Millions of Features, Features for Me!

[Akado]

so atm we only have assets for stealth and maker? No bond, prediction markets and gambling assets?

[Bitcoinfan]

So I would like to take some time to outline a plan I am devising for getting features lined up and prioritized based upon the concept of Fee Backed Assets (FBA).  For each of the following features I will create a UIA that represents stake in the future fees generated from that feature. 

2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)

@bytemaster,

That's two for two -- Sooner or later I knew you'd come around... 

FBA:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16133.0/viewresults.html

Augur/Truthcoin:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,3916.0.html

[Thom]

I'm being quoted in a signature. I feel wise let me enjoy

  Enjoy your 5 sig quotes Akado. Maybe you'll get more, perhaps the sock puppet will take some away. Enjoy what may come

[Akado]

I'm being quoted in a signature. I feel wise let me enjoy

[Thom]

You own the network, but who pays for development?

oops, sorry for the double post

THERE'S A MAGICAL LINK ABOVE YOUR POST ONLY SIGHTED PEOPLE CAN READ LABELED "Remove".

Sorry to shout, but I thought you might at least have good hearing 

[Akado]

Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?

You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.

No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.

Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.

The 90/10 was 10 for the network, 90 for the entrepreneurs. So it was very generous thinking.
I was  asking why 80/20 , why there was never serious discussion about this crucial split number.
And I remember well in the original stealth proposal the split should revert in favour to network
after certain amount of fees collected. It was more generous and then become more greedy.

I'm sorry I misunderstood you. Then I agree with you. I thought you meant 90 for the network and 10 for investor

[jtme]

Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?

You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.

No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.

Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.

The 90/10 was 10 for the network, 90 for the entrepreneurs. So it was very generous thinking.
I was  asking why 80/20 , why there was never serious discussion about this crucial split number.
And I remember well in the original stealth proposal the split should revert in favour to network
after certain amount of fees collected. It was more generous and then become more greedy.

[santaclause102]

I meant that at this early in the game, there is no competition because we're too small.

I would agree in general. But then the question about how to handly new featrures that target the same market (note that the difference between a new feature and an upgrade to it is a continuum and hard to distinguish) doesnt become less relevant. 

[Akado]

Well, no one will throw 50k at BitShares out of good will without expecting it back... I think.

I didn't mean to say we shouldn't allow competition. I meant that at this early in the game, there is no competition because we're too small. BitShares is the cryptoindustry is a niche inside a niche. It's very difficult to find competition this early. Maybe in 5-10 years..

Unless we let the community do that itself, which I think is the point of fba

[santaclause102]

Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?

You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.

No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.

Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.

The only answer to these quantitative questions is price establishing competition. But then we are back to questions like: How much change to the code of a FBA qualifies for it to be a new feature with a different allocation?

The full argument is here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20575.msg265645.html#msg265645

There's no thing as competition for a risk this high in this early stage. I see it more as every investor being more some kind of a gift/opportunity.

This, because from a investor's point of view it doesn't make much sense to get such amounts of money into this when the chance of return is so low atm. I'm sure there are other kinds of investmentes where you can get your money back in a shorter time frame and with more chances of getting it back. My opinion only. Crypto is a niche atm, so on top of having someone willing to take such a huge risk, it needs to be into crypto wich is extremely difficult

That might be. But if we dont assume that everyone does things for a profit then it can easily happen that by such an argumentation the "perceived volonteers/gifters" can easily take advantage of a larger group of people (BTS holders) through such talk... In the end you will never know whether people believe that there is a good profit to be made if you don't allow / plan for competiton. 

Btw: The above is very much related to https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20575.msg265647.html#msg265647

[Akado]

Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?

You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.

No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.

Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.

The only answer to these quantitative questions is price establishing competition. But then we are back to questions like: How much change to the code of a FBA qualifies for it to be a new feature with a different allocation?

The full argument is here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20575.msg265645.html#msg265645

There's no thing as competition for a risk this high in this early stage. I see it more as every investor being more some kind of a gift/opportunity.

