We have 7 core developers that need at least $25,000 per month (combined) just to pay for Food, Shelter, and Clothing and earning 1/4 what they could make on the free market. These 7 core developers form a company that produces a wallet and profits from referral income. This company would have a funded project with a roadmap for BTS and would receive 250,000 BTS per day that their project is in the top list of projects for 4 years.
I'm not sure I totally understands where the money to pay the 7 core developers will come from without being able to sell anything from their pay for 5 years? The referral program might be able to help funding it, but will it be enough? Will there be VC investment to cover for what's missing?
I think that is the point. This real world company can accumulate bts, and effectively sell shares in it to an angel/vc. I am just not sure a VC will be excited about investing in a company that could get voted out at a moments notice.
Here is what I love about this idea:
1. I would much rather hire Bytemaster Co or similar to hire and manage a core dev team than try to vote on a core dev team one at a time.
2. Vesting is great for eliminating dilution sell pressure.
3. I think one team with leadership will be far more efficient long term that many competing delegates
My reservations about the plan:
1. Will VC's find sufficient value to put up good money for a maybe vote. Although the VC's could commit to a payment schedule and only pay in each month that the project is voted in. On the good side... It is not my problem. It is bytemaster Co and his competitors job to solve this problem. But it is my problem in that I dont want him and others to be set up to fail.
2. Although it eliminates sell pressure, it could be argued that it absorbs buying pressure too. But I dont think this is particularly valid as that kind of buying pressure (angel/VC) would not be a normal stake holder buyer so it just introduces a new kind of buyer in a cool way.
I am not a VC.. but I would imagine this would be a VERY innovative way for them to have a metric read on the progress and viability of a project. I think what you suggested would likely be the case.. get voted out for whatever reason and the the VC money hits pause.. it's up to the company then to turn things around.
Either way it helps to get the company to share in the risk and attract only true entrepreneurs and viable projects with an end for success. Unlike so many that see only getting funding from a VC to be the success.. which has become the culture in most parts for the past 10 years.
A 5 year term however in 'internet years' is an awfully LONG time. That I think might be the friction point for most VCs to have as guarantee that takes so long and to weather potentially so many changes of the Internet to eventually access should the project had prove a failure. I think a 2-3 year term might be more viable.
Most projects are brought to market at least even in beta within a half year window from what I have seen. If it was somehow received lack luster.. badly executed.. whatever.. and the tap turns off.. the VC is left holding the bag for another 4+ years to get back some of his losses.. certainly not a bad thing for BTS!... however a product that makes things more difficult will be received with limited success and could be a lame duck offer in the end. ie. we got this mechanism, but nobody wants to use it because nobody can sell it. To be a VC could live with something on the books failing for a few more years, but dragging it through their portfolio for half a decade in Internet years seems like a hard sell.
From a practical perspective I am wondering if this is something that gets built into the wallet? Does this mean we have a new tab beside delegates called 'Company', or 'Workers', or 'Projects'?
It's interesting the example given is a mirror of Moonstone. I admit I find myself thinking in terms of the said example of funding programmers only. I am having trouble applying this to other types of projects. but perhaps as it takes form it will become more clear.
As for using assets as well.. while I understand the convenience factor to this, I can also see why Dan would suggest BTS only... locking funds in BTS will do more good for the ecosystem as a whole vs. one asset or another perhaps. Each project can convert to whatever asset/fiat of their choosing depending on their preference on their own end. If it's a BTS project though, it should be in BTS. Don't work at GM and drive a Ford so to speak.
That's all that comes to mind in terms of what is being proposed.
As for other suggestions like arhags.. his seems more elegant to me from a community perspective.
Topic: Paid Workers Proposal for Review (Read 71748 times)
