Sounds innovative, BUT, an anonymous dev + OP with 0 posts = no financial support from me.
The post itself is impressive and shows signs of knowledge.
OP you should stay around here for a while.
Agreed, but I wouldn't personally finance anyone with no reputation and an anonymous dev. That's all, nothing personal.
I agree the dev should not be anonymous if they receive money. I wouldn't give money to any anonymous individual if I could avoid it. The risk of being scammed is too high.
I think in order for this to work the community who crowdfunds must receive some sort of long term share or stake in the idea they are backing with their funding. They are backing that idea with their money and in my opinion are owed a return which is worth potentially much more than they originally put into it because that is what attracts investment in the first place.
If they get exactly back what they put in then it's a no interest loan. If it's an investment then they should potentially get back much more than they put into it whether that be by dividends, or by getting a share of the profits generated, or by getting some of the coins.
My opinion is that every project which accepts crowd funding should treat the people who fund them as co-owners and shareholders in the idea itself. They should receive a founder badge and that badge should carry with them onto any derivative project as part of a social contract.
It means if you were a founder (crowd funder) of a very genius idea which turns out to be a brilliant paradigm shifting then that badge should carry a lot of weight in the community. Over time there will be individuals in the community who will have a lot of these badges and these people should be the first people to be hired for jobs, these people should be the first people contacted to invest in new ideas, these people people should have shares reserved for them in derivative ideas.
I think the model that protoshares is following with their DACs which spawn DACs is the right way to go about it. If you invest in protoshares then you'll have a 1:1 stake in anything that the DAC idea itself produces in the future. If you believed in the idea of a decentralized autonomous corporation enough to risk your Bitcoins to fund the idea then if the idea is successful you should benefit from all future iterations upon that idea.
This allows the community to collectively claim ownership of an idea without having a patent system. If you think of protoshares as the root node in the tree then from protoshares you can get Bitshares, DomainShares, and a bunch of other *Shares. The amount you get in these future products is based on the amount of protoshares you have. There are 2 million protoshares in total. This seems to be working as a proof of concept for Invictus Innovations.
I think we should extend upon this proof of concept and take it even further. If someone has an idea and has assembled developers then they should follow a similar model as with protoshares. (Idea)Shares can be mined or purchased, can be treated as a currency, can be used as a mechanism of buying and selling ownership of the idea itself and can replace the patent system by allowing people who have a good idea and developers to actually give the idea to the community where it can be turned into an altcoin which can have a mission and purpose.
This will allow the community members to choose the ideas they feel have the most promise and potentially get rich if they choose the right idea. This will create a market where anyone who has a very good idea and developers will be able to get funded if and only if they back their idea with some goods and services which bring the inherent value to the (Idea)Shares.
So if we have for example the idea to create a decentralized exchange and let's call it the Bitshares idea, we first propose that idea by developing a whitepaper. Once the world knows about the idea and is excited about it then create a prototype idea coin which allows anyone to mine or buy that coin while the Bitshares idea is developed into a product or service. Anyone brave enough to buy or mine that coin will own portions of the Bitshares in 1:1 proportion to what they owned in the prototype idea coin. Now if something branches from Bitshares then again you can transfer ownership 1:1 from the owners of Bitshares to whatever came from it. This basically would reward the developers, founders, funders and innovators together.
In my opinion the key to making this work is to treat the developers, founders, funders and innovators as the creative class and do everything we can to come up with reward mechanisms and incentives to attract funding to that class. We should take concepts which work well in the real world like shares, dividends, profit sharing, and adapt those incentives to a decentralized pseudo-anonymous environment.
We should include reputation by having badges. If a particular person has a lot of badges to their name then they are either a great developer, a great investor, a great creator of something, but you wont get a badge if you won't take a chance. You cannot be great if you don't take a chance on a moonshot idea which becomes great. But we should do everything we can to reward the people who do take a chance on the moonshot idea, and reward the people who dream up these new ideas as well by giving them the recognition of having thought it up. Developers who have worked on various successful projects should also be known and receive recognition whether their contributions are perceived as large or small.
Then as a community we should give special status and rewards to these individuals. Discounts, prizes, status, privileges, dividends, points or whatever you can come up with to make people want that special status.
Anonymity is a conscious decision made and built into this model. Identity becomes an abstraction that clouds judgment far too often, when what we are interested in doing is look at the technology free from the biases identity brings with it.
I'm okay with developers being pseudo-anonymous but they need an identity so we know their reputation and can develop trust. If we don't trust the developers then we don't even know whether or not the code has something in it. I'd prefer developers who give their names and addresses for accountability but in the situation where they cannot do this then they should at least have a persistent pseudo identity which we can confirm is them by digital signature. I think Keyhotee might offer the solution to the identity problem but also the Bitcoin identity protocol can do it. Basically there should be a way for a third party to be able to confirm that the developer we are dealing with is a trustworthy and legitimate person. The community does not have to know the real life identity of that developer but some third party we trust has to know their identity and vouch for them. If no one knows who they are then no one can vet them, and if no one can vet them then no one can trust them enough to run their compiled binaries or even trust that there wont be backdoors in their code. For situations where money and investment is on the line I would not advise anyone to give money to any anonymous person.
Haven't we seen what happened with Labcoin and other scams to know why this is a problem?
This is especially true if people are themselves already built into systems that have matured over time. My personal opinion is that we cannot allow identity to constrict new thought and more importantly, turning those thoughts into reality. We're smarter than that, and we can build better systems than that.
I propose pseudo-anonymity. I'm going to take a stance against complete anonymity. Pseudo-anonymity would mean you can come up with any alias, screen name or pseudonym you like. That pseudonym is like a currency in itself, it has to be backed by something or it's worthless. If you have no one who I know who is willing to vouch for you and say you're legit then I will not trust you. In order for this to work there must be a way for a third party to do vetting of developers in a decentralized way.
Here is one way it could be done. Every developer should have to be a real life person who goes through an in person vetting process. If they pass that process then they'll receive a key known only to them and no one else. After receiving that key then they are a developer trusted by the community.
The reason I think vetting is necessary is because anyone who is in a position to write code to manage other people's money should not be trusted by default. They can be anonymous to the wider community and use only a pseudonym but someone or some protocol has to be set up so that someone knows their real identity.
If there are anonymous developers involved then if they do work on writing code I would say you'd need several trusted developers who can look after them and audit the code that they write. Ultimately we will require trusted developers to develop anything truly important so any plans on making things anonymous also have to solve the problem of trust, reputation, and accountability. Mask your email address, mask your identity from the community, but someone has to be capable of unmasking you and locating you in person so basically we'd need a trusted middle man person who would speak on your behalf and say we can trust this anonymous developer, that the anonymous developer is our friend, and that I know the identity of this person and you can hold me responsible for any damages caused by this anonymous person.
Show Posts
??
:
