It really doesn't matter whether the risks and rewards are high or low or whether @onceuponatime is generous or just being an entrepreneur, etc.  What matters is that many of us feel that we've already invested in this and other 2.0 features that it turns out have yet to be developed.  Fine, reasonable people can understand the funding challenges we've faced.  And if we're still here, we've mostly wrapped our minds around the fact that further investment is necessary.  But why should those of us willing to invest further now be cut out if it? 

I think some in the community will not stand for it. Sure, there's a strong possibility that it could get rammed down our throats anyway.  But the potential consequences of that should be considered very carefully.  The last thing we should want right now is for a chunk of the community to vote with their feet.  So let's not screw this up royally.  We've stumbled upon a very smart and powerful, new model that will allow for the immediate funding of features that not everyone is willing and/or ready to pay for.  So let's get it done without cutting out the people who ARE ready and willing to pay for it now.

Having said that, I think this proposal really only has one problem.  And that's the "private, unknown investor" who "might create an FBA and offer shares for sale on the DEX as a way for the Community to participate in that fee stream".  I'm sure most here can read between the lines, but I doubt anyone is comfortable with the idea of signing away 80% of stealth transfer fees forever based on "might" or "they have indicated that this is what they intend".  So let's build into the proposal some caps to make it VERY unattractive for the "private, unknown investor" NOT to sell shares to members of the community who are interested in investing.  That way everyone can feel comfortable moving forward with this ASAP.

Quote from: luckybit on December 08, 2015, 10:08:06 pm

Quote from: Stan on December 08, 2015, 09:47:11 pm

Quote from: merivercap on December 08, 2015, 09:01:17 pm

Thanks for the proposal.  I like the name Privacy Mode.

I think the main concern I have is that the community was most likely going to vote this feature in within 6 months to 1yr anyways.  The $45,000 cost for the network was most likely not the biggest issue, it was just the feature's priority.  There are probably a handful of people that really want to implement this feature now and don't want to wait, but it does not mean that they should have access to 60% lifetime royalties when it was planned to be implemented anyways. 

If we have royalties capped at $67,500-$90,000 so investors get up to twice their investment that seems more appropriate.  The community could have an option to buy out the feature via worker proposal in 1yr or 2yrs at those amounts.  Also what about competing Privacy Modes?  If this is not exclusive, then the royalties would be less of an issue and at least the platform would be open to competition, innovation and lower cost privacy solutions.

My expectation was always that this would be a core feature, and so the cost to the Bitshares ecosystem is the opportunity cost of the revenue stream this feature would have generated.   

Note: I'm less concerned about other non-core features that people want to introduce and 'privatize'.  Stealth transactions was expected to be implemented at 2.0 or soon after. 

Note2: I don't think those that introduce the feature will be exposed to regulatory risk.  There may be more scrutiny if a private individual or company is making money out of it.  I was just thinking about that issue now with Privatized bitAssets.

Another way to look at it is:

1.  We should reserve worker funds for that which can't be funded some other way.  To turn down outside investment is penny wise and bitshare foolish.

2.  BitShares needs to grow its capabilities as quickly as possible.  Waiting for next year when we might be able to afford to build it ourselves is not a wise strategy.  Its first and foremost about network effect.  Grow the pie, don't fight over each slice.

Applying these two principles will do more for the wealth of BitShares holders than trying to take more upside away from entrepreneurs.  Entrepreneurs are scarce and hard to attract.  We want a thousand new features to bloom. Fee Backed Assets could become THE killer reason to use BitShares, but only if there are lots of them.

Imagine an "App Store" where you can invest and trade shares in the Apps.

@Stan

In response to this, it's also a risk that those who make wealth might not be able to keep it. It's about creating wealth that people can actually keep. The main risk is that people associated with this particular feature make wealth, then lose it all in court, or lose it in taxes. So I would  say the risk of backing this feature is also the risk that somehow in the future whatever wealth you do get could be confiscated.

It's best left as a private asset than a worker proposal in my opinion because not everyone wants to gamble their life savings on this feature. The people who do are the people who are willing to buy the STEALTH asset. In that way the rewards would go directly to the people who take the risks.

I agree that most new features should be financed by entrepreneurs, not paid as BitShares workers.

Not sure how owning a FBA would have risk of confiscation beyond that of more ancient coins like a denarius or a bitcoin.

