New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)

[luckybit]

Sounds great! As I said in the earlier stealth transfer worker topic, people who appreciate privacy are great early adopters for Bitshares. I didn't expect anything like this, but this is a nice example of a person who is willing to put his own skin in the game. Yeah, we really need these kind of people as our early adopters.

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.

Haven't thought this over yet, but this might be a good counterproposal. Lifetime royalties do not sound very good idea.

It's really interesting. It's a privatized feature. That is a first because I don't recall seeing that happen before or if it has it's very rare. Maybe once or twice Bitcoin has done something like this but it's unusual for a private investor to fund a new feature, but if we can standardize the process, maybe we can use this process over and over again and let people suggest new features, crowd fund them privately, and then pay up front to have it implemented while pocketing the fees to reward investors in the private crowd fund.

Absolutely, this is great idea!

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.

Bitshares is offering a platform for this feature so of course it should benefit from it too. Transactions use resources of the blockchain and it has to be compensated.

Bitshares benefits because we'd get a new UI for a feature. If we really want we can use the Cli so we don't actually need this. This is why I would say let them have 100% of the profit until someone decides to make a community version. Honestly I think private features is not a bad thing for stuff like this.

I don' t care who gets the transaction fees to stealth transfers. I don't think it's going to be a lot of money but even if it is, it's also a lot of risk to take. Whoever is willing to take that risk at this time in my opinion deserves 100% of the profit because in my opinion profit should reflect the risk.

Other low risk features might not need such a high reward but this is not a low risk feature. The investors don't know if this feature will be used. The investors don't know if they'll get their ROI. The investors don't know if there will be a crackdown on the feature itself by the EU, or how the feature will be used.

It's a controversial feature, it's a risky time to implement it, but because of that it should be the maximum reward for the person or group willing to stick their neck out there. This is why I would say give 100% of the fees to them.

In the future with the bond market or prediction markets we could use a UIA and formally crowdfund the feature if the worker proposal process fails. This allows us to get what we want without having to deal with the gatekeepers if the gatekeepers are either too afraid, or if the feature is controversial, or if there just isn't enough money to do it any other way.

[luckybit]

First, I said no to LIFETIME royalties, not to a revenue for him.
I would highly prefer give him a 1000% ROI than a lifetime one.

Second, this feature will be made eventually.
The community now seems to doesn't want to pay for it, just because there are other proposals that are more important/requested.
This doesn't mean that the community will never vote for a worker proposal for stealth transfers.
Plus, this seems very important for CNX, so they would want to implement it in graphene anyway.

That's what I'm saying.  Even though the Community wants to pay for it, they can't.  They can't afford it at these liquidity rates.  imagine if we dry up our liquidity for stealth addresses, how much left would we have (before the price drops even further) for other projects?  Not much I'd say.

What if we crowdfunded the bond / pm market to the community?  Would you say that those who invested wouldn't get lifetime fees?  Then nobody would want to crowdfund.

This could be a potential new source of funding for Bitshares.  It could accelerate our development if we allowed for this.

How do we know the private investor didn't crowd fund to get the $45,000? Maybe they asked their friends to pool money together to come up with that? We don't even know.

We should treat it as if it was crowd funded. In a private crowd fund, for a private feature, since the feature isn't being paid for by the blockchain or by the community as a whole, the community has no right to profit from this implementation. If the community eventually has the money, the community can simply use a worker proposal to put a community funded and even better version of the same feature and that is when the community has a right to transaction fees.

As far as I'm concerned the community has a right to 0% transaction fees because it's not being paid for by the blockchain. I think the precedent is a good one. Not every feature will be funded by the blockchain, and not every feature has to be. If private entities fund private features they should get private profits, until  a worker proposal decides to pay $45,000 to implement the feature.

As far as I'm concerned, competing implementations is not a bad thing. It can result in multiple implementations of a feature, so that you have multiple bond markets, multiple prediction markets, with significantly different features. Some would be private, some would be blockchain funded, some would be done because some developer just does it.

