academic articles and we should have an academic journal for decentralized autonomous networks.
Since the money exists to reward theoretical progress we should do more to encourage it. A lot of knowledge on how to do stuff is missing and just having programmers isn't enough. So why not an academic journal where ideas, new algorithms, concepts, and overall scientific research progress on these subjects can be encouraged, rewarded, and made accessible?
Stan if you are reading this: PLEASE ENCOURAGE RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY.
Knowledge must be decentralized. Incentivize the process of discovering knowledge.
Attract the curious researchers, the student-hacker, the dreamer, and reward. Let's actually create a theoretically detailed knowledge base together.
If you want I can give you the details on how to decentralize the process. I have had plans to start a website based on this but since I own Angelshares now I can help explain how to reward the generation of knowledge in a decentralized way. In my opinion we absolutely require at least one academic journal in the world on the subject of the DAC.
-
Of course its always risky doing math in public, but you get the general idea. AGS holders will get so liquid they can go for a swim.
Stan - I can't help but love your posts, I always get a good chuckle and smile.
-
Since the money exists to reward theoretical progress we should do more to encourage it. A lot of knowledge on how to do stuff is missing and just having programmers isn't enough. So why not an academic journal where ideas, new algorithms, concepts, and overall scientific research progress on these subjects can be encouraged, rewarded, and made accessible?
+5%
-
AGREE +5%
-
Has nobody else noticed how bizarre Adam's proposal is? To give $1m to the most profitable DAC? If any DAC is even remotely successful, its devs will (if they set it up right) make hundreds of millions of dollars. Why would Invictus waste a piddling $1m five years from now on a company that will be worth billions? The AGS funds should be invested up front to give DAC devs a leg up right now, when speed is absolutely critical. Long-term bounties for successful DACs would be an egregious waste of funds.
It's impossible to say how much in dollars any DAC will make. Bitshares might not even make hundreds of millions of dollars. If cryptocurrency catches on then you could be right but who is going to take the risk without incentive?
I recommend we use outcome based rewards but I don't think it should be in dollars but in shares. Why are we measuring in dollars?
A while back I mentioned the need to set up a system to reward theoretical progress. We should be rewarding people who produce academic articles and we should have an academic journal for decentralized autonomous networks.
Since the money exists to reward theoretical progress we should do more to encourage it. A lot of knowledge on how to do stuff is missing and just having programmers isn't enough. So why not an academic journal where ideas, new algorithms, concepts, and overall scientific research progress on these subjects can be encouraged, rewarded, and made accessible?
Stan if you are reading this: PLEASE ENCOURAGE RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY.
Knowledge must be decentralized. Incentivize the process of discovering knowledge.
Attract the curious researchers, the student-hacker, the dreamer, and reward. Let's actually create a theoretically detailed knowledge base together.
If you want I can give you the details on how to decentralize the process. I have had plans to start a website based on this but since I own Angelshares now I can help explain how to reward the generation of knowledge in a decentralized way. In my opinion we absolutely require at least one academic journal in the world on the subject of the DAC.
+5%
-
Has nobody else noticed how bizarre Adam's proposal is? To give $1m to the most profitable DAC? If any DAC is even remotely successful, its devs will (if they set it up right) make hundreds of millions of dollars. Why would Invictus waste a piddling $1m five years from now on a company that will be worth billions? The AGS funds should be invested up front to give DAC devs a leg up right now, when speed is absolutely critical. Long-term bounties for successful DACs would be an egregious waste of funds.
It's impossible to say how much in dollars any DAC will make. Bitshares might not even make hundreds of millions of dollars. If cryptocurrency catches on then you could be right but who is going to take the risk without incentive?
I recommend we use outcome based rewards but I don't think it should be in dollars but in shares. Why are we measuring in dollars?
A while back I mentioned the need to set up a system to reward theoretical progress. We should be rewarding people who produce academic articles and we should have an academic journal for decentralized autonomous networks.
Since the money exists to reward theoretical progress we should do more to encourage it. A lot of knowledge on how to do stuff is missing and just having programmers isn't enough. So why not an academic journal where ideas, new algorithms, concepts, and overall scientific research progress on these subjects can be encouraged, rewarded, and made accessible?
Stan if you are reading this: PLEASE ENCOURAGE RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY.
Knowledge must be decentralized. Incentivize the process of discovering knowledge.
Attract the curious researchers, the student-hacker, the dreamer, and reward. Let's actually create a theoretically detailed knowledge base together.
If you want I can give you the details on how to decentralize the process. I have had plans to start a website based on this but since I own Angelshares now I can help explain how to reward the generation of knowledge in a decentralized way. In my opinion we absolutely require at least one academic journal in the world on the subject of the DAC.
Tell us more!
-
This is a winner-takes-all bounty system, which clearly incentivizes the leading players quite effectively. Just to add though, it might be worth considering a slightly different reward strategy: a weighted reward scheme still providing a fair gain to the most profitable DAC, yet also rewarding any DAC that generates income but on a sliding scale proportional to success. One advantage to this is it might limit the chance of just a few players taking over, in addition this would potentially incentivize a larger audience, and also support development of a more varied spectrum of DACs. You can have a guess at the most profitable DACs, there is some sense in not just rewarding the most profitable eg a variety of a decentralized exchange or a lottery, because it just might stifle innovation in other areas.
-
I just hope I3 gets out of the blocks soon, there is a lot of movement in the Bitcoin 2.0 ecosystem and we don't want to end up bridesmaids. It's action time.
http://thebitcoinnews.co.uk/2014/03/07/bitcoin-decentral-launches-bitcoin-and-cryptocurrency-2-0-accelerator/
-
How Ethereum is doing all this pre-funding is beyond me.