Oh and having thought about this over night I think keyhotee is fairly on target with what Invictus are trying to. BitShares are going to need a wallet so they might as well make a fully featured one.

Not that I really care because I'm not a huge visual person (I can play text based games and have way more fun then crap like COD) I think the 2d is confusing. I see a "P" & "D". What is the D for? ProtoDares?

With a hat-tip to the WeTube Alternative DAC threads...

Quote

It is also my opinion that the persons who do most of the efforts should be the initial shareholders of this company, just like it happens in the real world. Do you imagine Steve Jobs doing what he did knowing that he had only 0.0001% of the company he just created? No, he had a good share because he took the risks and has the ideas (it is irrelevant if after some years he sold them).
...
So I propose something that would not like very much to speculators, but certainly will motivate programmers and serius investors to do serius work here.
...
Because I know that there are people who want to invest but don't have any skills to contribute, we can also create a ProtoMediaShares, similar to what Protoshares is, that could be converted to WeTube DAC's shares at the launch, at some proportion. We are open to this proposition if we still give programmers something like 3/4 of the total initial shares. But some shares could be given to miners-only with a moral condition: please promote WeTube!
...
And what part of the stock do we reserve for programmers and miners? I propose 10% for programmers and 2.5% for miners. The 87.5% left is reserved for workers to be earn slowly once the system starts running. 10% is really a lot if we consider that this DAC could become the next Youtube.

Here is some innovative proto-DAC thinking that deserves to be highlighted outside its home thread.  I'd like to see more discussion about "acceptable" ways to motivate and enable more developers to develop more DACs.  After all, we as ProtoShareholders now have a vested interest in seeing lots of high-quality DACs fielded and backed by strong teams of developers willing and able to see them through to stand-alone autonomous operation.

Proto-DACs would seem to be a way to attract DAC-specific investors and developers the same way ProtoShares attracts global visionaries and industry leaders.

I'm calling it to the attention of the DAC Angel community and would like to hear thoughts about how ideas like this can increase the value of the PTS we currently hold.

The problem I have with this (WeTube) model (which I've expressed in other threads) is that you end up with a centralised team of developers who are linked to the project both financially and through their knowledge of how the system works (this wouldn't be a problem with any DAC not doing anything consider to be illegal by the real world). I know I know "we need coders", well to be honest I think we've probably got enough of them in the cryptocurrency world, it's not exactly the kind of stuff average people can get their head around (can you imagine your parents setting up a mining rig?)

I think it would be best to set bounties for specific tasks required to make a working implementation which can be tweaked by the community. This would require careful coordination between the share holder community with their needing to be much discussion on a public forums and their being democratic processes to ensure everyone has an equal say.

So to break it all up the process should be pretty much as described in "DAC's That Spawn DAC's". An idea is identified, we decide a cryptocurrency might be a good way to express the value of this idea with the intention of fully crediting anyone holds the currency being entitled to a proportional stake in any DAC that is implemented as result. A coin just "happens" to appear which has a similar sounding name to what it is we are trying to do and we use that. At the same time someone creates a forum which provides information on a hypothetical DAC system which is used for creating a exploring and testing ideas associated with the final goals of the DAC. If others feel it's a good idea they will (hopefully) buy shares and the value of this shares will rise. That will give early adopters of the currency capital to use for paying bounties. Further capital could be acquired by protoshares holders who believe the dividend return will be high enough and have the cash available to invest in developers/marketer/whatever is identified to get the job done.

I'd like to (once again) make it very clear that I like the idea of WeTube but I feel these issues should be addressed before we start thinking about how the system works (that's the fairly easy part really, gaining support, a way to generate payments to the creators of the works and avoid legal issues will be the challenge). I also feel these questions I'm raising aren't being addressed adequately, hence why I keep going on about them.

whatever

Had a million ideas of late, here's another one I thought I'd put out there and will possibly see if there is a certain crypto-currency we might be able to use to gauge the value of this idea (1:1 payout for PTS holders, as I feel it should be).

