MasterCoin: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address”

[bitexch]

Why not found a start-up company and hire 2 - 4 full time developers and 1 project manager? Moreover, I believe MSC could attract many capitals too.

I think the right choice is the one that makes JR to commit 100% of his time to the project. You can bet that competition will commit full resources of their founders to their project.

Half-measures are not good for such a project. If the "buy back" is needed for JR to go "all-in" in MSC, then I strongly vote for the buy back.

Many people have said that they think it is imperative for JR to be on the project full-time, yet I have not seen anyone provide a reason as to why his full-time commitment to Mastercoin is necessary. Presumably the community feels that since JR conceived Mastercoin it follows that its development is dependent on him. But it's one thing to conceive an idea and it's another thing to develop it. Does anyone have reason to believe the JR would be such an exceptionally good developer? Are we really so sure it would be impossible to find a developer of comparable skill?

I find the community's attitude towards JR untenable, and I partially blame JR for not being more direct with the community: either he believes his full-time help is necessary for the development of Mastercoin, in which case, if the community and the board agree, we should do what we can to get him on board full-time. If on the other hand JR doesn't think his full-time commitment to Mastercoin is necessary for development, he ought to say so explicitly, that way we can stop focusing on how to get him to commit to the project, and start focusing on the project itself!

In my opinion, JR obviously doesn't think his full-time commitment to the project is necessary for its success, otherwise, he wouldn't have published his white paper without any code, and wouldn't have explicitly said that for two years he tried to convince someone else to undertake this project.

[1714180833]

1714180833

[1714180833]

1714180833

[Rampion]

Why not found a start-up company and hire 2 - 4 full time developers and 1 project manager? Moreover, I believe MSC could attract many capitals too.

I think the right choice is the one that makes JR to commit 100% of his time to the project. You can bet that competition will commit full resources of their founders to their project.

Half-measures are not good for such a project. If the "buy back" is needed for JR to go "all-in" in MSC, then I strongly vote for the buy back.

Many people have said that they think it is imperative for JR to be on the project full-time, yet I have not seen anyone provide a reason as to why his full-time commitment to Mastercoin is necessary. Presumably the community feels that since JR conceived Mastercoin it follows that its development is dependent on him. But it's one thing to conceive an idea and it's another thing to develop it. Does anyone have reason to believe the JR would be such an exceptionally good developer?

I find the community's attitude towards JR untenable, and I partially blame JR for not being more direct with the community: either he believes his full-time help is necessary for the development of Mastercoin, in which case, if the community and the board agree, we should do what we can to get him on board full-time. If on the other hand JR doesn't think his full-time commitment to Mastercoin is necessary for development, he ought to say so explicitly, that way we can stop focusing on how to get him to commit to the project, and start focusing on the project itself!

In my opinion, JR obviously doesn't think his full-time commitment to the project is necessary for its success, otherwise, he wouldn't have published his white paper without any code, and wouldn't have explicitly said that for two years he tried to convince someone else to undertake this project.

He is the brain and soul of the project - additionally, he is also the major holder of MSC. It's clear as water that he has much more incentives than any "for hire" developer to make MSC to succeed. Still, there are real-life concerns that might refrain him for quitting his well-paid job to commit to such a venture as MSC. IMO we should just work for him to commit.

[k99]

I have a question regarding MSC in a BTC wallet. I bought some MSC a while ago and kept them in my BTC wallet (togehter with some BTC). unfortunately i used that wallet recently for transactions and spent nearly all the balance there to tx to exchanges. What does that mean now to my MSC? did i lost them? the exchanges are prob. not even aware that they received MSC.

MSC have nothing to do with your bitcoins. It just relies on your btc keys. As long as you have access to the private key you purchased the MSC with, you are ok.

Thanks for the fast reply! I need to read more about the basics, still does not understand it well how they are identified and how for instance i could sell them. but good to know that they are not gone....

[bitexch]

Why not found a start-up company and hire 2 - 4 full time developers and 1 project manager? Moreover, I believe MSC could attract many capitals too.

I think the right choice is the one that makes JR to commit 100% of his time to the project. You can bet that competition will commit full resources of their founders to their project.

Half-measures are not good for such a project. If the "buy back" is needed for JR to go "all-in" in MSC, then I strongly vote for the buy back.

