Plan for introducing Privacy (STEALTH) Mode feature asap

[Stan]

It really doesn't matter whether the risks and rewards are high or low or whether @onceuponatime is generous or just being an entrepreneur, etc.  What matters is that many of us feel that we've already invested in this and other 2.0 features that it turns out have yet to be developed.  Fine, reasonable people can understand the funding challenges we've faced.  And if we're still here, we've mostly wrapped our minds around the fact that further investment is necessary.  But why should those of us willing to invest further now be cut out if it? 

I think some in the community will not stand for it. Sure, there's a strong possibility that it could get rammed down our throats anyway.  But the potential consequences of that should be considered very carefully.  The last thing we should want right now is for a chunk of the community to vote with their feet.  So let's not screw this up royally.  We've stumbled upon a very smart and powerful, new model that will allow for the immediate funding of features that not everyone is willing and/or ready to pay for.  So let's get it done without cutting out the people who ARE ready and willing to pay for it now.

Having said that, I think this proposal really only has one problem.  And that's the "private, unknown investor" who "might create an FBA and offer shares for sale on the DEX as a way for the Community to participate in that fee stream".  I'm sure most here can read between the lines, but I doubt anyone is comfortable with the idea of signing away 80% of stealth transfer fees forever based on "might" or "they have indicated that this is what they intend".  So let's build into the proposal some caps to make it VERY unattractive for the "private, unknown investor" NOT to sell shares to members of the community who are interested in investing.  That way everyone can feel comfortable moving forward with this ASAP.

But in the general case, we want to attract investors who have a business model that is simply "pay to add a new feature and reap the profits from that feature" like any other businessman starts any other business.  Nice and clean.

With that as the base case, then all other kinds of deals can build on that.  The entrepreneur certainly has a right to sell the business he built to others, or not.  And such a buyer has the right to subdivide the asset if she feels it is legally safe for her to do so, or not.

If there is a market demand for shares in such revenue streams, the owner of the asset will be incentivized to meet that demand.  But we shouldn't try to force it by writing, eewww, "govenment rules" to make sure they do so.

BitShares is a free enterprise zone.  It was founded by people who don't really like all kinds of extra rules and regulations.  Let's not spend a lot of time on this thread thinking up how many fiendishly confiscatory and restrictive community regulations we can put on this new class of entrepreneurs.

[Stan]

...There is no need to portrait him as someone who is generous. He wants so much kickback, it has nothing to do with generosity. You do what you want, I don't like the taste!

To be fair, OnceUp originally proposed to do this for very little return - extremely generous. 

My original comment was that he deserved more than that to offset his risks.  I told him to think of a business model like building a parking garage at a mall and the investor should have to pay a percentage of earnings to the mall for the rights to use the mall's infrastructure.

My goal was to set a precedent for something that would motivate all kinds of entrepreneurs to come out of the woodwork.  (Few would do such things as generously as OnceUp's original offer.  We are always about designing incentives to bring about desired behavior.  There are LOTs of new features to develop, so this precedent needs to be highly motivating for others.)

OnceUp's advisory group eventually converged on recommending the same standard we have always used from sharedrops to referrals.  20% to the network and the rest is up to the entrepreneur.

OnceUp then simply adopted that consensus and agreed to be the precedent setting example for the rest of us.

[mf-tzo]

The proposal and the initiative from onceuponatime  is 

My only proposal would be to adjust the fees in stealth transfers. We should have very low fees when visible transfers 10-30 bts irrespective of amounts as currently but when someone wants to make stealth transfers fees should be % and competitive to external exchanges. It doesn't make sense to make stealth transfer of 1 mil bts and pay a fee of 30 bts but it makes sense to have a fee of 0.1% i.e. 1000bts..

[tbone]

It really doesn't matter whether the risks and rewards are high or low or whether @onceuponatime is generous or just being an entrepreneur, etc.  What matters is that many of us feel that we've already invested in this and other 2.0 features that it turns out have yet to be developed.  Fine, reasonable people can understand the funding challenges we've faced.  And if we're still here, we've mostly wrapped our minds around the fact that further investment is necessary.  But why should those of us willing to invest further now be cut out if it? 

I think some in the community will not stand for it. Sure, there's a strong possibility that it could get rammed down our throats anyway.  But the potential consequences of that should be considered very carefully.  The last thing we should want right now is for a chunk of the community to vote with their feet.  So let's not screw this up royally.  We've stumbled upon a very smart and powerful, new model that will allow for the immediate funding of features that not everyone is willing and/or ready to pay for.  So let's get it done without cutting out the people who ARE ready and willing to pay for it now.

Having said that, I think this proposal really only has one problem.  And that's the "private, unknown investor" who "might create an FBA and offer shares for sale on the DEX as a way for the Community to participate in that fee stream".  I'm sure most here can read between the lines, but I doubt anyone is comfortable with the idea of signing away 80% of stealth transfer fees forever based on "might" or "they have indicated that this is what they intend".  So let's build into the proposal some caps to make it VERY unattractive for the "private, unknown investor" NOT to sell shares to members of the community who are interested in investing.  That way everyone can feel comfortable moving forward with this ASAP. 

