I am finally home with a working internet connection and am just getting caught up on everything that has gone on. First of all I would like to thank Super3 for fronting some money for this Bounty while I was traveling without access to my BTC. I would like to thank Amazon for breaking up the resulting fight.
This is a very difficult situation because there was misunderstanding on both sides and apparently there was not a meeting of the minds. I want to be fair to everyone and the mission of what we are doing is more important than any one of us because how this plays out affects not just Jan, but also everyone who holds PTS and cares about BitShares. So here is my perspective and how I am going to handle it.
I believe firmly that absent a clear meeting of the minds that people should still receive value for value. In this case we have Jan stating that the 'value' of his work is:
"- usual price for sceendesign with logo is about 1000$-1500$
At the time he said this BTC was around $200 so 5 BTC is what I would have paid out based upon this:
Note: This bounty is only for the look & feel of the website, not for the CSS / application of the style. The logo is a part of this deliverable and should be its own image.
Bounty to be paid in BTC using BitStamp price at time of payment.
So we have established a meeting of the mind on the value of the work as being about $1000. The 'dispute' is about who gets to keep the gains from BTC's price appreciation, but there is a reason we quoted the bounty in dollars and that is because Invictus does our budget based upon dollars and not BTC. We use BTC as a payment vehicle but not as a pricing system. As a result neither Jan nor Invictus realized the $4000 gain that would have resulted. The cost of this misunderstanding would equal an entire developer-month of C++ work on BitShares and Keyhotee and my conclusion is that such a cost to the development of BitShares and Keyhotee just to grant Jan a something-for-nothing gain is not in the best interest of the PTS community.
Jan's submission was only half complete (No logo that we accepted) and the half that was produced was half-copied from another submitter. The truth is that we opted to combine elements from both submissions in a unique design that should actually belong entirely to Super3 based upon Jan's logic that his copied design should be considered an original.
I also firmly believe that had there been a general understanding that the bounty was worth $5000 that many other designers would have produced superior entries. If Jan really wants to hold us to the 5 BTC technicality then it would only be fair to give others an opportunity compete based upon that new understanding as well. In such a case I doubt Jan would win. My conclusion is that everyone but Jan was operating under the impression that this bounty was less than $1000 in value and several others have stated that $500 was more than fair.
Super3 was delegated authority to judge this competition and select the best. As he is a 3rd party who's interest in the outcome is the same as any holder of PTS I am going to stand by his judgment. I even kicked in extra funds so that both submissions got more than 50% at Super3's request because he felt it would be more fair.
If you are not happy with the decision of Super3, then we can return your design elements like you returned Super3's money. In the future I would tend to be more sympathetic toward your position if you had granted me the same sympathy and understanding instead of airing your accusations and demands in public while you knew I was traveling.
Super3's decision stands.
Topic: $500 Bounty - Invictus Innovations Logo & Website Theme (Read 36987 times)