What if we crowdfunded the bond / pm market to the community?  Would you say that those who invested wouldn't get lifetime fees?  Then nobody would want to crowdfund.

This could be a potential new source of funding for Bitshares.  It could accelerate our development if we allowed for this. 

So a 1000% ROI would not be enough to join the crowfund?! Where esle you can find such a deal?

This could also bring to big whales funding features and taking all the revenues for lifetime, leaving the blockchain with nothing and without the possibility to have community worker proposals.

There should be unlimited ROI. When people invest in anything else there isn't a cap on the ROI so why for this?

What if ROI was capped at $5 Million.  Would the investor be dissuaded?   ...  $5 Mil is far short of lifetime, IF Bts is a big success...

I can't believe "capitalists" are here talking about ROI caps. I do not support ROI caps for something like Bitshares. That is straight communism.

This would be fine if Bitshares were marketed as communism but it's called Bitshares, and shareholders don't want to hear that there ROI is capped. Do you want a cap on your ROI as a holder of BTS? I didn't think so.

So if someone privately funds and pays for a new feature even if it's not entirely paid for by them, they should get 100% of the fees of the part they paid for. Which means if you use the GUI they paid for, you pay them, and if you want to avoid paying them then you use a worker proposal to build a community version of the GUI.

Stealth transfers already exist and have been paid for by community funding so that isn't the issue. The issue is the interface. Nothing stops the community from creating a UIA at some point in the future to create a new interface feature if people see millions of dollars flowing to an anonymous person.

But at this point in time it's so risky that most people don't even want to put up a UIA. So why don't you offer a counter proposal where there is a bidding contest between a UIA and the anonymous person? If you can raise $45,000 then the more decentralized version wins?

[void]

As a shareholder, the thought of a lifetime uncapped percentage cut from core protocol is about the worst proposal I think I've heard on this forum ever 
It's limiting the potential value of the BTS market cap.
A decentralised system full of toll roads.
This is bad PR in the same way as copywrited code is.
Like if BTC had a recurring fee to the original inventor!
This is exactly the type of thing the Reserve fund is for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If we want people to privatise features only reasonable way surely would be with a scripting language?  otherwise you've got a lock in that can't be changed.
I would definitely not vote for this 
I think it's a bad business model, and value long term for BTS.
(But I would vote for funding the feature in the usual way.)

[liondani]

I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy.  I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites.  By being equal opportunity we should auction it off.  Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest.  This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.

Just some ideas.

 

[tonyk]

I would say that this whole discussion has shown us how the market would like to proceed with new feature requests in general.  We just need to work out a flexible long-term solution. 

What we have learned is this:

1. Shareholders are much happier letting someone else profit from our future revenue stream than increasing sell pressure today.
2. Dilution is so hated, that users would rather give up the value of future revenue than keep that value and dilute.

Technically speaking, BTS is paying far more than $45,000 by adopting this proposal. It is paying the net-present-value of the future revenue stream generated by this feature. Onceuponatime has realized that $45,000 is a steal for that revenue stream if BTS is successful. 

So the question remains, how much does the value of BTS rise/fall by selling off this revenue stream for $45,000?  On the one hand it should increase due to removal of dilution and short-term sell pressure.  On the other hand it should fall due to the decrease in expected future revenues, on the other hand those future revenues would never have existed without the $45K investment.

So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains.  If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price. 

My bet is that onceuponatime is right.

I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy.  I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites.  By being equal opportunity we should auction it off.  Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest.  This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.

Just some ideas.

I think the crowd-funding approach solves this perceived issue nicely!

If you think the feature is great income producer you change part of your BTS into the UIA (or mixed asset as you suggested) getting that fee stream.
If you think it is an OK feature to have but the income that BTS gets is enough in your mind - you just keep your BTS and let the stronger believers fund the proposal.

Market at one of its finest moments.

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

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.

So what? It sounds like an extreme case of envy to me.