Many people have said that they think it is imperative for JR to be on the project full-time, yet I have not seen anyone provide a reason as to why his full-time commitment to Mastercoin is necessary. Presumably the community feels that since JR conceived Mastercoin it follows that its development is dependent on him. But it's one thing to conceive an idea and it's another thing to develop it. Does anyone have reason to believe the JR would be such an exceptionally good developer?

I find the community's attitude towards JR untenable, and I partially blame JR for not being more direct with the community: either he believes his full-time help is necessary for the development of Mastercoin, in which case, if the community and the board agree, we should do what we can to get him on board full-time. If on the other hand JR doesn't think his full-time commitment to Mastercoin is necessary for development, he ought to say so explicitly, that way we can stop focusing on how to get him to commit to the project, and start focusing on the project itself!

In my opinion, JR obviously doesn't think his full-time commitment to the project is necessary for its success, otherwise, he wouldn't have published his white paper without any code, and wouldn't have explicitly said that for two years he tried to convince someone else to undertake this project.

He is the brain and soul of the project - additionally, he is also the major holder of MSC. It's clear as water that he has much more incentives than any "for hire" developer to make MSC to succeed. Still, there are real-life concerns that might refrain him for quitting his well-paid job to commit to such a venture as MSC. IMO we should just work for him to commit.

I honestly don't see why you are so certain JR is the "brain and soul of the project". Mastercoin was his idea, but it doesn't follow that his full-time commitment is necessary for its success. There are similar projects to Mastercoin in which JR is not involved, which should be evidence enough that the idea can be executed without his full-time help.

Also, it is by no means the case that JR has more incentives than a "for hire" developer to make Mastercoin succeed. JR has a well-paid job, and he has said that his wife doesn't consider any money that is not in their bank account real. A "for hire" developer, whose livelihood depended directly on the success of Mastercoin, however, would be highly incentivized to do a good job.

[bitexch]

I will go so far as to say that if JR doesn't think he needs to be committed to Mastercoin full-time in order for it to succeed, he should be stating more emphatically and more loudly than anyone that we need to hire full-time developers, as he is undoubtedly aware of the influence he holds within the community; he is surely aware that many people are waiting for him to commit himself to Mastercoin, and thus by maintaining his non-committal attitude, he is slowing down its development.

[BitThink]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7914.msg116229#msg116229

It seems JR said in 2011 he would quit his day job and concentrate on his own project if BTC reaches 1000.
That is today.

[Rampion]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7914.msg116229#msg116229

It seems JR said in 2011 he would quit his day job and concentrate his own project if BTC reaches 1000.
That is today.

Ouch. Good find.

JR??

[littleblue]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7914.msg116229#msg116229

It seems JR said in 2011 he would quit his day job and concentrate his own project if BTC reaches 1000.
That is today.

Ouch. Good find.

JR??

JR:"$1000/bitcoin won't make me filthy rich, but I might be rich enough to quit my day job"
Note：it is  Maybe。。。

[DGulari]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7914.msg116229#msg116229

It seems JR said in 2011 he would quit his day job and concentrate on his own project if BTC reaches 1000.
That is today.

He also said he'd quit if Mastercoin could provide his family with $564.6K.  What of it JR?  Let's do it.  That amounts to less than 1/10th of the Mastercoin bank today.  Good deal for your wife, good deal for you, good deal for Mastercoiners.

The number is $564,600 (the project is currently at 2439 BTC x $118@coinbase = $287,802, leaving us short of that mark by $276,798  = 2346 BTC). Nearly doubling the project fund does seem like a pretty big stretch in just the next couple days, even if we get some big investments from bitangels. However there are a couple ways we might still get there, which I'll get to later.
[...]
    To avoid risk of a bitcoin crash, we would plan to take large chunks of salary in advance (exact amounts to be determined, with amounts largely driven by resulting tax liabilities)
    Total yearly cost: <Redacted> + <Redacted> + <Redacted> = $177k
    Three-year cost = 177*3 = $531k

In addition, I promised her the following items would be paid for out of project funds

    Desk rental at a co-working space, estimated at $350/month ($4200/year)
    Daily transportation costs (Cozi funds my Orca card at about $8 per round trip = $2000/year)
    All travel expenses, including bringing family along if desired, estimated at $5000/year for attending two conferences
    Yearly estimate = 4.2 + 2 + 5 = $11.2k
    3-year estimate = 11.2*3 = $33.6k

Total for 3 years: 531 + 33.6 = $564.6k

[bitexch]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7914.msg116229#msg116229

It seems JR said in 2011 he would quit his day job and concentrate his own project if BTC reaches 1000.
That is today.

