There are lots of different business models that will get the job done.
Pick one that doesn't violate any of the tests that governments routinely use to determine if something is a security.
I'm intrigued by the applicability of the Uber model for a privately operated taxi.
Build 100 robotic software taxi cabs that deliver private packages for hire.
Program them via blockchain logic to take turns delivering packages.
Sell the cabs to the network in exchange for a set of tickets good for rental minutes on a cab.
Resell/trade those tickets on the open market.
This way, anyone can rent time on any of the limited supply of "cabs" and earn fees for performing delivery services.
So the STEALTH FPA could represent all available minutes on a network-owned fleet of robotic taxi cabs.
Buy up as many minutes of their time as you want and you have your own revenue generating business with no counter parties.
Meanwhile, the GUI for doing STEALTH transfers doesn't need to reflect any details at all about how the transfers are taking place metaphorically under the hood, whether by robotic cab or C++ function call. They just specify the amount and destination and pay the fee and their funds are automagically teleported somewhere else.
Poof!
Yes.. thats what I am talking about!
For housekeeping on the FBA it would just be something he committee can vote to make changes as needed.
I think perhaps initially though in the creation of an FBA.. having it available the same way other assets can be created might not be ideal..
I think an FBA Proposal needs to be submitted first.. make clear the parameters of what it is how it works etc.. then once that is all clear submit it to the committee to create it. If the committee members .. they can then vote to have it enabled.
At that point the market comes online and people can buy at the rate that was set to fund the feature, and the monies collected to complete the work go into the developers bts account specified in the proposal.
Once the initial supply is sold off the developers BTS account is no longer recipient.. and only holders of the FBA actually receive payments from the transactions.
If future development or improvements need to be made a 'maintenance' proposal can be submitted that would then have more shares made of the FBA to fund it.. people will be able to buy up those shares to fund it and gain more shares of the profit.. or not participate in its development and become diluted. All fair.
All licensing associated with this format is optional according to the dev/creators specifications.
This to me would provide all the checks and balances in the process and keep it decentralized and without liability to holders.
Hope I have explained this clearly enough.
Anyone see some other way that might simplify this without compromising checks and balances or introducing liabilities?