It's more about it being an extremely bad business decision for the bitshares platform.   There's no need to give away the house when there are better options.  Stealth transactions are a core feature and will inevitably be added.  Most people in the worker proposal thread was in favor of stealth transactions, just not immediately.   You can raise $45,000 through 'crowdfunding' or a 'loan' with a return of $15,000 over one year period using a UIA.   By that time I'm sure the community would vote to reimburse the $60,000 for the feature.

 

[TravelsAsia]

I remember someone mentioning this solution wasn't as secure as Monero rings.  Is this something that would be implemented and as someone mentioned above, if we change up the stealth implementation down the road, how would it effect the payout?

[38PTSWarrior]

Let's do it. Give Onceuponatime all the reward. Just make clear plans and stick to it because he will not understand easily if you fail or do things differently than the plan was (own experience. I failed but I also made it good again by giving everything on the street). Just do it quick and let's not talk forever. I am sure the forum is also populated by people who want to slow down BitShares, shills or how you call that in English and they give everything to distract and split.

I like that you think anonymity is important and that you do this Onceuponatime. Respect maximum. The people need this more than anything else and it's the best sales argument.

[merivercap]

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.

So what? It sounds like an extreme case of envy to me.

It's more about it being an extremely bad business decision for the bitshares platform.   There's no need to give away the house when there are better options.  Stealth transactions are a core feature and will inevitably be added.  Most people in the worker proposal thread was in favor of stealth transactions, just not immediately.   You can raise $45,000 through 'crowdfunding' or a 'loan' with a return of $15,000 over one year period using a UIA.   By that time I'm sure the community would vote to reimburse the $60,000 for the feature.

[Thom]

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.

So what? It sounds like an extreme case of envy to me.

I would say that this whole discussion has shown us how the market would like to proceed with new feature requests in general.  We just need to work out a flexible long-term solution. 

What we have learned is this:

1. Shareholders are much happier letting someone else profit from our future revenue stream than increasing sell pressure today.
2. Dilution is so hated, that users would rather give up the value of future revenue than keep that value and dilute.

Technically speaking, BTS is paying far more than $45,000 by adopting this proposal. It is paying the net-present-value of the future revenue stream generated by this feature. Onceuponatime has realized that $45,000 is a steal for that revenue stream if BTS is successful. 

So the question remains, how much does the value of BTS rise/fall by selling off this revenue stream for $45,000?  On the one hand it should increase due to removal of dilution and short-term sell pressure.  On the other hand it should fall due to the decrease in expected future revenues, on the other hand those future revenues would never have existed without the $45K investment.

So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains.  If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price. 

My bet is that onceuponatime is right.

I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy.  I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites.  By being equal opportunity we should auction it off.  Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest.  This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.

Just some ideas.

This sounds great. All I can say is WOW! to oneuponatime, and thank you of course.  Major kudos dude!

With this crowdfunding approach will other participants receive a portion of the fees collected for life as well? How does that work exactly?

[onceuponatime]

I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.

What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?

If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...


PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.

CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker.   In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them.  Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?

I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .

I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.

Any reason you prefer stealth transfer over bond or prediction market? Is it because you think it is more important or you feel that the developers are intent on doing this first?

Will you be open to a crowd funding where you dont have to put up the whole $45,000?

Only curious, dont attribute anything to my questions.

I am all in favor of bond and prediction markets. My thinking was that if I pay for the stealth transfer myself, then the other funds can be used for those. With a $45,000 up front cash infusion CNX would have the stability and wherewithall to expand and produce more and more quickly.

Crowdfunding would be great, but I am a technically challenged person and am still grappling with the 2.0 release which I have only just recently gotten set up. I suppose that I could try to hire Cryptonomex to take care of that for me (Stan?).

I approached Stan and Dan with the thought that I fund the whole Stealth Worker proposal for $45,000to to get CNX working on it and get the ball rolling. This was for several reasons, among them that Dan stated that he thought that it could be a valuable boost to our ecosystem, and also that I personally am uncomfortable with current levels of privacy.

Stan and I tossed the idea back and forth a couple of times with Stan actually seeing the opportunities for entrpreneurs much faster and more thoroughly than me. He came up with the analogy of building a parking garage attached to someone else's mall.  And then Bytemaster put it out here in the forum for public discussion.

