The General Theory of Privately Funded Blockchain Features

[shiggidy]

Wow... 

[rgcrypto]

Could you flesh out a little how you think that would be done?

Because it requires new code, in particular this first instance of it.   It would just be a stipulation in a worker proposal to issue the asset.  Its a new kind of asset; I don't know what to call it; or its an [enhanced]UIA.   BM seemed to imply he's got an idea about this already.

I suppose there could be dynamic parameters and control given to the committee or perhaps something new with Vote functionality.  It might have its own committee of share holders.  IDK.  Or it might have no adjustable parts just be set and forget.   

This one might have a programmatic buy back at some rate.  Or maintains a bid and issues dividends.   
This would be easy to dial-in to a particular profit level, or an eternal royalty if you used dividends.

The pool of collected fees would just be added to the bid.

What else does it really need to do?

Wow...that is awesome.

If it's BitShares that issue the token it could give us enough gray zone to prevent falling pray to regulatory bodies.
Worker proposals could have as an "option" the issuance of a token people can buy, sell and trade? As well as automatically perform tasks such as buyback and distribution of dividends?

Seems to me like the definition of a smart contract.

Again...wow.

[onceuponatime]

Could you flesh out a little how you think that would be done?

Because it requires new code, in particular this first instance of it.   It would just be a stipulation in a worker proposal to issue the asset.  Its a new kind of asset; I don't know what to call it; or its an [enhanced]UIA.   BM seemed to imply he's got an idea about this already.

I suppose there could be dynamic parameters and control given to the committee or perhaps something new with Vote functionality.  It might have its own committee of share holders.  IDK.  Or it might have no adjustable parts just be set and forget.   

This one might have a programmatic buy back at some rate.  Or maintains a bid and issues dividends.   
This would be easy to dial-in to a particular profit level, or an eternal royalty if you used dividends.

The pool of collected fees would just be added to the bid.

What else does it really need to do?
 

Thanks @Xeldal

Will add this idea to our discussions tomorrow.

[Xeldal]

Could you flesh out a little how you think that would be done?

Because it requires new code, in particular this first instance of it.   It would just be a stipulation in a worker proposal to issue the asset.  Its a new kind of asset; I don't know what to call it; or its an [enhanced]UIA.   BM seemed to imply he's got an idea about this already.

I suppose there could be dynamic parameters and control given to the committee or perhaps something new with Vote functionality.  It might have its own committee of share holders.  IDK.  Or it might have no adjustable parts just be set and forget.   

This one might have a programmatic buy back at some rate.  Or maintains a bid and issues dividends.   
This would be easy to dial-in to a particular profit level, or an eternal royalty if you used dividends.

The pool of collected fees would just be added to the bid.

What else does it really need to do?


 

[onceuponatime]

The mall analogy while useful, only doesn't hold up because we are not bound by physical space, so the lifetime lease issue is a moot point.  It's really a matter of how useful a feature will remain for what length of time, and when will it be replaced or amended and how do we as a community decide to handle these cases, who is making these agreements, and what is the process for negotiating?  I personally think that a general, boiler plate agreement would be best in most cases, since it would provide something which is generally lacking around here, which is a standard operating procedure for how things get done.  Case by case is costly.  I say let investors make a case to make an exception to the boiler-plate agreement and otherwise don't mess with it.  We already have so many moving parts as it is.

The analog to physical space in a mall is transaction bandwidth on the blockchain.  Any new business on the chain needs to pay for the resources it consumes, plus a profit for the BitShares platform which is itself trying to be a profitable business.

I think the market will eventually home in on a few standard operating procedures but we are all still exploring this space so I'm not sure we yet know what to standardize on.

The answer will probably be, "Whatever works" 

That said, regulatory complexities will eventually drive us to implement certain built-in templates that help everyone stay out of trouble.

Regulatory Concerns  http://www.cuttingedgecapital.com/what-is-a-security-and-why-does-it-matter/

Regarding the STEALTH initiative:

if I (or a group of partners) contribute all the capital for developing the feature, and bear all of the risk of the feature being unprofitable, and then take for myself/ourselves the feature's share of the  income stream - then there would be no regulatory risk. (This I am willing to do - but it seems that the community for, whatever reasons, is hesitant to vote in such a proposal).

Conversely, if I make available the opportunity for the community to participate through a UIA, which then makes the proposal much more likely to get voted in, I/we will come under considerable regulatory risk.

