Quote from: topcandle on November 23, 2015, 10:47:20 pm

Quote from: merockstar on November 23, 2015, 10:23:06 pm

Mark me down as in favor of this anonymous lender being allowed to recoup their investment plus a generous amount.

Alternatively, and even better in my opinion, create a UIA, crowdsource the funding, then use future stealth fees to buy back the UIA.

Mark me down as 100% firmly opposed to them having lifetime royalties forever. In fact, mark me down as insulted by the proposal,.

This is so misguided in so many ways.  There is absolutely no gaurentee that the investor will recoup his money back.  So you want him to to be exposed to all the downside (losing his initial investment) while you get all the upside.  How fair is that?

project succeeds and blows up. for 45,000 this person bought millions of dollars from bitshares' profits every year forever.

I disagree with this proposal and it sets a bad precedent.  There are much better ways to accomplish stealth transactions that do not require lifetime fees and creating a Frankenstein blockchain via custom requests to Cryptonomex.  I believe most people want stealth transactions, but it's just not a priority for the community so to saddle the ecosystem with some 'lifetime' structure to one connected individual just to get it done sooner would set a bad precedent for the very foundation of how the community works and improves the blockchain.  I think you can put this proposal out for a vote and technically it would still be still using the DPOS voting protocol, but why can't we just wait for stealth transactions to be approved by the simple worker proposal protocol?  We would be introducing a very unusual structure that not only takes weeks to understand and debate, but would distract us from even testing out our existing worker proposal protocol.  Let's learn to crawl before we run.

Quote from: topcandle on November 23, 2015, 04:56:38 pm

This could be a potential new source of funding for Bitshares. 

This is not potential way of funding. This is the only way of funding, the other thing is just inflating the supply. It can be done but the payout must be bigger and the vesting longer - 3 years min.

On this note I like the funding model a lot..... BUT I am with the rest who think that changing the priority of what is important is big no No.

xeroc, fav and those 2 guys

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on November 23, 2015, 05:08:36 pm

Quote from: lil_jay890 on November 23, 2015, 04:22:52 pm

1. Trading fee refunding proposal
2. Tading referral fee
3. Fix the API for bots and trading platforms

This stealth thing seems like it's going to take a lot longer to do than any of the above.  Please do 1-3 first and then focus on something different like this stealth transfer proposal.

I agree. Out of interest does anyone know what is the projected cost and development time of getting 1-3 done?

In my opinion this is free money. We get someone who need this feature so much that he is ready to risk $45k to get it done.

This private party deserve to receive a royalty in the future of this feature, just like the when the shareholder pays for a feature. It's no different in my opinion.

I say take that money and get it done!

Quote from: Bhuz on November 23, 2015, 04:17:31 pm

Quote from: luckybit on November 23, 2015, 04:05:45 pm

Quote from: Riverhead on November 23, 2015, 03:48:25 pm

What if they took 80% of the fees until they'd recouped, for example, $60k worth of BTS - currently about 18 - 20 million shares. That's a 33% ROI - more if the price of BTS goes up during the payback phase.

Feature funding for profit makes sense. Lifetime royalties not so much.

I say give them 100% of the fees indefinitely. If they funded it then they deserve 100% of the fees indefinitely unless they decide they don't want the fees and in that case burn the fees.

Is there any rational reason why they shouldn't get 100% of the fees indefinitely if they privately funded the feature? By giving them that we could encourage new efforts to privately fund features, like the bond market or prediction markets.

Quote from: Riverhead on November 23, 2015, 02:51:07 pm

A bold move by this individual and a very long term bet. What would happen if before they recovered their $45k in fees a new worker proposal is submitted and approved to build a better stealth transfer mechanism?

The 25% royalty on the stealth transfer fees for life leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps it's the precedent it would set for future proposals.

I think it should be 100% on the stealth transfer fees for life. What is the argument for keeping it at 25% If they paid for it they own it entirely don't they?

If all of us did it through a worker proposal we would get lifetime royalties, so if they do it privately I don't see why they can't get lifetime royalties. I don't see why it's at 25% other than that is what they agreed to.

What is gained by not having lifetime royalties vs what you gain by having it? For a feature like this, it might require lifetime royalties to get it funded immediately.

And the blockchain will never earn anything from them... Lifetime royalties is a no for me.
The point is that this feature will be made, sooner or later, with or without this private investment.
Making it now, with this person, the community/blockchain will earn nothing from it (speaking of fees and so revenue for future worker proposals)

Edit: refering to a 100% lifetime  royalties

A private feature doesn't even require your money to be built yet you want to say no to it because it's not funding "the blockchain" which didn't fund the feature? I don't get your argument.

You don't mind the feature, and you don't want to pay for the feature, but you don't want someone else to profit from it?

What if they took 80% of the fees until they'd recouped, for example, $60k worth of BTS - currently about 18 - 20 million shares. That's a 33% ROI - more if the price of BTS goes up during the payback phase.

Feature funding for profit makes sense. Lifetime royalties not so much.