Ouch. Good find.

JR??

No one should be surprised that JR once mentioned that he *may* quit his day job when BTC reached $1000 - I am sure many of us said something like that in passing. Similarly, no one should be surprised if JR doesn't make good on such an equivocal comment. Even if the comment were unambiguous and insistent, JR is a guy with a family and responsibilities, and if he puts those things ahead of some comment he once made on some forum thread, we shouldn't be disillusioned.

If, however, people are disillusioned, that should only reinforce a lesson that we need to learn: not to turn to JR as to some higher authority. JR himself has stated that his interest in Mastercoin is primarily as an investor, not a developer. The degree of esteem in which the Mastercoin community holds him is detrimental to the project. Again, I am calling on JR to directly encourage the community to look elsewhere for leadership and developers.

While responding to my request that we hire more developers, the board seems to have gotten stuck on a peripheral point again: at what rate to roll out the dev Mastercoins. I am thus asking the board to reorient itself and answer the question directly: Will you either call a head-hunting agency or do some networking and find full-time developers? I am aware that the 300 BTC bounty was meant to help find full-time developers, but thus far it has not been successful, and other projects are catching up with Mastercoin's progress (for exampe Nxt, as Pouncer pointed out).

I would like the board to have a vote as to whether we should hire full-time developers. If the board doesn't feel this is the right course of action, I would like to know why.

[marcelus]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7914.msg116229#msg116229

It seems JR said in 2011 he would quit his day job and concentrate his own project if BTC reaches 1000.
That is today.

Ouch. Good find.

JR??

JR:"$1000/bitcoin won't make me filthy rich, but I might be rich enough to quit my day job"
Note：it is  Maybe。。。

I think he has revised this. He will now quit bus day job when he sells 1% of his MSC holdings for .7BTC.

[rbdrbd]

LETS GET THESE GREAT DEVELOPERS FULL TIME ON MASTERCOIN

In my opinion the best way to do this is reliably and predictably vest the Dev MSC generated each month and we would have $312,500 USD in BONUSES, to add to the already great BTC bounties we offer.

If that's split between the current four Devs they would have made $78,125 USD in Dev MSC EACH MONTH the last three months = $234,375 USD and they would have quit their jobs by now. It really is that simple.

Even if we have 12 full time Developers working right now they would still be making $26,041 per month each just in bonuses from Dev MSC!

There would have to be 36 full time developers splitting the Bonus evenly to equal $8,680 USD per month and they would still be better off to work for the BTC and Dev MSC than take a $6,000 per month salary.

I say we unleash our most powerful weapon, thus far left neutered and under used for lack of a specified "Distribution Rate" in the MSC protocol.

I hope you will all vote in this poll going on right now and support the idea of actually using this Dev MSC that sitting there unused right now, for the most important purpose of all. Actually developing Mastercoin features and rewarding those who are doing just that.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=348028.0

voted in the poll.
I've never seen so much time + effort been meted out for an open source digital project.
it's mind-boggling.

You have to be careful here with that kind of blind "firehose" strategy. As the developer behind "masterdaemon", which will soon be released, I will probably soon be the "5th" or "6th" developer. Why, in that case, should any of the other developers help me at all, if all I'm essentially doing is pulling money away from them? This kind of distribution scheme has a negative incentive to grow the dev community.

I mean, hell, I'd love to get this product out, sit around, and collect a "paycheck" in MSC dev funds, but I don't think that's very effective (speaking against my self-interest here). I would pay the active developers a smaller amount of MSC on an ongoing basis (on top of what you pay them in any kind of full-time salary, etc), and save at least half of that new amount every month for devs that release something NEW into the
community. This will incentivise people to develop new products and services for Mastercoin, and it will encourage new devs to join up (or existing devs to develop additional products/services), instead of making some un-inviting "money club" where all you're doing when you join up is taking away money from someone else. Coins awarded would be a subjective measure of how valuable the community finds this new product (we could even have a voting thread of mechanism for it).

I learned a lot of lessons starting and growing companies. I see a lot of these same mistakes being made (or being proposed) in this project. Especially when it comes to compensating and motivating developers/employees. Do we have anyone on the board that has "boots on the ground" operational experience growing profitable software/tech startups with more than 10 employees?

[bitexch]

LETS GET THESE GREAT DEVELOPERS FULL TIME ON MASTERCOIN

In my opinion the best way to do this is reliably and predictably vest the Dev MSC generated each month and we would have $312,500 USD in BONUSES, to add to the already great BTC bounties we offer.

