Author Topic: Fee Backed Assets (FBA)  (Read 14421 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline complexring

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
this seems like a natural outflow of the discussion that's been going on with regards to how to fund various features, in particular, the thread about implementing stealth transactions and a private investor willing to take the risk.

one of the ideas proposed, or at least how i understood it, was creating a worker proposal that states that a UIA and the funds the sales of this UIA would be used to pay the developer for a particular feature.  see :  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20207.0.html .

what stan proposes is essentially the a sophisticated version of this idea, marketed with a pretty bow (not to say that we shouldn't consider marketing when presenting ideas), but presented as his own. 

essentially, features that we want developed can be funded by fee backed assets, and over time provide income by charging shareholders who use such features. those who invest and own said fba's profit.

great.  i approve (minus certain parts, which i hope are clear).

the reference to the origins of this idea (or at least when i first encountered it) actually included in this post.

Offline ebit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1905
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: ebit
telegram:ebit521
https://weibo.com/ebiter

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I hope you guys are finally coming around to what I've been probing you guys on.  Of course I think inevitability this Fee Backed Asset will have to be used.  Augur is one of the first to do this in the Bitcoin 2.0 iterations.  Can Bitshares follow the same act succesfully?

Flashback:

This is very long, but I think a very good discussion question to see how BM, Stan, and Dev Core are approaching the referral system.  I think it has great potential.  But I see the referral system having more longwithstanding success if smart contract developers can earn referral fees for the contracts they make.  My concern is in the long-run, initial referrers don't provide innovative developments as much as developers do.  Referrers can just squat on the capital effort that brought them all the users in the first place and still earn fees without providing any new value-add as compared to a developer.  They in some ways get the public to squat as many accounts as they can for them.  At least that's one way this would work. 

Last week BM spoke about specialized contracts being made for BTS.  This will allow curation and through testing and takes a "soft update" each time.  And afterwards, Cryptosile brought up a good idea that I've been pondering myself.  In one of the posts he asks:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17801.0.html
"I'm curious if we could provide these two things:
1.  Allow a specific smart contract to pay 10% of fees to the creator of said smart contract.
  - This would incentivize a lot of developers to submit smart contracts and compete for inclusion into the blockchain."

To me this would spur use of smart contracts, experimentation and new products for the general public.  Sure it would be in the interest of the first referrers to create new types of contracts.  But I see this as further incentivizing development on the Bitshares blockchain and bring tools and smartcoin programs that mesh in the bitshares network.  A pie in the sky hypothetical example: someone wants to build a decentralized Uber on Bitshares can do so and profit.   But in short, incentives and rewards are further brought together.

Not to mention it would allow the little guy to profit for bringing something new to do table.  He will be able to build a  better business model to compete with the veterans and not be squatted out like the current method has it. 

Is this something that is currently being discussed or considered?  Do you think this is feasible or even possible for Bitshares under the current structure of the referral system?

Market based innovation, if people can profit from successful features in the form of fees then it definitely helps Bitshares become more adaptable over time. More importantly it promotes innovation.

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Bitcoinfan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 240
    • View Profile
I hope you guys are finally coming around to what I've been probing you guys on.  Of course I think inevitability this Fee Backed Asset will have to be used.  Augur is one of the first to do this in the Bitcoin 2.0 iterations.  Can Bitshares follow the same act succesfully?

Flashback:

This is very long, but I think a very good discussion question to see how BM, Stan, and Dev Core are approaching the referral system.  I think it has great potential.  But I see the referral system having more longwithstanding success if smart contract developers can earn referral fees for the contracts they make.  My concern is in the long-run, initial referrers don't provide innovative developments as much as developers do.  Referrers can just squat on the capital effort that brought them all the users in the first place and still earn fees without providing any new value-add as compared to a developer.  They in some ways get the public to squat as many accounts as they can for them.  At least that's one way this would work. 

Last week BM spoke about specialized contracts being made for BTS.  This will allow curation and through testing and takes a "soft update" each time.  And afterwards, Cryptosile brought up a good idea that I've been pondering myself.  In one of the posts he asks:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17801.0.html
"I'm curious if we could provide these two things:
1.  Allow a specific smart contract to pay 10% of fees to the creator of said smart contract.
  - This would incentivize a lot of developers to submit smart contracts and compete for inclusion into the blockchain."

To me this would spur use of smart contracts, experimentation and new products for the general public.  Sure it would be in the interest of the first referrers to create new types of contracts.  But I see this as further incentivizing development on the Bitshares blockchain and bring tools and smartcoin programs that mesh in the bitshares network.  A pie in the sky hypothetical example: someone wants to build a decentralized Uber on Bitshares can do so and profit.   But in short, incentives and rewards are further brought together.

Not to mention it would allow the little guy to profit for bringing something new to do table.  He will be able to build a  better business model to compete with the veterans and not be squatted out like the current method has it. 

Is this something that is currently being discussed or considered?  Do you think this is feasible or even possible for Bitshares under the current structure of the referral system?

Offline rgcrypto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
    • View Profile
    • Cryptoctopus Blog
We're all familiar with counterparty free
Market Pegged Assets (MPA)
and
issuer backed
User Issued Assets (UIA).

Theoretically, there could be a third type: 
Fee Backed Assets (FBA).

A developer installs a new function that charges fees for its service and pays those fees to holders of a UIA she creates for that purpose.

She naturally starts out as the owner of those revenue producing assets.

She is free to sell them since each one is a revenue generating counterparty free asset backed solely by the blockchain.

Since they have no counterparty, they are not a security.  They are simply capital equipment, like selling a mining machine.

This new kind of digital asset trades like any of the others but has fascinating new properties.

There could be a new asset for every new revenue generating feature in the whole ecosystem.  Developers recoup their costs by selling (or pre-selling) these revenue generating software devices (or keeping them to earn the revenue they produce.)

Thoughts?
I think this could be attract devs like bees to honey.

I believe the feature should remain open source.

Offline lzr1900

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
    • View Profile
where is your big thing?epic?secret sauce?amazing summer?

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
We're all familiar with counterparty free
Market Pegged Assets (MPA)
and
issuer backed
User Issued Assets (UIA).

Theoretically, there could be a third type: 
Fee Backed Assets (FBA).

A developer installs a new function that charges fees for its service and pays those fees to holders of a UIA she creates for that purpose.

She naturally starts out as the owner of those revenue producing assets.

She is free to sell them since each one is a revenue generating counterparty free asset backed solely by the blockchain.

Since they have no counterparty, they are not a security.  They are simply capital equipment, like selling a mining machine.

This new kind of digital asset trades like any of the others but has fascinating new properties.

There could be a new asset for every new revenue generating feature in the whole ecosystem.  Developers recoup their costs by selling (or pre-selling) these revenue generating software devices (or keeping them to earn the revenue they produce.)

Thoughts?



« Last Edit: November 27, 2015, 01:59:16 am by Stan »
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.