[Proposal] Bounty for First Third Party AGS/PTS Honoring DAC

[Stan]

As a developer and AGS investor I have a very simple question: shouldn't the investors in AGS have the say on what DAC proposals get funded?

If Invictus makes all these decisions, isn't this like saying invictus team are smarter in picking up winners than the combined wisdom of all investors?

That said as a developer I don't see an incentive to give away 20% other than the fact that I am also vested in AGS.

And yes good luck!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely!  We value all inputs - then it's our job to figure out an optimized solution.

Read our newsletter Shark Tank proposal.  You'll see several ways where we ask AGS members have a say.  They get to evaluate and comment on all published proposals.  They get to support the ones they like angel-style.  They get to attend the conference and ask questions of the finalists directly.

Obviously we can't implement everyone's conflicting opinions, so we use our judgement.

We think about this stuff 24x7.  That's what the AGS community hired us to do when we offered to serve as their lead developer.  We consider many, many factors and plan for the long term as discussed here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988

Naturally, we are not infallible, but collectively we do spend about 100 man-hours a day more than the average forum member thinking about all the ramifications.

In the end, somebody has to make the call.  That's why ship captains are hired and why they don't ask the passengers and crew to vote on every command decision.

That doesn't mean we aren't listening.   

[AdamBLevine]

Good luck guys

[oco101]

Come on stan

Yesterday you said "we might do both" and today you said

"We found that it did not work well in most cases and only led frustration and disappointment on all sides.  We decided to try a more traditional approach of vetting and hiring people or companies with a proven track record and spending extra time to carefully define the requirements.  While we will still use bounties for smaller jobs, we are not interested at all in making much bigger bounties where there is an even bigger disappointment for everyone at the end."

That sure looks like a no.  Do you regularly say you are not interested at all in things you might later say yes to?   Is there any wonder why things are so unclear?

I am restricting my posts to you on single topic issues since you are so difficult to pin down even when your own words, from today, are staring you right in the face

Adam let me point you up something but in a less aggressive manner that you acting in the last few days did you really missed  that part ?:

Most of our leadership team is at the conference and we haven't had time to get together and discuss it.

Let me know I can put it in red for you....

[bitbro]

I, for one, do not want your ego on any such shark tank panel

Adam - can you elaborate what you're referring to when you say "makes it uniquely Invictus"?

Daniel likes to say that Invictus is different from all the other 2.0 products because they're building profitable businesses for "share"holders.  He has the economics of the situation right and others do not.

So it seems like if that's a defining factor, it's one Invictus will want to incentivize others to follow moving when they are spending funds to incentivize certain behaviors.

Good idea. I think they could launch this prize in connection with the Shark Tank incubator competition.

I suggested they should https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2775.msg34619

Yes, I totally agree - The "Shark Tank" can be the way people can get early seed funding for these projects which then chase after the big prize.

I would be willing to sit on the sharktank panel, advise and judge.

[AdamBLevine]

Come on stan

Yesterday you said "we might do both" and today you said

"We found that it did not work well in most cases and only led frustration and disappointment on all sides.  We decided to try a more traditional approach of vetting and hiring people or companies with a proven track record and spending extra time to carefully define the requirements.  While we will still use bounties for smaller jobs, we are not interested at all in making much bigger bounties where there is an even bigger disappointment for everyone at the end."

That sure looks like a no.  Do you regularly say you are not interested at all in things you might later say yes to?   Is there any wonder why things are so unclear?

I am restricting my posts to you on single topic issues since you are so difficult to pin down even when your own words, from today, are staring you right in the face

[Stan]

We found that it did not work well in most cases and only led frustration and disappointment on all sides.  We decided to try a more traditional approach of vetting and hiring people or companies with a proven track record and spending extra time to carefully define the requirements.  While we will still use bounties for smaller jobs, we are not interested at all in making much bigger bounties where there is an even bigger disappointment for everyone at the end.