It seems that the regulatory risk incurred under the second scenario must be compensated sufficiently to pay for me to up and move to a friendly jurisdiction 

I don't see the need to have you or anyone else to issue the asset.    The network could issue the asset, perhaps through a worker proposal. This Network Issued Asset (NIA) could be purchased by anyone or automatically returned if a threshold is not met, etc.  Noone needs to stand behind it and take the legal heat.   Does this make sense?

Could you flesh out a little how you think that would be done?

[Stan]

The mall analogy while useful, only doesn't hold up because we are not bound by physical space, so the lifetime lease issue is a moot point.  It's really a matter of how useful a feature will remain for what length of time, and when will it be replaced or amended and how do we as a community decide to handle these cases, who is making these agreements, and what is the process for negotiating?  I personally think that a general, boiler plate agreement would be best in most cases, since it would provide something which is generally lacking around here, which is a standard operating procedure for how things get done.  Case by case is costly.  I say let investors make a case to make an exception to the boiler-plate agreement and otherwise don't mess with it.  We already have so many moving parts as it is.

The analog to physical space in a mall is transaction bandwidth on the blockchain.  Any new business on the chain needs to pay for the resources it consumes, plus a profit for the BitShares platform which is itself trying to be a profitable business.

I think the market will eventually home in on a few standard operating procedures but we are all still exploring this space so I'm not sure we yet know what to standardize on.

The answer will probably be, "Whatever works" 

That said, regulatory complexities will eventually drive us to implement certain built-in templates that help everyone stay out of trouble.

Regulatory Concerns  http://www.cuttingedgecapital.com/what-is-a-security-and-why-does-it-matter/

Regarding the STEALTH initiative:

if I (or a group of partners) contribute all the capital for developing the feature, and bear all of the risk of the feature being unprofitable, and then take for myself/ourselves the feature's share of the  income stream - then there would be no regulatory risk. (This I am willing to do - but it seems that the community for, whatever reasons, is hesitant to vote in such a proposal).

Conversely, if I make available the opportunity for the community to participate through a UIA, which then makes the proposal much more likely to get voted in, I/we will come under considerable regulatory risk.

It seems that the regulatory risk incurred under the second scenario must be compensated sufficiently to pay for me to up and move to a friendly jurisdiction 

I don't see the need to have you or anyone else to issue the asset.    The network could issue the asset, perhaps through a worker proposal. This Network Issued Asset (NIA) could be purchased by anyone or automatically returned if a threshold is not met, etc.  Noone needs to stand behind it and take the legal heat.   Does this make sense?

Yes.  That's what I meant by:

"That said, regulatory complexities will eventually drive us to implement certain built-in templates that help everyone stay out of trouble."

Exercise for the student:

Define the requirements for such a template.

[Xeldal]

The mall analogy while useful, only doesn't hold up because we are not bound by physical space, so the lifetime lease issue is a moot point.  It's really a matter of how useful a feature will remain for what length of time, and when will it be replaced or amended and how do we as a community decide to handle these cases, who is making these agreements, and what is the process for negotiating?  I personally think that a general, boiler plate agreement would be best in most cases, since it would provide something which is generally lacking around here, which is a standard operating procedure for how things get done.  Case by case is costly.  I say let investors make a case to make an exception to the boiler-plate agreement and otherwise don't mess with it.  We already have so many moving parts as it is.

The analog to physical space in a mall is transaction bandwidth on the blockchain.  Any new business on the chain needs to pay for the resources it consumes, plus a profit for the BitShares platform which is itself trying to be a profitable business.

I think the market will eventually home in on a few standard operating procedures but we are all still exploring this space so I'm not sure we yet know what to standardize on.

The answer will probably be, "Whatever works" 

That said, regulatory complexities will eventually drive us to implement certain built-in templates that help everyone stay out of trouble.

Regulatory Concerns  http://www.cuttingedgecapital.com/what-is-a-security-and-why-does-it-matter/

Regarding the STEALTH initiative:

if I (or a group of partners) contribute all the capital for developing the feature, and bear all of the risk of the feature being unprofitable, and then take for myself/ourselves the feature's share of the  income stream - then there would be no regulatory risk. (This I am willing to do - but it seems that the community for, whatever reasons, is hesitant to vote in such a proposal).

Conversely, if I make available the opportunity for the community to participate through a UIA, which then makes the proposal much more likely to get voted in, I/we will come under considerable regulatory risk.

