Moved from https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1732.90 ...

The entire bounty system in its current form doesn't seem to be producing top quality products with any type of efficiency (i.e. the Invictus website).  I think everyone has great intentions and there is a lot of talent in the community but the process for disseminating, organizing and focusing that talent for complex tasks is so loose that we end up with a lot of accuracy and no precision.

I think betax nailed it here,

Quote from: betax on January 09, 2014, 06:19:17 am

I have lots of spare money (pts), give me something quick, I don't know how to price it but I will give you what I consider what is fair considering the risk you take

These large bounties can be a huge risk to those that create submissions because in the end only one will be chosen and the others will not be compensated for their work.  At worst, it weeds out the best talent because they can't risk putting in the time to produce a final product that may not result in any compensation, and at best it results in a lack of focus because submitters must spend more time and focus on other projects that provide compensation necessary for their cost of living in the event their submission isn't chosen.   What we end up getting is a few average and above average submissions which are all accurate in that they meet the basic requirements of the project.  Also, in the end, the process is centralized.  The final decision is just a judgement call by bytemaster with no real measurable metrics (as most submissions meet the basic requirements).  Obviously, it's his company and he has the ultimate decision, but, why not create a new process that facilitates that decision to the point that by the end of the process its obvious to everyone what the final product will be.

Here's my solution:

Instead of asking developers to create completed content, why not create a transparent RFP (request for proposal) process and get the input of the community to decide on the the path we should take (what developer/informal group of developers/company should be chosen to complete the task).  Protoshare/Angelshare holders can vote for a proposal proportionally based on the number of shares they hold (not sure if this is possible...).  It is in the best interest of Protoshare/Angelshare holders to decide on the best value product that will grow the community and increase the value of their holdings.

Submitter's will include relevant samples of previous work, resume/references, a rough mock up of their design (if applicable), cost to complete the work, and some type of cover letter.

This should:

• Eliminate the need to set an arbitrary price (the market will decide)
• Open the process to top talent
• Give whoever is chosen the compensation they need to stay focused on the task at hand
• Allow for community input throughout the entire process

The RFP should define the project due date and incremental goals (each goal paired with a percentage of the total project cost) that must be shared with the community on a weekly basis for a comment and suggestion period (no longer than 24-48 hrs).  At the result of that period, the developer will make any necessary changes and submit that portion for final Approval.  Barring any major objections (or a veto by bytemaster), that portion is Approved, the developer is paid the portion of project cost associated with that goal and then moves on to the next task.  The development should be as open source as possible (easy with coding/writing, harder with graphic design) to allow for comments along the way to limit surprises during the more formal comment/suggestion period. 

Worst case, if the selected developer isn't producing, it will be obvious from the start and the RFP process can be re-opened to more proposals with a minimum loss of capital.  Best case, the developer produces great consistent content and the community is aware of the status of each project at all times.  Because the developer is being paid in PTS, it is in their best interest to stay on task and on time while producing quality work.

The biggest group of stakeholders are holders of protoshares and angelshares and with this process Invictus can empower those stakeholders to help make the decisions that will affect their wealth and ROI as an investor.

 

The size of the payout makes the risk worth your time, although this raises some questions.
Also you'll find that all bounties regardless of their size already have groundwork being laid out, read through them.

Also, in the end, the process is centralized.  The final decision is just a judgement call by bytemaster with no real measurable metrics (as most submissions meet the basic requirements).  Obviously, it's his company and he has the ultimate decision, but, why not create a new process that facilitates that decision to the point that by the end of the process its obvious to everyone what the final product will be.

Did you really read through the document? if so you'd note the insistence on publicity, this is to ensure open development processes kind of like conversation you have joined, showing that the system works. If it was not open, all you would have seen was a set of rules whose creation you could not trace, contest or help to form.

Instead of asking developers to create completed content, why not create a transparent RFP (request for proposal) process and get the input of the community to decide on the the path we should take (what developer/informal group of developers/company should be chosen to complete the task).

This is called a Tender and the only difference between the current system is name. Asking the community to decide who to choose to complte the task defeats the purpose, we are looking for someone who can complete the task. How do we decide without seeing their version of it? Keep in mind please that III is not the only entity that can post a bounty.

Submitter's will include relevant samples of previous work, resume/references, a rough mock up of their design (if applicable), cost to complete the work, and some type of cover letter.

lol, this is the crypto industry where we like our privacy. There are only two people on this forum that know who i really am, one of them being bytemaster, i'd like to keep it that way thanks. Trying to force disclosure like that will fall flat on it's face.

This should:

Eliminate the need to set an arbitrary price (the market will decide)
Open the process to top talent
Give whoever is chosen the compensation they need to stay focused on the task at hand
Allow for community input throughout the entire process

Lol, the thing that makes bounties get completed quickly is that number you want to remove. And trust me, i know a few of the guys here from other forums, you'd need college proffesors to beat some of them.

As a bounty hunter all i need to know is how much i am getting paid to produce a good quality product that will meet the posters requirement and when i should be done. If i have queries, i always ask, and along the way i open up my development process to the community for input kind of like what we are doing now.