Things change fast, please humor me - Based on this part of your above statement it seems to me you are saying no.  Am I incorrect?  I made my specific proposal according to your request, so it's not hypothetical what I'm asking be done.  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3448.0

No, you heard me say yesterday "Maybe we can do both."  You also heard me say tonight what our higher priorities are and why. You also heard me ask yesterday for the community to weigh in on how many would be interested in either pre- or post-funding.  If post-funding is strongly preferred, we could well go with that.  If we get no candidates for pre-funding, we will set that idea aside. Most of our leadership team is at the conference and we haven't had time to get together and discuss it. 

My honest feedback about what I think is just more sausage you get to watch being made.

 

[AdamBLevine]

It's not a game.

[wasthatawolf]

So far I've got a score of

Adam 4 - Stan 1

Can someone start developing an Argument DAC?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AdamBLevine]

We found that it did not work well in most cases and only led frustration and disappointment on all sides.  We decided to try a more traditional approach of vetting and hiring people or companies with a proven track record and spending extra time to carefully define the requirements.  While we will still use bounties for smaller jobs, we are not interested at all in making much bigger bounties where there is an even bigger disappointment for everyone at the end.

Things change fast, please humor me - Based on this part of your above statement it seems to me you are saying no.  Am I incorrect?  I made my specific proposal according to your request, so it's not hypothetical what I'm asking be done.  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3448.0

[Stan]

Stan, are you telling me you are not willing to devote 100,000 PTS over five years as I defined because the way Invictus chose to implement bounties for things they needed done in the short term did not work?

I just want to be clear you're saying no.

No, you heard me say yesterday "Maybe we can do both."  You also heard me say tonight what our higher priorities are and why. You also heard me ask yesterday for the community to weigh in on how many would be interested in either pre- or post-funding.  If post-funding is strongly preferred, we could well go with that.  If we get no candidates for pre-funding, we will set that idea aside. Most of our leadership team is at the conference and we haven't had time to get together and discuss it. 

My honest feedback about what I think is just more sausage you get to watch being made.

 

[AdamBLevine]

Stan, are you telling me you are not willing to devote 100,000 PTS over five years as I defined because the way Invictus chose to implement bounties for things they needed done in the short term did not work?

I just want to be clear you're saying no.

[Stan]

Adam,

No offense intended.  We are just constantly talking past each other.  You don't hear me, let me try to assure you that I do hear you.  I love it when we are able to implement your suggestions.  Sometimes there are reasons we can't.  See my responses in bold below.

Stan,
I'm not trying to gain control of funds.  It is insulting you would insinuate I am wasting my breath here on anything other than trying to help you fix the mess you have created.  If you cared about not scaring away investors, invictus would have a blog.  I looked at my post history, I told you that, in my own name, in public on this forum the first week of January.  I told Daniel privately for weeks.  I expressed my concerns to Brian multiple times, and he blew me off. There are basic things you guys have refused to do for reasons that are unfathomable to me, but it's led to the place we are now.  Still not even a blog.

We listened, and explained that the new website would have a blog.  They are loading our greatest hits into it right now.  Adding a blog to a soon-to-be decommissioned web site was deemed a nice-to-have that didn't make the cut. I heard you when you said "blogs are cheap".  Populating them isn't when it takes key staff time.   I'd like to be writing the next article for it right now.

With the long term bounties, I am trying to get Invictus to allocate funds to whomever best fulfills what Invictus defines as a profitable DAC.  I am asking this be done in such a way that is consistent with incentivizing teams who have the ability to make long term strategic plans. instead of only using funds to pay for internal company operations, basic payroll and bounty-chores with the promise to give away more funds to people who convince you their idea is good enough.   Stan, I don't know how you can look at how things have gone so far and say anything other than you guys have been wrong about more important things than you've been right on, and the deal has had to change several times because of that wrongness.

We listened, and explained that we had chosen to focus on removing obstacles from people who want to start DACs but don't have the resources.  We explained that a profitable DAC is its own reward and doesn't need after-the-fact funding.  We have always offered to support and promote anyone who develops an AGS/PTS honoring DAC, whether they need development help or not.  We explained that we are trying to optimize the big picture and listed dozens of factors that must be traded off to achieve a balanced approach overall.  This means that every one of these factors will be less than optimal so that the whole can be as good as we can make it.  Our current situation exceeds our wildest dreams from four months ago, despite our incompetence.  We are very grateful.