It seems that the regulatory risk incurred under the second scenario must be compensated sufficiently to pay for me to up and move to a friendly jurisdiction 

I don't see the need to have you or anyone else to issue the asset.    The network could issue the asset, perhaps through a worker proposal. This Network Issued Asset (NIA) could be purchased by anyone or automatically returned if a threshold is not met, etc.  Noone needs to stand behind it and take the legal heat.   Does this make sense?

[onceuponatime]

The mall analogy while useful, only doesn't hold up because we are not bound by physical space, so the lifetime lease issue is a moot point.  It's really a matter of how useful a feature will remain for what length of time, and when will it be replaced or amended and how do we as a community decide to handle these cases, who is making these agreements, and what is the process for negotiating?  I personally think that a general, boiler plate agreement would be best in most cases, since it would provide something which is generally lacking around here, which is a standard operating procedure for how things get done.  Case by case is costly.  I say let investors make a case to make an exception to the boiler-plate agreement and otherwise don't mess with it.  We already have so many moving parts as it is.

The analog to physical space in a mall is transaction bandwidth on the blockchain.  Any new business on the chain needs to pay for the resources it consumes, plus a profit for the BitShares platform which is itself trying to be a profitable business.

I think the market will eventually home in on a few standard operating procedures but we are all still exploring this space so I'm not sure we yet know what to standardize on.

The answer will probably be, "Whatever works" 

That said, regulatory complexities will eventually drive us to implement certain built-in templates that help everyone stay out of trouble.

Regulatory Concerns  http://www.cuttingedgecapital.com/what-is-a-security-and-why-does-it-matter/

Regarding the STEALTH initiative:

if I (or a group of partners) contribute all the capital for developing the feature, and bear all of the risk of the feature being unprofitable, and then take for myself/ourselves the feature's share of the  income stream - then there would be no regulatory risk. (This I am willing to do - but it seems that the community for, whatever reasons, is hesitant to vote in such a proposal).

Conversely, if I make available the opportunity for the community to participate through a UIA, which then makes the proposal much more likely to get voted in, I/we will come under considerable regulatory risk.

It seems that the regulatory risk incurred under the second scenario must be compensated sufficiently to pay for me to up and move to a friendly jurisdiction 

[Stan]

The mall analogy while useful, only doesn't hold up because we are not bound by physical space, so the lifetime lease issue is a moot point.  It's really a matter of how useful a feature will remain for what length of time, and when will it be replaced or amended and how do we as a community decide to handle these cases, who is making these agreements, and what is the process for negotiating?  I personally think that a general, boiler plate agreement would be best in most cases, since it would provide something which is generally lacking around here, which is a standard operating procedure for how things get done.  Case by case is costly.  I say let investors make a case to make an exception to the boiler-plate agreement and otherwise don't mess with it.  We already have so many moving parts as it is.

The analog to physical space in a mall is transaction bandwidth on the blockchain.  Any new business on the chain needs to pay for the resources it consumes, plus a profit for the BitShares platform which is itself trying to be a profitable business.

I think the market will eventually home in on a few standard operating procedures but we are all still exploring this space so I'm not sure we yet know what to standardize on.

The answer will probably be, "Whatever works" 

That said, regulatory complexities will eventually drive us to implement certain built-in templates that help everyone stay out of trouble. 

[lovejoy]

Stan: Neither Hippy, nor Redneck... discuss. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhliLCJKZGA

Back on topic.  I think this is one killer development!  Thanks @onceuponatime for bringing this to the fore, talk about putting your money where your mouth is!  UIA's profit sharing in feature development will fuel the the next wave of development.  And thanks @Samupaha for starting this thread!

The mall analogy while useful, only doesn't hold up because we are not bound by physical space, so the lifetime lease issue is a moot point.  It's really a matter of how useful a feature will remain for what length of time, and when will it be replaced or amended and how do we as a community decide to handle these cases, who is making these agreements, and what is the process for negotiating?  I personally think that a general, boiler plate agreement would be best in most cases, since it would provide something which is generally lacking around here, which is a standard operating procedure for how things get done.  Case by case is costly.  I say let investors make a case to make an exception to the boiler-plate agreement and otherwise don't mess with it.  We already have so many moving parts as it is.

[rgcrypto]

I'm in favor of not having any one standardized way to fund new features.

By standardizing I mean that we have to formalize the process how share-UIAs are created and used.

So far one of the biggest problems for Bitshares has been that many wonderful features lack both technical documentation and newbie-friendly explanations how things actually work.

I do not want that we will repeat the mistake once again. So what we have to do?

We have to design the share-UIA so that it can be used in many ways. There is no need to limit it to be only "20 % forever" or similar. Let it have broad variation of parameters that are set when it is created.

