New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)

[topcandle]

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.

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?

+5

[topcandle]

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.

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

Why?  Who says it will be made sooner or later.  Your arguing for socializing costs which is anti-volunteerism.  We're forced as the community to pay for this project.....  Your arguing for a system that got us into this financial mess in the first place after 2008. 

Whereas here, someone pays for it and get to profit from their investments.  You dont have to use that feature.  Nobody is forcing you.  But when you do, you just pay the person who took the biggest risk to bring it to market.  He's getting rewarded appropriately.

Additionally, if they're providing cash for this, this would benefit bitshares since BM doesn't have to liquidate in this thin market.  Its entirely a Win-Win.  So we can have lifetime referrals, but not lifetime feature use?

[luckybit]

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.

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?

[lil_jay890]

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.

[brainbug]

Nothing lasts forever.. I also say NO to lifetime fees!

[Bhuz]

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.

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

[luckybit]

We should crowdfund the bond market after this.  Those who bought into the bond market will get a % fee.

You will be surprised at how quickly the bond market fund raiser would max out if it's set like that.

[brainbug]

If there will be a lifetime fee going to the "individual", I would also like to put some money on the table.... and, I guess, I am not the only one. Let's do it via some form of kickstarter initiative then! Crowdfund it! More angeles!

[topcandle]

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.

Everyone wants a free lunch, but nobody wants to pay for it.  Why shouldn't he get lifetime royalties?  Its a privatized feature and they put in the money to get it running. 

Do you not like it because its a maximally good deal for you?  How much do you think in value terms is it worth for them to take this big risk.

[luckybit]

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.

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. It's interesting and perhaps the economics can be given more thought, but I think lifetime royalties are a good idea and would even go as far as 100% fees.

The thing is if you don't want to keep giving them royalties then anyone could just build an alternative implementation at some point in the future, if that became such a big deal. I doubt it will be a big deal though and with crowd funding it's possible they have a bunch of people who pooled $45,000 to get it done.

[luckybit]

In order to get a sense for whether this is a good deal for BTS holders , it would help to express the deal in known terms/concepts. I hope others can help to make the below more accurate:

The suggested deal offers a funding for a 75% royalty until the investment is recovered and a 25% life long royalty once the investment is recovered.

Does anyone know what (more or less) "standard" funding conditions for royalty deals are?

The royalty is basically a third option for compensation of the opportunity costs of capital besides interest (loans) or equity. Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue-based_financing

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.

[Empirical1.2]

After the first 20 Million BTS worth of fees have been paid to this individual, the split would reverse, with $0.10 going to him and $0.40 going to the network.

Are we talking about 20% of that fee going to this person for lifetime?
Or only untill, just saying, he got his initial investment + 20% ?

As fees are set in terms of BTS, we would allow the individual who paid for this feature to set the fee until the first 20M BTS have been paid, then the committee members would take over setting this particular fee.

Are we talking about let this person to actually have the power to set and change the fee, or just the promise by the community/committee (present and future) to comply with the agreement and so keep the fee as previously agreed?

Good questions id like being answered.

It seems a nice idea. Im surprised by the fact someone is willing to risk that amount of money, that only shows bitshares potential and the kind of supporters it has.

I personally doubt BTS has supporters willing to step up with $45k at this stage.  If you cross-referenced forum members who were pro stealth worker, pro high fees and pro making it the next priority, it would probably leave you with a very small pool of potentials.

So it might be BM/CNX are doing this feature next for Graphene anyway and this creates a way for them to profit from it as the initial worker proposal wasn't going to fly.

As I said I'm a big fan of this approach vs. dilution so it's still an improvement to me, regardless.

[luckybit]

I have been approached by a community member who has offered to cover the $45,000 to implement stealth transfers in the GUI *IF* he can get his money back through stealth transfer fees.

Interesting. I suppose if they are willing to pay for the creation, the whole $45,000, then I guess it's worth it to them. I also think it's a very interesting business model that has never been done before but this could actually work.

Stealth transfers cannot participate in the referral program. The fee for a stealth transfer can be higher (premium service) at about $0.50, with $0.10 going to the network and $0.40 going to the individual who funds this improvement to the GUI. 

Considering the novelty of the feature I think the fee could be higher than that. You could probably set it to $1 per transfer. I doubt people would be using it all the time so unless it's used frequently I don't know how it would pay for itself in fees.

Blockchain.info used to have a similar feature, a sort of stealth transfer based on Coinjoin or something like that, and maybe based on how popular that was we could try to figure out how popular stealth transactions could be for Bitshares?

After the first 20 Million BTS worth of fees have been paid to this individual, the split would reverse, with $0.10 going to him and $0.40 going to the network.

Is he going to get paid in BTS or in USD? If it's in USD and the price of BTS crashes, then he could end up with more BTS than we might expect or want. Although I don't think it's a bad model, it's very different.

The bottom line is that rather than diluting to pay for this feature, it will be entirely funded from future revenue generated by the feature itself.  As fees are set in terms of BTS, we would allow the individual who paid for this feature to set the fee until the first 20M BTS have been paid, then the committee members would take over setting this particular fee.

Okay I can go for that. All fees in BTS is cool. If it were in USD then I would think hell no.

Without paying for this work there would be few transfers of this type. So the network doesn't lose much nor take much risk.

I have put this as a $1000 worker proposal because it requires a hard fork to add the fee splitting and it requires stakeholder approval.  $1000 is a token amount to show that the stakeholders standby this decision.

I am still working through the details with the individual who has made the offer, but we cannot do this unilaterally.

If there is demand for it, and someone is willing to pay for it, then do it. What do you lose?
On the other hand I'm more interested in the bond market and prediction markets, and while I do know privacy is essential, it's kind of like having privacy built before we have the playground with which to attract people in the first place.

If he's going to bring people to Bitshares because that feature has been built then it could be interesting.

[santaclause102]

In order to get a sense for whether this is a good deal for BTS holders , it would help to express the deal in known terms/concepts. I hope others can help to make the below more accurate:

The suggested deal offers a funding for a 75% royalty until the investment is recovered and a 25% life long royalty once the investment is recovered.

Does anyone know what (more or less) "standard" funding conditions for royalty deals are?

The royalty is basically a third option for compensation of the opportunity costs of capital besides interest (loans) or equity. Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue-based_financing

[fav]

I don't mind us paying for it, it's just that I don't see a priority in optional stuff until we got a working product.

edit: what's the status on the referral bug?

on the other hand: if it's just 1k go and get it done. I guess you need it anyways for your other customers (banks) and you have to add manpower to it regardless of our demands/priorities.

I'd vote for it.

also, still waiting for an update on the ref bug