I would gladly be responsible for less than the full $45,000 if others want to join in.
For me to put up $45,000 in an effort to get BitShares out of the doldrums and kickstarted is a huge risk. IT REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE SAVINGS. The risks are huge. But I believe in what we are attempting to do with BitShares, and I am trying to do everything in my power and within my limited skill set to make BitShares a success as a way to safeguard life liberty and property in face of the enormous economic disruptions that are headed our way as the legacy financial system reaps what it has sown.

[NotSmart]

I would say that this whole discussion has shown us how the market would like to proceed with new feature requests in general.  We just need to work out a flexible long-term solution. 

What we have learned is this:

1. Shareholders are much happier letting someone else profit from our future revenue stream than increasing sell pressure today.
2. Dilution is so hated, that users would rather give up the value of future revenue than keep that value and dilute.

Technically speaking, BTS is paying far more than $45,000 by adopting this proposal. It is paying the net-present-value of the future revenue stream generated by this feature. Onceuponatime has realized that $45,000 is a steal for that revenue stream if BTS is successful. 

So the question remains, how much does the value of BTS rise/fall by selling off this revenue stream for $45,000?  On the one hand it should increase due to removal of dilution and short-term sell pressure.  On the other hand it should fall due to the decrease in expected future revenues, on the other hand those future revenues would never have existed without the $45K investment.

So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains.  If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price. 

My bet is that onceuponatime is right.

I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy.  I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites.  By being equal opportunity we should auction it off.  Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest.  This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.

Just some ideas.

Why are you so keen on stealth transfers and not bond or prediction markets?

Shareholders were not averse to diluting to fund it, they were unhappy to do it now when there are more pressing concerns. Those concerns remain even if one individual or crowd fund pays for it, the net result is your team wont be working on features they think are more important.

[bytemaster]

I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.

What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?

If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...


PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.

CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker.   In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them.  Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?

I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .

I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.

Guess it's a matter of knowing how much you want to get per transaction as lifetime royalties and make a worker proposal to see if it will get approved.

Only thing I dont know, as it was mentioned, is what if it comes someone else and does the same and improves stealth transactions? what percentage will they get? I don't know how this would be managed knowing BTS already has a commitment with onceuponatime (if this goes forward)

And I'm very impressed by the fact you're going in with your life savings... really. If this happens, I really hope you get rich. It's not every day someone places the money where their mouth is this way, I admire you for that.

I would say that this whole discussion has shown us how the market would like to proceed with new feature requests in general.  We just need to work out a flexible long-term solution. 

What we have learned is this:

1. Shareholders are much happier letting someone else profit from our future revenue stream than increasing sell pressure today.
2. Dilution is so hated, that users would rather give up the value of future revenue than keep that value and dilute.

Technically speaking, BTS is paying far more than $45,000 by adopting this proposal. It is paying the net-present-value of the future revenue stream generated by this feature. Onceuponatime has realized that $45,000 is a steal for that revenue stream if BTS is successful. 

So the question remains, how much does the value of BTS rise/fall by selling off this revenue stream for $45,000?  On the one hand it should increase due to removal of dilution and short-term sell pressure.  On the other hand it should fall due to the decrease in expected future revenues, on the other hand those future revenues would never have existed without the $45K investment.

So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains.  If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price. 

My bet is that onceuponatime is right.

I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy.  I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites.  By being equal opportunity we should auction it off.  Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest.  This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.

Just some ideas.



 

[GaltReport]

I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.

What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?

If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...


PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.

CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker.   In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them.  Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?

I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .

I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.

Wow, what an offer from a community member!  Support & Respect!!

[donkeypong]

I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .

I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.

Thanks to you for this generous offer. As you can see, it is unleashing a discussion of how BitShares can open itself to these kinds of 'cash advances' to fund needed work in a way that will both pay back your investment and vastly improve the BitShares ecosystem. If anyone wants to crowdfund ('community-fund?') any other features with a strong certainty of being reimbursed down the road, I certainly would be willing to participate.