Author Topic: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)  (Read 60362 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
How does this model affect the issues around open sourcing graphene?

For example are these investor going to say "oh no my code cant be used in muse because i dont have access to the revenues"

Thus they might be completely against GPLing graphnee etc?

Once an investor has paid to develop a blockchain DAPP plug-in, why shouldn't they be able to offer ALL compatible block chains the same deal?  This is the killer DAPP model that encourages free-lance developers (or investor-developer teams) to build out the whole DAC universe feature by feature, DAPP by DAPP.

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline bytemaster

How does this model affect the issues around open sourcing graphene?

For example are these investor going to say "oh no my code cant be used in muse because i dont have access to the revenues"

Thus they might be completely against GPLing graphnee etc?

I think that our tight fisted licensing stance has been holding back BTS by triggering people's gut reaction to flee from anything that even smells proprietary. I apologize for getting weak and attempting to rely upon IP to build a business. We are looking at new business models that allow us to relax the IP restrictions and I think I can convince any potential feature investor that GPL is the minimum standard we should accept into the blockchain and that it must be BSD/MIT for use with BitShares (GPL for all other uses).

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline topcandle

i like the idea

but would suggest some changes

1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.

With this we can finance many more project in the pipline

you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded

with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.

This is a compelling idea.  So do this, but also create a UIA for the investor to sell to the market if they want to go public.  That way we can buy into the project if the investor wants. 

Although the investor can do this on their own by pushing the funds to a multi-sig account, or setting up a holding fund that distributes dividends every so often. 
« Last Edit: November 23, 2015, 06:56:24 pm by topcandle »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

TravelsAsia

  • Guest
i like the idea

but would suggest some changes

1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.

With this we can finance many more project in the pipline

you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded

with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.

This is exactly what we discussed over lunch today. It seems like a great way to crowdfund features. After all the value of a feature is the present value of its projected future revenue to the network. With a few small changes it could even be set up such that a minimum amount of funding must be achieved or the BTS are returned. Very much like an automated kickstarter.

Now THIS has my attention as a high priority item. I like where this is headed.

edit: Would it also be possible for an outside investor to contribute using Bitcoin (for example, the system automatically converts to BTS).  Something like the bond or prediction market would attract others (like Augur) outside out immediate area.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2015, 06:54:53 pm by TravelsAsia »

Offline bytemaster

i like the idea

but would suggest some changes

1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.

With this we can finance many more project in the pipline

you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded

with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.

This is exactly what we discussed over lunch today. It seems like a great way to crowdfund features. After all the value of a feature is the present value of its projected future revenue to the network. With a few small changes it could even be set up such that a minimum amount of funding must be achieved or the BTS are returned. Very much like an automated kickstarter.

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

jaran

  • Guest
How does this model affect the issues around open sourcing graphene?

For example are these investor going to say "oh no my code cant be used in muse because i dont have access to the revenues"

Thus they might be completely against GPLing graphnee etc?

TravelsAsia

  • Guest


So what if CNX crowdfunded for a BTS prediction or bond market? They could potentially raise a lot more than the blockchain would ever be able to pay directly.


Augur raised over 5 Million.  If we allowed crowdfunding and profitsharing-- we can immediately inject 5 Million into Bitshares+ all the value added that comes from putting the two features together (Bitshares + some new feature) .  This is why its important to protect the lifetime revenues.

This is how we push development forward while bringing new people into our system.

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
i like the idea

but would suggest some changes

1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.

With this we can finance many more project in the pipline

you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded

with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.

Offline bytemaster

To extend on my thought on funding...

an instrument can be created and sold by the devs doing the worker proposal. Instead of being 20mil BTS (using 100$/rate), the worker payment is 35mil BTS and vests after 3 years of completion. The devs get their money immediately (selling the instrument), the real investors get their payment after 3 years as all the money from the worker pay go into this instrument [collateralized bond of sorts]

This was one of our original strategies, but has one flaw:  100% of the risk is transferred to BTS holders and it consumes our limited dilution budget. Under this model the investor would be guaranteed 35M bts in 3 years even if the feature never generated 35M of value.  This means that the community has to socialize the risk and estimation of profit. Having private parties invest in features and have unbounded upside means they will also invest in MARKETING the features.

