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.
What would be a reasonable amount of money you would recommend capping the profit at? 4x the amount?
Here is my take on it:
1. The revenue split must be high during the "pay back period" and low during the "profit period".
2. $45,000 only buys so much UI work. Eventually others will want to fund additional improvements (QR integration, etc). The network can only reallocate its own cut of the revenue stream and therefore should make sure it has something left to allocate for future generations.
3. Each feature is like a MINI-DAC within a DAC. If there is a UIA issued for the feature, owners of that UIA should be able to vote to issue new shares and fund improvements to their feature. This would be the ideal long-term solution for many different "rounds" of funds being used to enhance the same feature.
4. The Risk/Reward profile means that capping the reward will make some projects not worth the risk. In other words, it has significant impact on the potential funding.
If you think that there is a 1:4 chance that bitshares reaches 200 stealth transactions per day and maintains its current valuation for the next 3 years then a 4x return is "even odds" and doesn't even make the speculator any money. In other words, rolling the dice over and over again will result in them breaking even. A game that isn't even worth playing. Expecting BTS to appreciate is not compensation for someone who could just buy BTS and hold who has the added benefit of liquidity. Only the possibility of unlimited upside potential even if it is only 1% of all relevant fees is interesting to most investors at this stage in the game. Later, if BitShares were as successful as Bitcoin then the odds of winning are greater and thus it becomes possible to limit the upside and still attract investors.
One last point, raising money for new features via the issuance of a UIA must be done very carefully to avoid creating a security. By encoding the payback methods into the blockchain and holding the funds hostage until the feature is delivered the value of the UIA can be arranged to never depend upon the actions of another and thus not a security. Spending the funds prior to delivering the feature can create a security.
A prediction market asset can be used to "pre-fund" the feature. Anyone who wants to participate in the fundraiser can lock funds in collateral for the UIA and then transfer the UIA lent into circulation with the caveat that once borrowed you cannot cover your position until after the cut-off date (refund date). If the desired level of funding is reached then you can never close your position except by selling the asset on the market. The funds held as collateral get transferred to the company that produced the feature and the UIA get bought back over time from fees. Anyway, there are a few small rule changes to the asset management code and a new operation or two and we can have a system in place whereby committee members can jointly act as escrow agents on the crowd fund (releasing the funds to the proper person only upon completion of the work).
Topic: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000) (Read 76805 times)