Basically the concept is to implement a DAC for sports. The idea is still pretty raw at this stage as I just blurted it out at my friends the other night whilst watching the football. People would create different games derived from the Sports DAC that can be viewed by all people through an interface of some kind. The shareholders of the DAC would receive dividends from the transmission fees from end users accessing the content. The twist will be that all the "players" of a game will be DAC's as well. They would be rewarded for completing certain objectives (scoring a goal, completing X amount of the total playing time etc) which is also derived from the transmission fees of viewers. This would also allow other people to own shares in sports athletes and gain a percentage of their winnings from completing the aforementioned objectives. I think this would ad quite a twist to sport and would possibly lead to the development of new sports which aim to increase their viewership through the use of the DAC technology (being able to own players will certainly add a twist and could lead to many unthought of gaming ideas).

I have been thinking it could be derived from ProtoMediaShares (which will credit PTS @ 1:1) as it would require the ability to share the live video in a decentralised manner (which this ProtoDAC's grandchildren will likely/hopefully address) plus possibly others by the time this idea is likely to take off (could have integrated betting in the interface for instance which is linked to a Gamble DAC). That being the case all DAC's that have provided technology for this DAC would be credited so for example ProtoMediaShares holders might receive a 1/2 a share for every share they hold, Gamble DAC holder 1/2 a share for every share they hold then an additional amount for other people to purchase would be created in the genisis block (probably just twice the amount paid to honoured DAC's).

As I said this is a raw idea, I haven't actually written anything other then this down yet (unlike other plans) so I haven't thought of all the flaws and what not, just trying to get more ideas out there to help others get things moving. Further suggestions would be greatly welcome (as long as you don't send me mad by trying to convince that something is decentralised when it is not!).

Sure DAC's require constant maintenance, but in theory you don't require a constant team to keep maintaining it because the source code is freely available so if someone finds a way to improve the source code they can do so then either merge it with the current project, no doubt buying shares before they announce the fix/upgrade expecting that it will add value to the DAC. The fix is then either accepted or rejected by the community of shareholders who put forward the arguments for and against it which basically amount to "Will this make more or less money". If it is thought it will make more the code merger is accepted and in theory the price goes up and that coder makes money if the price rises and they sell or they hold onto the shares and wait for dividend payments. If the community rejects the code merge the coder can at that point decide to create a new DAC which honours the original DAC (if they didn't do this then they probably won't get any support unless their idea is far greater then the original DAC's) in a method of their choosing and implement the fix. If the fix is a good idea, people will leave the original DAC see'ing that the new DAC is capable of making much more money, otherwise if the community still see it doesn't work then they will reject the new DAC and it will disappear and the coder will have made a loss.

How do you know in advance how much worker each programmer will be doing that makes you think you can pay them in shares initially and they'll continue to do the same amount of work? How exactly will the pie be broken up between developers without there being a whole bunch of fighting about who did what?

As far as I can tell the best way to approach paying coders for the initial groundwork code of a DAC is via the float of an "idea currency" ala ProtoShares for Invictus, the idea either gains value (like PTS) or dies in the water. If it people speculate that it's a good idea you now have a significant community group and capital assuming you either mined initially or purchased shares at a low price. You and other like mined individuals need to identify ways to actually implement the goals of the DAC, breaking up the concepts as much as possible for the release of the ultimate service providing DAC. Then you can, using the capital at hand from "idea currency" set bounties (paid in anything but shares for this particular DAC) for each of these broken down goals, with each being broken down such that they could not be used on their own to operate the DAC and these coders are left in the dark as much as possible as to what the overall project they are working on is so they cannot be held liable for the product they've produced.

If you centralise the development team you also have a group of people dictating where exactly the project is going so what's to say one day they reject a really good idea because they don't like the individual that proposed it?

I could go on and on...

I've read your additions to your white paper. I strongly disagree with the proposals relating to paying all shares to the coders, you even say that it's not centralised so why do you think that you can call your model decentralised?

The fact is a project needs more then just software developers to be successful. Some savvy marketing guys with deep pockets will just sit back, wait for the code to be made then clone it on release and market it using their skills. Even if you have the coding world on your side that this is an injustice (which it wouldn't because you stared with a centralised method) the fact is they probably won't be capable of winning over the general public because coders aren't in that business (especially the kind that get projects done).

Prove me wrong though and don't take that the wrong way because I want to see this idea work.