I've laid out my proposal calmly and simply many times both publicly and privately, I even shared a paper with daniel on it weeks ago entitled "The collaborative roadmap - incentivizing R&D with bounties" from my Distributed Minufacturing project that explains the logic behind this.  I have done my best to bring these changes about because I feel like you guys are talking about decentralization and building centralized solutions to control funds which was never the deal. 

We listened appreciatively, and aggressively tried the bounty approach as all have witnessed.   We found that it did not work well in most cases and only led frustration and disappointment on all sides.  We decided to try a more traditional approach of vetting and hiring people or companies with a proven track record and spending extra time to carefully define the requirements.  While we will still use bounties for smaller jobs, we are not interested at all in making much bigger bounties where there is an even bigger disappointment for everyone at the end.  We are interested in funding more formal unsolicited or solicited proposals after proper due-diligence on our part.

You can choose to take this personally or insinuate whatever you want about me but I think it should be pretty clear I have been a personally supporter of your project, want you guys to succeed and I feel strongly enough you're on the wrong path to be spending my time talking at you.  Why would I do that, am I a hater?  No..... Just a long time investor who has watched you set and fail to meet target after target, and who no longer trusts you.   I am not alone in that, it's just that most people just leave.

I think the source of this disconnect is expectation management.  We have tried the bold experiment of sharing our ideas and aspirations and hopes and dreams from their very inception.  We let everyone watch the sausage being made - and it ain't pretty.  Giving potential supporters the inside view of our thinking means that you will see that thinking change.  You get to participate in changing it!  So to then complain as we invent and learn and iterate that you don't trust us not to change is to miss the point.  Of course we will change.  Trust that.  Those who want a company that develops and iterates behind closed doors and doesn't release anything until they are positively sure it won't ever change should invest in Coca Cola.  Watching the sausage get made IS the investment opportunity we are offering.

"All right, guys, uh, listen. This is a blues riff in "B", watch me for the changes, and try and keep up"  -- Marty McFly, Back to the Future.

As mentioned I'll lay out my suggested bounties but I have zero interest in fundraising.  You guys took in millions of dollars already, what the hell are you doing with that money if not incentivizing the long term growth of the ecosystem?  Where in the AGS agreement did it say "and invictus will try one experiment to incentivize participation per annum with these funds, never more than one at a time" because I didn't get that memo.    The point of collecting this much money up front is to have it to guarantee you can spend it at a later point when it is more valuable because you have succeeded.

You are looking at this money and saying "well, we better surivive on this for the next few years!" but again, I didn't realize the point of this was to pay invictus salaries - I thought it was to incentivize the growth of the ecosystem.

I addressed this in great detail here:  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988

You've got to spend money to make money, outcome oriented bounties are the only way you can 100% guarantee you are not spending money on anything other than the solution you're looking for, and while the downside of these is they require larger prizes and more time, that is an advantage talking about a deflationary, ecosystem based cryptocurrency since the prize will be worth more when its awarded than when it is offered.

As we said before, a successful DAC is its own incentive.  We want to engage in helping developers at the beginning, not after they have succeeded and don't need our help.  This is simply a difference in opinion on what will be most effective and what constitutes faithful stewardship of the funds with which we have been entrusted.

Tell me what points I'm missing, I hear you complaining about how unfair I am to do so but I'm happy to address whatever you require further elaboration on.

I addressed this in great detail here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988

[Pocket Sand]

Stan,
I'm not trying to gain control of funds.  It is insulting you would insinuate I am wasting my breath here on anything other than trying to help you fix the mess you have created.  If you cared about not scaring away investors, invictus would have a blog.  I looked at my post history, I told you that, in my own name, in public on this forum the first week of January.  I told Daniel privately for weeks.  I expressed my concerns to Brian multiple times, and he blew me off. There are basic things you guys have refused to do for reasons that are unfathomable to me, but it's led to the place we are now.  Still not even a blog.