If that's split between the current four Devs they would have made $78,125 USD in Dev MSC EACH MONTH the last three months = $234,375 USD and they would have quit their jobs by now. It really is that simple.

Even if we have 12 full time Developers working right now they would still be making $26,041 per month each just in bonuses from Dev MSC!

There would have to be 36 full time developers splitting the Bonus evenly to equal $8,680 USD per month and they would still be better off to work for the BTC and Dev MSC than take a $6,000 per month salary.

I say we unleash our most powerful weapon, thus far left neutered and under used for lack of a specified "Distribution Rate" in the MSC protocol.

I hope you will all vote in this poll going on right now and support the idea of actually using this Dev MSC that sitting there unused right now, for the most important purpose of all. Actually developing Mastercoin features and rewarding those who are doing just that.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=348028.0

voted in the poll.
I've never seen so much time + effort been meted out for an open source digital project.
it's mind-boggling.

You have to be careful here with that kind of blind "firehose" strategy. As the developer behind "masterdaemon", which will soon be released, I will probably soon be the "5th" or "6th" developer. Why, in that case, should any of the other developers help me at all, if all I'm essentially doing is pulling money away from them? This kind of distribution scheme has a negative incentive to grow the dev community.

I mean, hell, I'd love to get this product out, sit around, and collect a "paycheck" in MSC dev funds, but I don't think that's very effective (speaking against my self-interest here). I would pay the active developers a smaller amount of MSC on an ongoing basis (on top of what you pay them in any kind of full-time salary, etc), and save half of that new amount every month for devs that release something NEW into the
community. This will incentivise people to develop new products and services for Mastercoin, and it will encourage new devs to join up (or existing devs to develop additional products/services), instead of making some un-inviting "money club" where all you're doing when you join up is taking away money from someone else. Coins awarded would be a subjective measure of how valuable the community finds this new product (we could even have a voting thread of mechanism for it).

I learned a lot of lessons starting and growing companies. I see a lot of these same mistakes being made (or being proposed) in this project. Especially when it comes to compensating and motivating developers/employees. Do we have anyone on the board that has "boot on the ground" operational experience growing profitable software/tech startups with more than 5-10 employees?

+1

[vokain]

I would like the board to have a vote as to whether we should hire full-time developers. If the board doesn't feel this is the right course of action, I would like to know why.

Ron did have a proposal that for those who seek security, they can be paid a salary and either they'd be entirely unincluded from bounties or their salary amount would be deducted before the award (which makes more sense)

At the same time, these are my reservations:

1. It is favoritism. Every should have the same chance at the same prizes, disregard any previous history or expertise.
2. This favoritism places later contestants at a greater disadvantage than they already are. Aside from having to play catch up already, they now have to compete against those that don't have to work their day jobs through Mastercoin salaries, for a smaller portion of the pot that has already had slices allocated away for such salaries.
3. What do you think is more effective? Paying someone(s) a salary so they may forget their other financial obligations and focus full time, or placing a large enough bounty with good enough directions so that anyone can begin developing as they see fit, work together as they see fit, and quitting their jobs as they see fit? I lean towards the latter.

LETS GET THESE GREAT DEVELOPERS FULL TIME ON MASTERCOIN

If that's split between the current four Devs they would have made $78,125 USD in Dev MSC EACH MONTH the last three months = $234,375 USD and they would have quit their jobs by now. It really is that simple.

This represents an 'unearned' windfall.  This is not good.  I say pay the devs really well.  Too well.  But don't throw the money away - we need it to motivate more devs in the future.  

Ideally, I would like to see:
1. Open contestation for bounties, to put contestants on a level field. Regarding how to design them, honestly I would like to see JR more visible on this front as the first contest was designed and handled very well imho by him (his decision of course, because Mastercoin is his baby and of course he'll do what he has to to make Mastercoin succeed. We all will). Though bounties should be more of a volunteer's job ie the board's, we may see fit to contract bounty creation and management out to the community. Taariq Lewis, our top candidate for heading development of the smart property milestone, I could see as a top competitor for bounty creation if he can design the best incentives and directions to guide such development (right now there is some discussion on how to best utilize Taariq's talents, still ongoing with the board. Personally I think objective-based bounties are best suited for this). Obviously anyone can contribute proposals, collude, and/or critique each other. If the proposed bounty, open to the community, is approved, a bounty would be paid out to the creator(s). A further or "second half" bounty could be made for bounty designers or anyone to make sure the bounty is managed and executed well. Bounties and bounties for bounties would be developed during the time the developers are working on the as of current milestone, so that upon completion, we already have the next bounties ready to go.