I also think it is important to introduce a precedent for people to independently fund and build features for BTS that don't depend upon CNX to implement them.  CNX should not be a bottleneck.   If someone can build a business around a feature then we should allow them to profit from their business.  The network should charge a small fee to cover operation costs and profit for BTS holders, and the remaining profits should go to the individuals building a business. The alternative is for them to create their own blockchain.

This is a very good model and everyone wins and the supply does not grow.

I have talked with some other people who are interested in building out different features if they can get a revenue share for operations executed under their business model.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Thom

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.

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?

The flaw in this is that it overlooks the cost to the network. Granted, that isn't much compared to the non-stealth transfer volume but it isn't zero.

For this reason I am not in favor of giving this investor 100% of the stealth transfer fees. However, I think the investor is entitled to lifetime royalties, which is some percentage of the transfer fees. This is the payoff for the risk being taken.

IMO the deal is about setting a reasonable % to cover ongoing support overhead of the feature. Perhaps that should be padded to cover unknown costs, not sure about that or how much padding is reasonable. In the end it's about dividing up the transfer fees between the investor and the network. The investor has unknowns in the rate and amount of return on their investment and the network has unknowns in support / overhead costs. It's a matter of balancing those unknowns to the satisfaction of both parties and if that's possible a deal should be established.

Hypothetically, if a lifetime % of all stealth transfers are on the table, why couldn't this be crowdfunded? Lets say for example that overhead / support will require 25% of the transfer fees. That leaves 75% to be split by all of those contributing to the crowdfund. Each contributor would receive whatever cut of that 75% based on how much they contributed. If only 1 investor contributed they would receive 75% of the transfer fees for life and 25% would be held for support costs.

If there were a way to provide equal opportunity to crowd funders, such as no one person could buy more than X% of the $45K, would enough people buy in to make this happen? I seriously doubt it, so the idea that a crowdfunding for this effort limited this way seems highly unlikely. $45K @ $0.003 is 150M BTS, if BTS were even an option to fund this work.

And yes, I forgot to mention, that as important a feature as I believe stealth is, it should not be a higher priority than making our exchange UX competitive. It should NOT divert any CNX personnel away from that effort. The OP sends a message he is willing to shift priorities, and this is exactly the kind of thing that the community is saying SHOULD NOT be done. STAY FOCUSED!
« Last Edit: November 23, 2015, 06:49:22 pm by Thom »
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
A simple way to think about it.

A group of investors owns a shopping mall.  Someone approaches them and offers to build a parking garage on their property.  She offers to pay the mall owners a never-ending share of her garage's profits (after expenses) and give them the benefit of her garage making the mall more attractive for everybody's customers.

It's not about the mall owners paying her "royalties" forever, it's about her paying the mall a share of her revenue forever in exchange for rights to build on the mall's property.

Meanwhile, she has established a wonderful precedent for the mall owners who start looking for more ways to apply this model to generate more revenue and attractive features for the mall.

And yes, other projects could be crowd-funded using the same model, where those who donate are guaranteed a lifetime share of the revenue generator they helped to fund.
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
To extend on my thought on funding...

an instrument can be created and sold by the devs doing the worker proposal. Instead of being 20mil BTS (using 100$/rate), the worker payment is 35mil BTS and vests after 3 years of completion. The devs get their money immediately (selling the instrument), the real investors get their payment after 3 years as all the money from the worker pay go into this instrument [collateralized bond of sorts]


PS
I think I am actually ready to pay for this to be build into the system, instead of using UIA for it. Can we have a quote from the devs? I will not insist to be into top 3 or so priorities if it will take more than 7-14 days.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2015, 06:42:18 pm by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline nomoreheroes7

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • King of all the land
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nomoreheroes7
In my opinion this is free money. We get someone who need this feature so much that he is ready to risk $45k to get it done.

This private party deserve to receive a royalty in the future of this feature, just like the when the shareholder pays for a feature. It's no different in my opinion.

I say take that money and get it done!

Take the money and get it done!

Git 'er done!


Offline GaltReport