Millions of Features, Features for Me!

[Samupaha]

4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.

[santaclause102]

BitShares stakeholders will now have price information that indicates how the market values each potential feature.  This price information can in turn be used to inform them on which features they should vote for.   A highly valued feature means that the market believes that feature will generate significant ROI and therefore be profitable for BitShares holders. 

To get this straight...

If you want accurate prices for all those features / FBAs wouldn't all FBA markets offered to investors have to have the same percantage of tx fees that goes to the FBA vs BTS holders as well as the same percentage that goes to CNX vs to the FBA investors?
I guess that there is no need to change the CNX vs FBA-Investor allocation accross different FBAs. But BTS holders probably still want to see FBAs/features that require just a tiny bit of coding work to have less tx fees allocated to the FBA (vs BTS) than with an FBA takes a lot of time to code. 
CNX' (or whatever other company is doing the work) incentive to not set the FBA vs BTS price too high and set it lower for FBAs that don't require that much work is to get BTS-stakeholder approval  for the worker.
Conclusion: The prediction / price discovery should work fine as long as the BTS holders vs FBA holders (CNX and FBA investors) relation is roughly according to how much funding the proposal asks for from FBA investors compared to other FBAs/features. If that is not the case BTS holder may feel overcharged and may want to replace the FBA that was experienced to be overly expensive with another one that is less expensive.
Resulting questions: How much funding should result in what BTS:FBA relation?
Another question is: What if a better feature which targets the same market (e.g. the bond market) is proposed as a normal worker proposal or a FBA sometimes in the future? Will the initial FBA investors just loose their investment when the other tx type is used more? That would make sense to me and would be analoque to the FBA as a small company analogy. But shouldnt it be recognized that the existence of any FBA completely depends on a social (soft) consesnus between FBA holders and BTS holders: In fact, BTS holders could at any time just vote for a worker proposal that changes nothing but allocates all tx fees from a respective feature to BTS holders that in part have gone to the FBA holders that funded the respective feature. If it is such a  soft social consensus than it must be as explicite as possible to work (so that the different camps can't bend arguments easily). Then again the resulting question is: How much change to the code of a FBA qualifies for it to be a new feature with a different allocation?

[Bhuz]

A UIA is just an asset, you buy it or you don't. The bidding is something else which I am not familiar with in this context.

Thanks.

Bidding is just put a buy order (also called bid order)

[theredpill]

@bytemaster, on priority order:

1 - Set the borrow fee and the vesting fee to 1 BTS

2 - Set maker fee 1 BTS and taker to 0.4% non lifetime 0.1 lifetime

3 - Implement a reward to the first order on the book with real money, not this MAKER UIA. this UIA only appeals to BTS people, those who believe that this exchange gonna succeed and collect a lot of fees (few people that probably already invested their money on us), those who don't do not gonna put their real money to provide liquidity on exchange to this UIA.

[Thom]

The UIA is not sold until there is enough demand.  You can always cancel your bids up until that time.

BM mentioned this "bidding" process in the STEALTH feature thread with a link into the OL wallet. I'm reading this on a system that doesn't have an OL wallet, would someone explain exactly what this bidding process is and how it's done?

A UIA is just an asset, you buy it or you don't. The bidding is something else which I am not familiar with in this context.

Thanks.

[puppies]

The UIA is not sold until there is enough demand.  You can always cancel your bids up until that time. 

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I do think it will give an overall better measure for the direction to take. Before each is proposed however, the fundamental groundwork of doing proper market research still as to take place. This is more like a final step to confirm whatever data summation was done.

Good questions!

Although not comprehensive, the presale of the UIA is itself market research. It may or may not be useful, depending on the target audience the feature is aiming at. If a representative portion of the target audience of the feature is part of this community it is useful as market research.

However if not, it must be publicized and brought to the attention of whoever outside of this community, wherever that audience may be. And in that case I wonder if explaining the feature will represent much value, since the audience would also need to be sold on the ecosystem in with this feature is only one part. In that case the sales pitch may be quite difficult.

The point I was making in my posting though was that unless it is properly researched prior to the UIA sale, the messaging and the features and how they are set out could miss the mark, and thus not be successful in the sale. If the research was done right from the beginning, then it will hit on all the right pains and gains with the feature sets put forth in the a more correct priority, then the UIA will be successful.

The point is the UIA success or failure will be a result of the market research done prior to the offering. The UIA in itself is only a confirmation of that research hitting the right mark if it's sale is wildly successful. On the other hand, it's failure could also be due to the lack of proper research and planning to build what will address the markets wants and needs. This is really good news for those putting their money into this.. because if it does sell well, then its a good signal that it will do well. If not so well, means back to the drawing board, and no money lost. Which still brings me to my previous question about if a UIA sale is a failure in the sense of it didn't sell well enough.. what happens then?