2. Use nice fixed BTC/MSC prizes for the major milestones, the market can decide what that is worth monetarily, and the contestants can decide whether or not it is worth it to them as well.
a. The fixed BTC/MSC prizes will tend to increase in value. High value will increase profitability for those that spend their skills and efforts on development, and the incentive for efficient work will increase.
b. I think this is where we'll see self-organizing coalitions as it almost always more competitive to team up than it is to be a lone wolf going against teams. Encourage strategization by increasing the stakes at hand.

3. More open discussion and exchange of ideas! Keep this going gentlemen, it is refreshing to have each other to bounce ideas off of.

[rbdrbd]

I think a great use of some of those Dev MSC is as a "carrot" to entice and fold newly bubbling ideas into the Mastercoin ecosystem.

For example, right off of page 1 and 2 of this forum:

Distributed identity and reputation database: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=130137.0
Developers Wanted - combination of Bitcoin and Napster: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=338080.0

Some of these kinds of ideas are things that could be actually folded into Mastercoin. However, we need to incentivize these folks to consider doing this, or it makes no sense for them to try because they are probably not vested in Mastercoin itself. Thus, the prospect of pursuing their idea or effort as a component of Mastercoin would only make sense to them if in doing so, they were rewarded with MSC and became invested in the system, when that idea becomes a reality in the form of an actual product or service based on Mastercoin. This is similar to the concept of how a big company (like Google) will buy up smaller startups showing promise (with stock options) and integrate them, to take the best ideas and avoid fragmentation/competition in the future.

I'm thinking this is what David has started doing to a good extent and if so, I commend him for this! But I think, to keep our advantage in this exploding field, we need to be 1990's Microsoft-like aggressive in picking up and integrating new ideas, and getting new talent behind mastercoin, instead of working on their own fragmented things.

I think this allows the dev MSC to be used in a way that promotes growth and value. Let salaries and bonuses (including some dev MSC, but not all of it) sustain existing growth/capacity.

[bitexch]

I would like the board to have a vote as to whether we should hire full-time developers. If the board doesn't feel this is the right course of action, I would like to know why.

Ron did have a proposal that for those who seek security, they can be paid a salary and either they'd be entirely unincluded from bounties or their salary amount would be deducted before the award (which makes more sense)

At the same time, these are my reservations:

1. It is favoritism. Every should have the same chance at the same prizes, disregard any previous history or expertise.
2. This favoritism places later contestants at a greater disadvantage than they already are. Aside from having to play catch up already, they now have to compete against those that don't have to work their day jobs through Mastercoin salaries, for a smaller portion of the pot that has already had slices allocated away for such salaries.
3. What do you think is more effective? Paying someone(s) a salary so they may forget their other financial obligations and focus full time, or placing a large enough bounty with good enough directions so that anyone can begin developing as they see fit, work together as they see fit, and quitting their jobs as they see fit? I lean towards the latter.

Let me first make a general comment, and then I will address each of your reservations individually. The question isn't whether there are some virtues to a bounty system that will be lost by hiring full-time employees, but whether on the whole having full-time employees is better than having exclusively bounties. I don't see why we can't have a mix of bounties and full-time employees. It seems to me that if the full-time employees act in concert, then they could decide, with the approval of the board, what specifically . I can't emphasize enough that we have millions of dollars at our disposal, and we ought to use it intelligently and effectively.

Regarding (1): It seems a little misleading to call hiring full-time developers "favoritism". Full-time employees don't play the same role in a project as developers who work for bounties. Again, why can't there be a mix of bounty-employees and full-time employees? The idea that previous experience should always and unequivocally be irrelevant is untenable, and in any case it shouldn't be maintained if it hurts the project.

Regarding (2): Not to sound insensitive, but the development of the Mastercoin project is the essential thing, not whether some potential developer is at a disadvantage. Of course, innovation may suffer somewhat by putting anyone at a disadvantage, but innovation may suffer much, much more if it is no one's *job* to work on Mastercoin full-time.

Regarding (3): The problem is that you're forming an dichotomy where there isn't one. Some tasks will be better as bounties, and some tasks will require the full attention of developers over a long period of time.

In short, it's not either or; I see the opportunity for a combination of different kinds of developers which, in my view, will lead to a quicker and more fruitful development of the Mastercoin protocol.

3. More open discussion and exchange of ideas! Keep this going gentlemen, it is refreshing to have each other to bounce ideas off of.

I appreciate your interest in discussion. Unfortunately you seem to be the only board member who is willing to seriously engage in such important policy discussions.

On that note, I think it is important that the board members explicitly answer rbdrbd's question: "Do we have anyone on the board that has "boot on the ground" operational experience growing profitable software/tech startups with more than 5-10 employees?"

[vokain]

Let me first make a general comment, and then I will address each of your reservations individually. The question isn't whether there are some virtues to a bounty system that will be lost by hiring full-time employees, but whether on the whole having full-time employees is better than having exclusively bounties. I don't see why we can't have a mix of bounties and full-time employees. It seems to me that if the full-time employees act in concert, then they could decide, with the approval of the board, what specifically . I can't emphasize enough that we have millions of dollars at our disposal, and we ought to use it intelligently and effectively.

I really don't know. I'm split on this issue, honestly, as you can tell from my posts. I have favored full-time employees before because I know the talent is excellent and I know they will get the job done, but at the same time, I now realize this subtle difference in mechanism of motivation could mean a lot down the road, on a systems level. It also forces those developers to become an authority and would probably burden them with managerial responsibilities than they normally have to. I know at least one developer that does not want to deal with that kind of stuff. I asked for their input in the Dev Thread to come in here in order to voice their side, but I like to think these guys simply wish to stay out of the politics and just do what they do best by solving problems when presented clear cut objectives with a very clear cut reward. But I don't know, I wish they spoke more on this topic.

On that note, I think it is important that the board members explicitly answer rbdrbd's question: "Do we have anyone on the board that has "boot on the ground" operational experience growing profitable software/tech startups with more than 5-10 employees?"

I do not. The quieter board members like Brock Pierce and Jonathan Yantis I do believe so. I will let the others who have accounts here speak for themselves. Anyway, looking into it some more, I found this interesting article that involves both Brock and Jonathan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IGE

[killerstorm]

I'll just leave this here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106373.msg3734731#msg3734731

[rbdrbd]

bitexch, I'm in agreement with you 100% on that last response. In my mind, the full time devs should focus mostly around implementation of the base libraries and services of Mastercoin (e.g. mastercoin-explorer, web wallet, masterdaemon, etc), as well as leading the charge in specing out (and working through any ambiguities of) the Mastercoin spec. This all is the part that requires that full-time level of coordination, focus and persistence, to "get right". The community needs stable and solid base tools to build on that are well-maintained. These full time devs form that "solid ground" of base tools and services that the community can build on top of. It is exactly this reason why I made such a fuss about the "mastercoind"/"masterdaemon" idea, and have spent a lot of my time to work on this. I really see it as crucial to enabling future community-driven growth.

Then, the Mastercoin foundation, beyond enabling its fulltime team of devs to persist and providing long term vision for the project as a whole, should work within the community (via bounties, etc, much like they already are) to encourage businesses and efforts to form around this base Mastercoin stack. Without that crucial community involvement (and involving and investing outsiders into Mastercoin via generous dev MSC bounties and rewards), Mastercoin will end up just being an insider pet project and sideshow. These MSC need to get out into the community and into capable and talented new hands for Mastercoin to have an impact.

This is very much akin to Facebook cementing its place in the social media industry by building a base platform with full SDK/APIs, and establishing a thriving 3rd party development ecosystem around it. That's a great model for Mastercoin in many ways, I think.

PS: Also, thank you vokain for being so open to other views and opinions, and working with us in this way on this forum. Very much appreciated.

[Ola]

It should be said explicitly that Mastercoin's "first-mover advantage" - which JR mentions in his white paper - may disappear. Another project may hire full time developers, copy the Mastercoin code that has already been written, and complete its project before Mastercoin. This is not some highly improbable "worst case scenario", but a distinct possibility that everyone involved in Mastercoin should be concerned about.

This is not meant as a criticism of Mastercoin's current developers who, I know, are devoting what time they have to the project. What I write is directed at the board, which, in my view, is getting caught up in peripheral parts of the project, and is deferring judgment on questions of immediate importance. Rather than debating what currency we are going to pay developers in, we should hire developers!

EDIT: We should hire developers and, at least for now, simply ask them in what currency they would like to be paid.

+1000

I would like the board to have a vote as to whether we should hire full-time developers. If the board doesn't feel this is the right course of action, I would like to know why.