The RFP should define the project due date and incremental goals (each goal paired with a percentage of the total project cost) that must be shared with the community on a weekly basis for a comment and suggestion period (no longer than 24-48 hrs).  At the result of that period, the developer will make any necessary changes and submit that portion for final Approval.  Barring any major objections (or a veto by bytemaster), that portion is Approved, the developer is paid the portion of project cost associated with that goal and then moves on to the next task.  The development should be as open source as possible (easy with coding/writing, harder with graphic design) to allow for comments along the way to limit surprises during the more formal comment/suggestion period.

As a person who is in full support of DACs and their uniqueness, also as a bounty hunter i reject the idea of "comment and suggestion periods" set in time, I want my customer to have full access to my work and be free to comment at anytime, i even tend to give them editing rights on my works which i post publicly. And piece-meal payments as good as that sounds would complicate the process, which we are hoping to be simple and straight forward.

Worst case, if the selected developer isn't producing, it will be obvious from the start and the RFP process can be re-opened to more proposals with a minimum loss of capital.  Best case, the developer produces great consistent content and the community is aware of the status of each project at all times.  Because the developer is being paid in PTS, it is in their best interest to stay on task and on time while producing quality work.

Again please read through the document and some of the Bounties and check their processes, the very mechanism of bounties does all that without need for supervision.

The biggest group of stakeholders are holders of protoshares and angelshares and with this process Invictus can empower those stakeholders to help make the decisions that will affect their wealth and ROI as an investor.

Software, graphics and other bounties emanate from ideas and suggestions that are already floating about in the community, some of the more III ones come from things they need to meet certain objectives. You'll find that quite a few of the ones on this subforum were requested by the community. Perhaps we can move this  conversation to the bounty discussion thread.. as you are also suggesting we scrap bounties.


As the person who is wrote this document and a bounty hunter, i have tried my best to stick to the rules i've written as a means of encouraging their adoption and thus far they seem to be working. Should there be need to chnage the system then that is another thing altogether but this document is about the rules and procedures of the bounty syatem, not the development of a new system. The reasons the bounty system is used not only by the crypto industry but by most huge tech and security firms are numerous, apart from creativity and speed they create a hiring pool for easier pickings later, which is worth more than you can imagine.

A lot of the people asking to change the system are not bounty hunters themselves, most are not even developers. Using the mind and working on these projects is time consuming and requires a certain temperament, otherwise nothing gets done. Before you start judging how much their paid, walk in their shoes a bit. 

I stand by my basic premise that the bounty system in its current form creates a lot of wasted effort by those whose submissions are not chosen and has not resulted in the highest quality products. 

All I'm attempting to do with this proposal is maximize the utility of all work done by members of the community while getting the highest quality, best value product on time and keeping everyone informed every step of the way.  I think we can all agree these things are important to us as stakeholders.

Being as this is just an informal idea, I expect certain aspects to be changed and better defined.  In the interest of being clear and concise here are my key points:

- Developers submit a proposal with some proof of ability to complete the task (I'm not suggesting disclosing your real identity, that's not what I meant by resume/references) -> best quality
- Project cost is not defined upfront, it is submitted as part of the proposal -> best value
- Once a proposal is chosen by the community, the developer is paid incrementally as work is completed (increments do not have to be time driven per say, but I think there should be a firm date for final project completion) -> incentivize "risk averse" talent to submit proposals
- Project is transparent and open to comment from inception to completion (I can agree we are basically at this point) -> community driven

I'm sure there are methods to facilitate a process like this that I haven't thought of.  I'm just throwing this all out there to see what other members of the community think.

Also, I don't think the bounty system is all bad and I think it can/does work great for smaller, specific tasks.  I just don't think it has been working that great for the larger more complex ones.

I would not know about wasted effort, have you taken part in any bounties? If so please provide links, perhaps i'll run into these wasted efforts then we can start agreeing.


Developers submit a proposal with some proof of ability to complete the task

That is pointless, why would i jump on a web dev bounty when i know nothing about it? It would become obvious when i fail to produce anyway. And the only way to prove you qualification is to produce relevant links or paperwork, which i iterate again, people like their privacy. The very nature of decentralization is privacy, the whole point becomes moot if i have to prove anything to anyone. All that is required is the submission of a product that meets the customers requirement and fits the quality spec. The development process is public so it's clear that the applicant is the one doing the work.

Project cost is not defined upfront, it is submitted as part of the proposal -> best value

The thing i feel you are not really appreciating is the difference between BOUNTY and TENDER. What you are suggesting is no different from the bidding system that was suggested earlier in this thread. The thing that is making people interested is not some noble cause to help the community, it's the price tag, and as a result they strive to produce products that meet the customer's expectations.

Try it and see what a bidding war will produce, cutthroat competiton and work that will either never be completed or simply will not be supported by the dev after completion. And what you are suggesting amounts to contracts which is something we are working pretty hard to avoid around here.

Once a proposal is chosen by the community

Ok, i have a personal Bounty, what does the community have to do with that? The rules and procedures are just that, rules and procedures applicable to bounties. Be they III or individual or other DACs.