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

If you read my OP again, I think that you will see that I want to sell the income stream to an unknown private investor(s) once the fee stream has proven to exist and be growing. I am free to sell that without any consequences that I can think of, and will pay any tax due. The Private Investor intends then to issue an FBA and offer it for purchase to the Community. All this is possible once the Privacy Mode exists, but not before.

this puts an interesting new spin on things.i will gnaw on that

[topcandle]

Me too, but he is not gambling, the risk is low. The 'potential' profits are coming anyway, otherwise this grumpy and greedy man would not send a dollar.

Risk is high. It's hardly certain to make a profit.

[lil_jay890]

Me too, but he is not gambling, the risk is low. The 'potential' profits are coming anyway, otherwise this grumpy and greedy man would not send a dollar.

Lol! You think the risk is low?!? He's investing in a feature of a microcap crypto currency that has lost 90% of its market cap.  The risk is insanely high. Even if bts succeeds this feature may not.  If he wanted low risk he would buy tbills or a CD.

It really just sounds like your jealous that he has 50k to invest in something...

[38PTSWarrior]

Me too, but he is not gambling, the risk is low. The 'potential' profits are coming anyway, otherwise this grumpy and greedy man would not send a dollar.

[TravelsAsia]

There is no need to portrait him as someone who is generous.

I don't want generous, I want entrepreneurs willing to take a gamble on potential future profits. I support Onceuponatime's proposal.

[38PTSWarrior]

I think bytemasters proposal would have been voted immediately. Most of the people are here because of stealth. Onceuponatime only reacted to the proposal and that is not very proactive. I also don't like how he treated me. Complains about 40 Euro and has 45000 dollar, while I fold and distribute 200 flyers 12 hours on the street and he sends me a 5 dollar tip.

There is no need to portrait him as someone who is generous. He wants so much kickback, it has nothing to do with generosity. You do what you want, I don't like the taste!

[vegolino]

I think this is great.
 You have my vote onceuponatime 
Thank you 

[onceuponatime]

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20104.msg264270.html#msg264270

  bytemaster
 Re: Stealth Transfers Worker Proposal
« Reply #157 on: December 07, 2015, 09:25:16 PM »

    Quote

I have put together some mock up interface ideas for adding confidential transfers to the user interface. This is a draft for community review.

https://files.zenhub.io/5665f8501bd9a6596812de50

[onceuponatime]

@onceuponatime I've always respected you and this proposal shows why.  I wish I had time to chime in on the conversation but, please re-think the multi sig threshold and increase it to something like 2 of 10 or 3 of 20.  When I was skimming through the proposal this was the one thing that I don't feel good about.
Otherwise, I'll vote on this knowing you've thoroughly thought this through and feel comfortable pushing this forward and putting your money on the line.

Can you tell me why it would be advantageous to do that? Since I plan on compensating my advisers (co-signatories) on the Maintenance Fund for their efforts and advice, increasing the number makes it both unwieldy to have meetings and expensive to run. What are the advantages?

My thinking was kind of what you've already mentioned, death, sickness, lost wallets or M.I.A persons.  I certainly agree with you when you say it'll be easier to maintain with fewer involved but, in the long term, I think having a few more names to call in the phone book as back ups will be beneficial should the need arise.

You're on my list should the need arise!   

I'll be honored to help if called[emoji3]
Correct me if I'm wrong, am I getting this multi sig thing confused?
So if you designate 2 of 5 to complete the release of accumulated funds, are those 5 fixed, or are they variable?  I figure if 5 are assigned at creation that they could never change or be reassigned later on???
I'm on my phone...So hope this question makes sense.

They would have to be variable. And I am suggesting 3 of 5. I will be one of the five They are to be paid a percentage of the income stream for their services.

When I sell the income stream to a private investor(s), it is my sugggestion that when they issue an FBA and sell it to Community members, then the top 5 asset holders on each anniversary date would have signing authority for the following year.

Make sense?

[emailtooaj]

@onceuponatime I've always respected you and this proposal shows why.  I wish I had time to chime in on the conversation but, please re-think the multi sig threshold and increase it to something like 2 of 10 or 3 of 20.  When I was skimming through the proposal this was the one thing that I don't feel good about.
Otherwise, I'll vote on this knowing you've thoroughly thought this through and feel comfortable pushing this forward and putting your money on the line.

Can you tell me why it would be advantageous to do that? Since I plan on compensating my advisers (co-signatories) on the Maintenance Fund for their efforts and advice, increasing the number makes it both unwieldy to have meetings and expensive to run. What are the advantages?

My thinking was kind of what you've already mentioned, death, sickness, lost wallets or M.I.A persons.  I certainly agree with you when you say it'll be easier to maintain with fewer involved but, in the long term, I think having a few more names to call in the phone book as back ups will be beneficial should the need arise.

You're on my list should the need arise!   

I'll be honored to help if called[emoji3]
Correct me if I'm wrong, am I getting this multi sig thing confused?
So if you designate 2 of 5 to complete the release of accumulated funds, are those 5 fixed, or are they variable?  I figure if 5 are assigned at creation that they could never change or be reassigned later on???
I'm on my phone...So hope this question makes sense.

[cube]

Thanks to onceuponatime for sponsoring the development of the 'privacy mode' feature, drafting up the steps to fulfill the implementation while staying clear of regulatory trouble, and opening up a thread now to gather feedback from the community. 

I can see some valid concerns voiced eg cap & community buy-back option, dev schedule prority, custodians of the Maintenance account, and they are being addressed by onceuponatime.  Nice work!