Ron did have a proposal that for those who seek security, they can be paid a salary and either they'd be entirely unincluded from bounties or their salary amount would be deducted before the award (which makes more sense)

At the same time, these are my reservations:

1. It is favoritism. Every should have the same chance at the same prizes, disregard any previous history or expertise.
2. This favoritism places later contestants at a greater disadvantage than they already are. Aside from having to play catch up already, they now have to compete against those that don't have to work their day jobs through Mastercoin salaries, for a smaller portion of the pot that has already had slices allocated away for such salaries.
3. What do you think is more effective? Paying someone(s) a salary so they may forget their other financial obligations and focus full time, or placing a large enough bounty with good enough directions so that anyone can begin developing as they see fit, work together as they see fit, and quitting their jobs as they see fit? I lean towards the latter.

Let me first make a general comment, and then I will address each of your reservations individually. The question isn't whether there are some virtues to a bounty system that will be lost by hiring full-time employees, but whether on the whole having full-time employees is better than having exclusively bounties. I don't see why we can't have a mix of bounties and full-time employees. It seems to me that if the full-time employees act in concert, then they could decide, with the approval of the board, what specifically . I can't emphasize enough that we have millions of dollars at our disposal, and we ought to use it intelligently and effectively.

Regarding (1): It seems a little misleading to call hiring full-time developers "favoritism". Full-time employees don't play the same role in a project as developers who work for bounties. Again, why can't there be a mix of bounty-employees and full-time employees? The idea that previous experience should always and unequivocally be irrelevant is untenable, and in any case it shouldn't be maintained if it hurts the project.

Regarding (2): Not to sound insensitive, but the development of the Mastercoin project is the essential thing, not whether some potential developer is at a disadvantage. Of course, innovation may suffer somewhat by putting anyone at a disadvantage, but innovation may suffer much, much more if it is no one's *job* to work on Mastercoin full-time.

Regarding (3): The problem is that you're forming an dichotomy where there isn't one. Some tasks will be better as bounties, and some tasks will require the full attention of developers over a long period of time.

In short, it's not either or; I see the opportunity for a combination of different kinds of developers which, in my view, will lead to a quicker and more fruitful development of the Mastercoin protocol.

3. More open discussion and exchange of ideas! Keep this going gentlemen, it is refreshing to have each other to bounce ideas off of.

I appreciate your interest in discussion. Unfortunately you seem to be the only board member who is willing to seriously engage in such important policy discussions.

On that note, I think it is important that the board members explicitly answer rbdrbd's question: "Do we have anyone on the board that has "boot on the ground" operational experience growing profitable software/tech startups with more than 5-10 employees?"

+100000000000





This has nothing to do with dev mastercoins and it doesn't provide the right incentives…I do not see why the board is not heeding the advise of the community and hiring full time developer ASAP!!

This is not an issue of competition. Its an issue of how much time these devs have to commit to the project after doing their main jobs that pays their bills and living expenses. Bounties are paid after devs complete work, what are they supposed to do in the mean time while they are not getting paid? : They are already doing it: working other jobs.  All they have left to give is free time after work. My suggestion: pay them in FIAT. You already have a bank account…Like I stated previously:

I think these points need to be address quickly to speed up development and foster outside development.


1) I think its high time that 2 developers, or at least Tachikoma is hired or contracted full time for at least a period of 2 years... this is a minimal relative cost of doing business considering the potential fast turn around of the initiative, due to having someone work on the project full time. At this point Tachikoma who blazes the trail, mostly leading developments and improvement shouldn't be scrounging around working to pay bills. His focus should be on developing and testing so we can have something dependable in no time:  Success in anything depends on FOCUS, and right now our main devs have jobs on the side trying to pay bills. We should take a page from the bitcoin foundation and emulate the hiring of Gavin Adresen.

"Concentrate all your thoughts upon the work at hand. The sun's rays do not burn until brought to a focus."

and

In a perfect world, I would happily devote more time to Mastercoin, I've lived and breathed it pretty much whenever I'm not working my day job & am of course 100% behind it - there is however an issue I haven't seen discussed which for me at least is significant.

