Just as an off-the-cuff opinion based on quickly perusing the thread after a 500 mile drive and 3 hours of sleep...
IP restrictions is a big deal for Novak and I. So that'll have to be taken seriously on our end if we want to pitch in. Additionally, decision-making rights based on how much money you have strikes me as not only the way literally everything is run, but also as a terrible idea. I have zero money so apparently would have no say in the project whether I were to help or not.
Hey, glad to hear you made it home in one piece.
If a foundry mandates an NDA (effectively restricting the IP regarding how they make chips, if I understood 2112's post correctly, which I may not have) and one wants a chip made, the only alternative I see is to build a new foundry.
What am I missing?
Should "we" be considering creating an entity that is a foundry?
That operates under a different paradigm?
"Additionally, decision-making rights based on how much money you have strikes me as not only the way literally everything is run, but also as a terrible idea."
What other metric would you suggest for determining decision making rights?
What criteria must one meet or exceed to be endowed with the decision making responsibility?
And who determines what that criteria is?
Under the model I'm proposing, let me paint a
simple possible worst case picture.
1) 10 VC whales each "invest" $100,000 (1 million voting shares).
2) 1,000 investors invest $1,000 each (1 million voting shares).
3) and one newb invests $1 (1 voting share).
The whales will likely communicate amongst themselves privately with greed as their motivation. The 1,000 will likely communicate amongst themselves in a variety of manners (Bitcoin thread, PM's, emails, etc. . .) along with the 1 one dollar investor with curiosity, creativity, and learning as their motivation. Assuming the community of $1,000 and the 1$ investors are of a like mindset and the whales are of a like mindset and a referendum is raised that is self serving, greedy, and not in keeping with the spirit (best interests) of the community at large. Who wins the vote? Maybe it's my naivete' and faith in mankind, but I contend the 1,000 and the 1 will prevail. What is required by the 1,001 is the same kind of due diligence that the 10 will exhibit (driven by greed). If individuals contained in the 1,000 are the designers, engineers, and other key technology players and the 1,001 do not apply due diligence and consequently lose the vote, how much productive work would one imagine will get done. My guess is that when work grinds to a halt, the whales will bail. And if the proper legal framework is in place the 10, 1,000, and the 1 all re-coup their investment. The community still wins as they are the possessor of the IP which the whales are clueless about. At this juncture, the community has a plethora of options on how to proceed with what will be disruptive technology.
Additionally, if an individual shareholder had the ability to proxy their voting shares, for the exclusive purpose of voting in referendums, it would be easy for a singular individual to wield immense voting control. If numerous minority shareholders proxied their shares to a trusted individual of like minded high moral/ethical caliber . . . .
"I have zero money so apparently would have no say in the project whether I were to help or not."
1) As envisioned currently, which is subject to change as a result of a better idea, 1 share = $1 par value. I'll give you the dollar and I think many others would as well. But I think I get the jist of what your saying/implying. I can think of, off the top of my head, several individuals who if they needed the "grub stake" I'd "sponsor" them, gratis, with the cash/BTC to become financially involved. Again, "no strings attached". And I think I'm not alone in this, as others would be with acquaintances they know.
Additionally, a referendum could be raised to bestow shares to an individual either by diluting everyone's outstanding shares or by issuing them from existing capital shares (i.e. shares the company owns that have not been assigned/purchased). This creates some interesting tax liabilities for the individual but not insurmountable ones. This happens fairly regularly in corporate America today at the executive level. Where a board of directors (shareholders in this model) either sell at a reduced cost or gift capital stock to executives so they "have some skin" in the game as part of their compensation package. The theory is that if they perform, share holder value will increase and their individual share value will increase along with it. Pay based performance, so to speak. As another example, several public companies I've worked for have allowed me to purchase capital stock at par value, which at the time of purchase was several hundred % less than what the market price was. Sometimes this is called an employee stock purchase plan.
So let's take an example, You're significantly contributing (or somebody just feels sorry for you) to the design team. A singular design team member could raise a referendum, given your stellar performance, to have the corporation gift you with XXX capital shares. If voted up and you accept the gifting, you become a vested shareholder with decision making authority and participate in any profit dispersal the company may declare going forward. i.e. you become a share holder of record just like anyone who plopped down cash/BTC.
Similarly, a referendum could be raised to make a cash/BTC payment (for services rendered) to an individual. The individual would then be free to do what they will with the money/BTC.
A referendum could be raised to loan money to an individual or other entity. And they could likewise spend the money however they see fit.
There are multiple paths to ownership suffice to say. But all are based on what the community (in this case share holders) deems is appropriate and prudent to the health of the entity and the community at large.
2) As envisioned currently, which is subject to change as a result of a better idea, participation would not be restricted as I imagine the discussion would be public.
3) Assuming this endeavor actually does get a chip to tapeout and they are sold for even a minuscule infinitesimal micro-miniature net profit,
a) what would you envision doing with that profit?
b) and assuming it would be dispersed, what would be a fair metric to determine how it would be dispersed?
The model I'm working on will give the "every man" share holder a say in the decision making process and if the "every man" share holder bands together (which I've seen this community do) it can effectively steer the direction the ecosystem goes. Regardless of powerful outside manipulators.
None of the above is said and questions asked with even a tincture of sarcasm (with the exception of the feeling sorry for comment,
).
I am simply truly curious and welcome solutions to the existing paradigm.
If there is a way to make this happen fairly that prohibits ego's from manifesting themselves, that ethicality needs to be in the foundation.
And the topics/advantages of Public Benefit Nonprofit Corporations (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-benefit_nonprofit_corporation) and Mutual Benefit Nonprofit Corporations (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual-benefit_nonprofit_corporation) have not even been broached.
As a footnote, I'm really glad these questions are surfacing now as opposed to later.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -- Maragret Mead