With the long term bounties, I am trying to get Invictus to allocate funds to whomever best fulfills what Invictus defines as a profitable DAC.  I am asking this be done in such a way that is consistent with incentivizing teams who have the ability to make long term strategic plans. instead of only using funds to pay for internal company operations, basic payroll and bounty-chores with the promise to give away more funds to people who convince you their idea is good enough.   Stan, I don't know how you can look at how things have gone so far and say anything other than you guys have been wrong about more important things than you've been right on, and the deal has had to change several times because of that wrongness.

I've laid out my proposal calmly and simply many times both publicly and privately, I even shared a paper with daniel on it weeks ago entitled "The collaborative roadmap - incentivizing R&D with bounties" from my Distributed Minufacturing project that explains the logic behind this.  I have done my best to bring these changes about because I feel like you guys are talking about decentralization and building centralized solutions to control funds which was never the deal. 

You can choose to take this personally or insinuate whatever you want about me but I think it should be pretty clear I have been a personally supporter of your project, want you guys to succeed and I feel strongly enough you're on the wrong path to be spending my time talking at you.  Why would I do that, am I a hater?  No..... Just a long time investor who has watched you set and fail to meet target after target, and who no longer trusts you.   I am not alone in that, it's just that most people just leave.

As mentioned I'll lay out my suggested bounties but I have zero interest in fundraising.  You guys took in millions of dollars already, what the hell are you doing with that money if not incentivizing the long term growth of the ecosystem?  Where in the AGS agreement did it say "and invictus will try one experiment to incentivize participation per annum with these funds, never more than one at a time" because I didn't get that memo.    The point of collecting this much money up front is to have it to guarantee you can spend it at a later point when it is more valuable because you have succeeded.

You are looking at this money and saying "well, we better surivive on this for the next few years!" but again, I didn't realize the point of this was to pay invictus salaries - I thought it was to incentivize the growth of the ecosystem.

You've got to spend money to make money, outcome oriented bounties are the only way you can 100% guarantee you are not spending money on anything other than the solution you're looking for, and while the downside of these is they require larger prizes and more time, that is an advantage talking about a deflationary, ecosystem based cryptocurrency since the prize will be worth more when its awarded than when it is offered.

Tell me what points I'm missing, I hear you complaining about how unfair I am to do so but I'm happy to address whatever you require further elaboration on.

[bitbro]

Adam,

We obviously disagree on what constitutes responsible management of resources.  We have promised to use our best judgement to build the industry for the long term.  I outlined all the factors that drive our decision making process here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988

You consistently ignore most of these factors while you lobby to gain control over funds that were donated as a vote of confidence in our offer to manage them responsibly. 

I would encourage you (or someone you nominate) to offer your services as an alternative Industry Developer with a different vision.  Tell everyone how you will manage their contributions and solicit their donations.

I think it would be healthy to give people the option of several developers
each with a different vision and management style.

I would happily support you or your like-minded nominee in the role of Industry Developer. We might even post your angel address right beside ours and give you your own page to explain how you would use other people's funds differently. This would let everyone vote with their donations - the sincerest form of expressing a preferred approach.

I think two or more cooperating Industry Developers each pursuing alternative approaches would be healthier for the community than the current insurgent process of sewing dissatisfaction and discord within the community.  That only hurts all the stakeholders here and drives away newcomers before they even get a chance to understand the potential.

What do you say?  Truce?


This sounds reasonable.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[toast]

Stan,
I'm not trying to gain control of funds.  It is insulting you would insinuate I am wasting my breath here on anything other than trying to help you fix the mess you have created.  If you cared about not scaring away investors, invictus would have a blog.  I looked at my post history, I told you that, in my own name, in public on this forum the first week of January.  I told Daniel privately for weeks.  I expressed my concerns to Brian multiple times, and he blew me off. There are basic things you guys have refused to do for reasons that are unfathomable to me, but it's led to the place we are now.  Still not even a blog.