[cass]

[i would over my help on UI/UX sketching ... if needed ..]
(but not free of charge)

[luckybit]

@bytemaster what you've done is recreated an innovation game called "Buy a Feature".

http://www.innovationgames.com/buy-a-feature/

http://www.uxforthemasses.com/buy-the-feature/

Wow! Did you run across that before or after this thread came up?

I've been talking about gamification and innovation games since many months ago. I've got a lot of posts and sent many PMs.

[tonyk]

In my humble opinion, BTS is so much more than Smart Coins at this point in time.   We shouldn't let that one feature shape our whole worldview.

Even the creator of the bitAssets himself will be surprised what they can accomplish if the square wheels are progressively removed from them [aka as early as next Wedneday you might see surprising changes in their behaviour]

[Thom]

I do think it will give an overall better measure for the direction to take. Before each is proposed however, the fundamental groundwork of doing proper market research still as to take place. This is more like a final step to confirm whatever data summation was done.

Good questions!

Although not comprehensive, the presale of the UIA is itself market research. It may or may not be useful, depending on the target audience the feature is aiming at. If a representative portion of the target audience of the feature is part of this community it is useful as market research.

However if not, it must be publicized and brought to the attention of whoever outside of this community, wherever that audience may be. And in that case I wonder if explaining the feature will represent much value, since the audience would also need to be sold on the ecosystem in with this feature is only one part. In that case the sales pitch may be quite difficult.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

When the feature is delivered, the UIA will be converted into a FBA and the proceeds of the sale will become our private property.   

In addition to creating the UIA we will also create a corresponding worker proposal that is symbolic of shareholder support for enabling the feature.  The worker proposal must be funded before we will sell into the buy wall of the UIA.   

BitShares stakeholders will now have price information that indicates how the market values each potential feature.  This price information can in turn be used to inform them on which features they should vote for.   A highly valued feature means that the market believes that feature will generate significant ROI and therefore be profitable for BitShares holders. 

I have a few questions.

1. When you say the UIA will be converted to an FBA, is this part of how the FBA feature will work when implemented, or is this something you are doing manually somehow?

2. Will the corresponding Worker created with the UIA be something also done manually, or will this be a feature as well of the FBA implementation?

3. What happens when the auction indicates a feature doesn't have enough support to be developed. How are the funds that were collected handled then?

4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.

This is all very similar to what I proposed as the working process for how FBAs should work with a few twists, which I like.

The one thing that will be necessary for this to work effectively I think will be presentation and information given on each feature so that investors can decide if they want to invest or not. In other words, whatever is presented really has to be sold, otherwise the a lack luster response may only be the results community investors not really getting the information in a way that sold them.

I do think it will give an overall better measure for the direction to take. Before each is proposed however, the fundamental groundwork of doing proper market research still as to take place. This is more like a final step to confirm whatever data summation was done.

I am very excited about this approach. This opens up a whole new arena of possibilities.

[onceuponatime]

@bytemaster what you've done is recreated an innovation game called "Buy a Feature".

http://www.innovationgames.com/buy-a-feature/

http://www.uxforthemasses.com/buy-the-feature/

Wow! Did you run across that before or after this thread came up?

[luckybit]

So if Mr. Duke has 100,000 BTS to wager and Mr. Valentine has 100 BTS to wager, it is the Mr. Dukes of the world who will control the agenda. This sounds like pay to play. Am I mistaken?

Definitely not "Pay to Play". It's actually an innovation game called "Buy a Feature".
Buy a Feature is classified as an innovation game. There is a lot of literature and examples which Bytemaster and others can learn from. We might be able to implement these innovation games into everything and not just FBA.

For example if people could use the market to signal demand for certain features, or like or dislike levels, it could improve the UX. It's basically a way to help developers to prioritize new ideas and develop only features which people really want.

THE GAME
Buy A FeatureCreate a list of potential features and provide each with a price. Just like for a real product, the price can be based on development costs, customer value, or something else. Although the price can be the actual cost you intend to charge for the feature, this is usually not required. Customers buy features that they want in the next release of your product using play money you give them. Make certain that some features are priced high enough that no one customer can buy them. Encourage customers to pool their money to buy especially important and/or expensive features. This will help motivate negotiations between customers as to which features are most important.

This game works best with four to seven customers in a group, so that you can create more opportunities for customers to pool their money through negotiating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation_game

[luckybit]

@bytemaster what you've done is recreated an innovation game called "Buy a Feature".

http://www.innovationgames.com/buy-a-feature/

http://www.uxforthemasses.com/buy-the-feature/