There are real-world financial burdens (mortgage, bills etc) that have to be paid.  My full time earnings are in fiat - and that's a critical factor.  Cryptocurrencies are still a very new and volatile way of transferring monetary value (for example I had a fairly substantial bitcoin transaction earlier this week that was worth significantly less to the recipient in the time it took to confirm it in 6 blocks).  Consider if you will, being paid in bitcoin & mastercoin only for the next {x months/years}.  The ups and downs of these values will determine the amount of fiat you would have that month to pay the bills.  It could be fantastic and you become very wealthy.  It could also end in tears if a crash in value restricts your ability to pay said bills.  My number one priority over anything else will always be providing for my family (and stably).  

The foundation I'm sure would look at adjusting payments along with market values but just as volatility affects conversion to fiat, so does it affect the resources of the foundation.  A crash in bitcoin value is also a crash in foundation resources.  For the sake of debate, what happens if bitcoin for example crashes to $50?  How would the foundation cover it's payments to its hires?  I think that's an unlikely scenario, but unlikely enough to put 100% of your income on is the question.  My apologies if this comes across as negativity that's not my intention at all - I'm simply considering (out loud) the potential risks.

Mastercoin is a project I thoroughly support and believe is going to be something that really starts to attract 'big money' (corporate) to cryptocurrencies.  I currently spend as much time developing as I can, but I have a full time job which takes up the lion's share of my time.  I still do endeavor to be responsive to any issues with any of my Masterchest software.

As they say 'never close a door' & I'm not ruling anything out, but as nice (I'm guilty too) as it is to get swept up in the incredible growth in just our first few short months when it comes to things like employment and where your income comes from (and how reliable that income is) a longer term perspective is needed.

Thanks

Note, I'd be happy to read any info anyone can provide on a precedent for full-time work paid in cryptocurrencies.

EDIT: for clarity

Your concern is reasonable and valid especially considering fluctuations in btc prices which equates to real life consequences...However I do feel that this risk could be offset by the foundation, by paying developers or "long term contractors" (because there might be additional implications for classifying devs as employees) in fiat. I heard over trello that the foundation now has a bank account. I see no reason why long term fiat payments payments couldn't be structured for long term contractors "Devs" without addition legal burdens of "full time employee" classification. "long term contractor" is also a convenient title or classification because you would be working from your own space and you will not be sharing any physical resources.


With all due respect Bounty's work very well, but it comes as an afterthought to full time employment. Bounties foster competition and it is good for getting to see what potential candidates for a project are made of. How how about in a situation where we already know the skill and ability of said developers? Bounties in these cases become counter-intuitive because the ability of the skilled developer to produce quality work is not based on actual skill, but on actual time he can afford to give after his first priority which is the other job that puts food on the table. We seen several instances when tachikoma had to sleep and go to work.

The long term hiring works way way better for developers who we already know have the desired skill, competence and drive from a track record.  It would mean that Mastercoin is priority for developers and they already love working on mastercoin why not enable them to give their all to mastercoin? We have several of these guys from the previous bounties and I think it best to do everything to "poach" them while we can. Don't forget there are competitors and this is also a race to the top of who can achieve a network effect for success. Not only do we want to achieve a network effect, but increase the switching costs by having such rich and intuitive system that makes it hard for users of mastercoin to find any other comparable platform. And what we need right now is to  get the  devs to focus full time on developing essential mastercoin features than to worry about two things at once.   : "Concentrate all your thoughts upon the work at hand. The sun's rays do not burn until brought to a focus."

what does everybody else think?

If you continue to ignore our concerns, It would mean that now you are not doing whats in the best interest of mastercoin, its investors and mastercoins SUCESS!! and this would be indirect sabotage    Voting on this issue should be a no brainer and I think the boards interest should be properly aligned to accomplish this minute task. I do not think "voting" is a proper excuse!!

JR,  RON,  DAVID respectfully , we need full time devs ASAP! Please. In business you never outsource your core competency..Right now Mastercoin's core competency is to rely on bounties and if this is not fixed now it will bite us in the back later. We can take a page from bitcoin itself and follow the example of the hiring of Gavin Adresen, Only we actually have the ability to hire 12 potential "Gavin Adresens" but we are not taking advantage.

Competitive bounties are still needed but Not as a core strategy for development. Bounties play the proper role as supplemental to mastercoin projects and discovery of new talented developers, why is this so hard to UNDERSTAND???

We have Nxt, Bitshares on our heels and most will agree that first mover advantage is PARAMOUNT!

For your information I grew my last company to 12 employees to develop a fully functional product..funding and success aside. We need our suite of Mastercoin features built and saying this current harp hazard strategy is not going to cut it is a serious understatement !!

Echo this post if you 100% agree with this!!