III did not create bounties, we are simply defining the procedure in print.

paid incrementally as work is completed Please just read what i have told you to read, it gets boring to keep repeating that. it's right there stickied on the subforum.

Also, I don't think the bounty system is all bad and I think it can/does work great for smaller, specific tasks.  I just don't think it has been working that great for the larger more complex ones.

Please tell me what you understand by the words "to be defined" and "construction"

PLEASE LET US MOVE ALL CONVERSATION ABOUT REDEFINITION TO THIS THREAD https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1679.0

You are going to make it harder for people to follow the development process for this bounty if you keep posting discussion issues here. I thank you very much for understanding.

The entire bounty system in its current form doesn't seem to be producing top quality products with any type of efficiency (i.e. the Invictus website).  I think everyone has great intentions and there is a lot of talent in the community but the process for disseminating, organizing and focusing that talent for complex tasks is so loose that we end up with a lot of accuracy and no precision.


I think betax nailed it here,

I have lots of spare money (pts), give me something quick, I don't know how to price it but I will give you what I consider what is fair considering the risk you take

These large bounties can be a huge risk to those that create submissions because in the end only one will be chosen and the others will not be compensated for their work.  At worst, it weeds out the best talent because they can't risk putting in the time to produce a final product that may not result in any compensation, and at best it results in a lack of focus because submitters must spend more time and focus on other projects that provide compensation necessary for their cost of living in the event their submission isn't chosen.   What we end up getting is a few average and above average submissions which are all accurate in that they meet the basic requirements of the project.  Also, in the end, the process is centralized.  The final decision is just a judgement call by bytemaster with no real measurable metrics (as most submissions meet the basic requirements).  Obviously, it's his company and he has the ultimate decision, but, why not create a new process that facilitates that decision to the point that by the end of the process its obvious to everyone what the final product will be.

Here's my solution:

Instead of asking developers to create completed content, why not create a transparent RFP (request for proposal) process and get the input of the community to decide on the the path we should take (what developer/informal group of developers/company should be chosen to complete the task).  Protoshare/Angelshare holders can vote for a proposal proportionally based on the number of shares they hold (not sure if this is possible...).  It is in the best interest of Protoshare/Angelshare holders to decide on the best value product that will grow the community and increase the value of their holdings.

Submitter's will include relevant samples of previous work, resume/references, a rough mock up of their design (if applicable), cost to complete the work, and some type of cover letter.

This should:

• Eliminate the need to set an arbitrary price (the market will decide)
• Open the process to top talent
• Give whoever is chosen the compensation they need to stay focused on the task at hand
• Allow for community input throughout the entire process

The RFP should define the project due date and incremental goals (each goal paired with a percentage of the total project cost) that must be shared with the community on a weekly basis for a comment and suggestion period (no longer than 24-48 hrs).  At the result of that period, the developer will make any necessary changes and submit that portion for final Approval.  Barring any major objections (or a veto by bytemaster), that portion is Approved, the developer is paid the portion of project cost associated with that goal and then moves on to the next task.  The development should be as open source as possible (easy with coding/writing, harder with graphic design) to allow for comments along the way to limit surprises during the more formal comment/suggestion period. 

Worst case, if the selected developer isn't producing, it will be obvious from the start and the RFP process can be re-opened to more proposals with a minimum loss of capital.  Best case, the developer produces great consistent content and the community is aware of the status of each project at all times.  Because the developer is being paid in PTS, it is in their best interest to stay on task and on time while producing quality work.

The biggest group of stakeholders are holders of protoshares and angelshares and with this process Invictus can empower those stakeholders to help make the decisions that will affect their wealth and ROI as an investor.

 

Yeah, the BTC data is still parsing. 

All my data is calculated from donschoe's v0.3 API.  The PTS side should be accurate but the BTC side is incomplete as of right now.  You can see the raw data here, http://q39.qhor.net/ags/3/btc.csv.txt, it's still a couple days behind. 

I imagine it will take a few more hours before it's current.

Ah, I only accounted for half. Fixed.

Although there seems to be an issue with donschoe's btc API so the BTC values should be fairly accurate to this point (using data from donschoe's v0.1 API) but will not update until the issue with the v0.2 API is resolved.

Here's a PHP solution (with source) for analyzing donschoe's API... http://joelooney.org/ags/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Updated with v0.2 data - Angelshares Summary Data

http://joelooney.org/ags/

Source: http://pastebin.com/w7quHJeM

Decided to keep it simple.  PHP only, this should be a good solution for anyone that wants to run the code and view Angelshares summary data locally with no javascript.

I ended up using the daily summary data break as a checkpoint for collecting data for each day.  I'm not sure how much faster the page would load at this point if I used the cleaner txt file.

The several second load time is likely due to parsing the entire txt file for both btc and pts each time.

What I think I'll do to speed it up is store daily summary information (top deposit, number of deposits, sum of deposits) in a MySQL database.  Then, all I would need is a csv file with the current period data for each blockchain.

Great work by the way.  Thanks for parsing the two blockchains and posting the live data.