There should be only one share-UIA – I suppose it is the best way, because then we don't need to be hardforking and designing new kinds of UIAs all the time and the blockchain will stay simple. That one UIA just has to be versatile enough.

We have to document with sufficient detail every parameter, so that everybody knows that they are there and what they can be used for.

We have to also explain what this funding model is good for and what it is not. People need to have enough information about the system so they can evaluate their business plans themselves without flooding our forum with stupid questions.

We are going to the uncharted lands. If we want others to follow us, we need to draw some maps for them. So far not enough people have been following us, thanks to lacking documentation. They just don't know where the hell we are going and what there is. That's why I created this thread. I want us to discuss this new system so thoroughly that we can explain it to others and they will become as enthusiastic as we are. They have to see the possibilities we see. They have to be able to fully use every possibility that our system presents for them.

very good....whatever the configuration, we do need well understood, supported, documented and easily repeatable processes

If we go on a case by case basis, in my opinion,  that information will be available on the sales page for the UIA.

If the community don't like it, they can start a worker proposal to cut the grass under the feet of the private investor or start their own crowd funding with better terms.

[Ben Mason]

I'm in favor of not having any one standardized way to fund new features.

By standardizing I mean that we have to formalize the process how share-UIAs are created and used.

So far one of the biggest problems for Bitshares has been that many wonderful features lack both technical documentation and newbie-friendly explanations how things actually work.

I do not want that we will repeat the mistake once again. So what we have to do?

We have to design the share-UIA so that it can be used in many ways. There is no need to limit it to be only "20 % forever" or similar. Let it have broad variation of parameters that are set when it is created.

There should be only one share-UIA – I suppose it is the best way, because then we don't need to be hardforking and designing new kinds of UIAs all the time and the blockchain will stay simple. That one UIA just has to be versatile enough.

We have to document with sufficient detail every parameter, so that everybody knows that they are there and what they can be used for.

We have to also explain what this funding model is good for and what it is not. People need to have enough information about the system so they can evaluate their business plans themselves without flooding our forum with stupid questions.

We are going to the uncharted lands. If we want others to follow us, we need to draw some maps for them. So far not enough people have been following us, thanks to lacking documentation. They just don't know where the hell we are going and what there is. That's why I created this thread. I want us to discuss this new system so thoroughly that we can explain it to others and they will become as enthusiastic as we are. They have to see the possibilities we see. They have to be able to fully use every possibility that our system presents for them.

very good....whatever the configuration, we do need well understood, supported, documented and easily repeatable processes

[Samupaha]

I'm in favor of not having any one standardized way to fund new features.

By standardizing I mean that we have to formalize the process how share-UIAs are created and used.

So far one of the biggest problems for Bitshares has been that many wonderful features lack both technical documentation and newbie-friendly explanations how things actually work.

I do not want that we will repeat the mistake once again. So what we have to do?

We have to design the share-UIA so that it can be used in many ways. There is no need to limit it to be only "20 % forever" or similar. Let it have broad variation of parameters that are set when it is created.

There should be only one share-UIA – I suppose it is the best way, because then we don't need to be hardforking and designing new kinds of UIAs all the time and the blockchain will stay simple. That one UIA just has to be versatile enough.

We have to document with sufficient detail every parameter, so that everybody knows that they are there and what they can be used for.

We have to also explain what this funding model is good for and what it is not. People need to have enough information about the system so they can evaluate their business plans themselves without flooding our forum with stupid questions.

We are going to the uncharted lands. If we want others to follow us, we need to draw some maps for them. So far not enough people have been following us, thanks to lacking documentation. They just don't know where the hell we are going and what there is. That's why I created this thread. I want us to discuss this new system so thoroughly that we can explain it to others and they will become as enthusiastic as we are. They have to see the possibilities we see. They have to be able to fully use every possibility that our system presents for them.

[complexring]

Redneck friends.
Hippies don't wear overalls.

Not true.

[Ben Mason]

I think 20% for the life of the feature (after initial capital recovered) is a good deal for everyone.....it may provide an incentive to investors/businesses to develop the highest quality / most robust / most profitable features, to develop those features in order to maintain revenue stream.

Market competition for quality is good, i agree with Stan that a flat 20% gives everyone interested a well understood calculation and prevents community paralysis and unpleasant haggling.

Crowdfunded or individual, external business or existing community member.....all funding proposals should be considered.   UIA option a great addition.....

This is wonderfully exciting!