Quote from: merivercap on December 08, 2015, 09:01:17 pm

Thanks for the proposal.  I like the name Privacy Mode.

I think the main concern I have is that the community was most likely going to vote this feature in within 6 months to 1yr anyways.  The $45,000 cost for the network was most likely not the biggest issue, it was just the feature's priority.  There are probably a handful of people that really want to implement this feature now and don't want to wait, but it does not mean that they should have access to 60% lifetime royalties when it was planned to be implemented anyways. 

If we have royalties capped at $67,500-$90,000 so investors get up to twice their investment that seems more appropriate.  The community could have an option to buy out the feature via worker proposal in 1yr or 2yrs at those amounts.  Also what about competing Privacy Modes?  If this is not exclusive, then the royalties would be less of an issue and at least the platform would be open to competition, innovation and lower cost privacy solutions.

My expectation was always that this would be a core feature, and so the cost to the Bitshares ecosystem is the opportunity cost of the revenue stream this feature would have generated.   

Note: I'm less concerned about other non-core features that people want to introduce and 'privatize'.  Stealth transactions was expected to be implemented at 2.0 or soon after. 

Note2: I don't think those that introduce the feature will be exposed to regulatory risk.  There may be more scrutiny if a private individual or company is making money out of it.  I was just thinking about that issue now with Privatized bitAssets.

Another way to look at it is:

1.  We should reserve worker funds for that which can't be funded some other way.  To turn down outside investment is penny wise and bitshare foolish.

2.  BitShares needs to grow its capabilities as quickly as possible.  Waiting for next year when we might be able to afford to build it ourselves is not a wise strategy.  Its first and foremost about network effect.  Grow the pie, don't fight over each slice.

Applying these two principles will do more for the wealth of BitShares holders than trying to take more upside away from entrepreneurs.  Entrepreneurs are scarce and hard to attract.  We want a thousand new features to bloom. Fee Backed Assets could become THE killer reason to use BitShares, but only if there are lots of them.

Imagine an "App Store" where you can invest and trade shares in the Apps.

Note: I'm less concerned about other non-core features that people want to introduce and 'privatize'.  Stealth transactions was expected to be implemented at 2.0 or soon after. 

Note2: I don't think those that introduce the feature will be exposed to regulatory risk.  There may be more scrutiny if a private individual or company is making money out of it.  I was just thinking about that issue now with Privatized bitAssets.

The issue I see with this is that later on in the game, market makers won't be incentivised enough to provide liquidity.  You may think that at this point the asset will have reached "critical mass" and won't need liquidity, but I doubt that will be the case.  Stocks, bonds, and forex all have market makers still and their volume is more than BTS may ever be able to dream about.

I like the idea of incentivising people to bootstrap liquidity for assets at the beginning, but there needs to be a provision for market makers in the future.  I would suggest making vesting a part of the equation.  If someone promises to keep providing liquidity by reinvesting their profits, they should be provided with more maker shares.  Someone promising to provide guaranteed liquidity for 5 years is much more valuable than someone who will provide liquidity for 3 months.  These shares could be cashed out early, but only with a penalty and distributing the penalized maker shares back into the reserve.

In response to @cob request here, I have decided to crowdsource the efforts of our community.  MUSE sharedropped heavily on the BitShares community and so I would like to activate that very same community to come to his (and BTS) aid in helping ensure we get onto exchanges.  Exchanges will be far more likely to add our token if we show them a very high level of demand for such an act. 

I, therefore, made a bounty quest post along with an email template so users on the forum can quite literally copy/paste, add their own names and send (this should take no more than 30 seconds of your time as opposed to taking 10 minutes to write it up and send individually). 

At this time, I would like to ask ANY individual or project team to consider donating in their own token to the pool from which payouts can occur.  I have already put up BROWNIE.PTS, but would also love to give out your token!  This will not only serve as a promotion for your own project/uia...but will give those who actively help improve our value proposition an incentive to work for all of our community's unique and individual value propositions. 

If you would like to donate to this, please post below in this thread with precisely what and how much.  Please send them using the ShareBot (fund it at Sharebits.io!) directly to me via a response within this thread, however, so it is easy to keep organized and to see without me having to go to various places to compile it all into a final tally. 

I will be giving tokens out for every exchange contacted---but it will require a screenshot as proof.  If you wish to be added to the list of active participants, please contribute the above in the following thread:  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20446.msg263791.html#msg263791