This, because from a investor's point of view it doesn't make much sense to get such amounts of money into this when the chance of return is so low atm. I'm sure there are other kinds of investmentes where you can get your money back in a shorter time frame and with more chances of getting it back. My opinion only. Crypto is a niche atm, so on top of having someone willing to take such a huge risk, it needs to be into crypto wich is extremely difficult

[santaclause102]

Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?

You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.

No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.

Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.

The only answer to these quantitative questions is price establishing competition. But then we are back to questions like: How much change to the code of a FBA qualifies for it to be a new feature with a different allocation? And if the question is answered so that any newly proposed FBA that is targeting the same market would break the initial social consesnsus on the initial FBA that "cornered" that market then the next question is: Shouldnt there be initially sufficient competition between various FBA entrepreneuers to compete to "corner" a market so that the BTS holders can choose the best deal instead of going with the first proposal that arbitrarly sets the tx fee allocation.

More critique at:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20575.msg265645.html#msg265645

[Akado]

Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?

You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.

No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.

Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.

[Thom]

We wouldn't want to feel married to a feature if it doesn't successfully drive revenue.  If the FBA holder does not hold up his end of the bargain, which is driving transaction growth, shareholders and entrepreneurs will be inclined to circumvent, steal or compete with the feature.

Why is that a problem? Business ventures come and go all the time, it's only when they get subsidized, propped up or bailed out that artificial advantages and corruption of the market occurs, changing it from a free market to a coercive and manipulative one. If the private transfer feature fails for any reason and a competitor is willing to risk stepping in to compete the process may repeat with a new approach and new conditions. Or, the feature fails and disappears b/c it just isn't viable. That's the free market.

OnceUpon is taking on all of the risk so he is entitled to 100% of the benefit. That's NOT 100% of the fees collected, b/c 20% of those fees are overhead paid to the ecosystem, thus helping to sustain the ecosystem.

Furthermore, he is being highly generous by his willingness to sell his controlling interest in the FBA revenue stream to a 3rd party that will hopefully offer that revenue stream to the community.

That is the part of the plan which is the most foggy IMO, b/c until private transfers are implemented and the STEALTH FBA begins to produce revenue, nobody has any idea what value it represents, it sheer speculation. Moreover, it is a sticky matter to dictate to a buyer of a thing what they can or can't do with it after they own it. So what control OnceUp has over the revenue stream AFTER he sells it cannot be known, especially right now before the revenue stream exists.

Just for the sake of argument lets say private transfers are wildly successful and OnceUp sells his entire stake in the FBA revenue stream to a 3rd party that says they'll offer some of it to the public but that 3rd party changes their mind and decides to keep 100% of his proceeds (80% of the fees). That is their right to do, barring some license or contractual agreement with OnceUp to the contrary. In such a scenario there is nothing stopping someone else from offering a competing solution and trying to capture a portion of that lucrative revenue pie. If their "new and improved" private transfer feature has value, can be marketed effectively to capture a portion of the market and return proceeds to the community as OnceUp intended, it might succeed in capturing a significant portion of the market or applying enough pressure on the incumbent feature provider to start offering dividends.

Point is we can't be certain of what the future brings but denying an investor the rewards of his investment and expecting an entitlement to the upsides but not the downsides is totally contrary to the free market principles this ecosystem is built on.

[carpet ride]

Thx @Xeldal and @yvv for your replies to my confusion. Your replies do help.

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.

I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split.  Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !

Agree with these concerns.  Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset.  With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA.  I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.

This again? C'mon, go back and read the thread. Stan addressed the reason for the 80 / 20 split. In essence, it has become the "traditional" split for most efforts around here, like the referral program. I see this objection as just cloaked envy.

As to "no business plan", that is a valid concern, but nothing new around here. Most everything done around here is fly by night / seat of the pants, without market research, prototypes or the usual planning that goes into most business ventures. It's entrepreneurship, but with more risk and speculation. Lots more intuition and guesswork.

We wouldn't want to feel married to a feature if it doesn't successfully drive revenue.  If the FBA holder does not hold up his end of the bargain, which is driving transaction growth, shareholders and entrepreneurs will be inclined to circumvent, steal or compete with the feature.

I may be off base --- how married are we to this entrepreneur / feature if it's implemented?