Hi, just a quick question; is it the for profit company or the not for profit foundation that the 1% developer fee goes to? I’m asking as I thought Maidsafe the company was going to be playing on a level playing field with other dev pods. Obviously this would not be the case if profit goes to private company. I was under the impression that the 1% goes to the foundation for supporting ecosystem etc, however I read a recent article from Nick Lambert and it appears this is not the case. Could this be clarified please, as it makes a massive difference in supporters’/investors’ minds. The quote is below:
“MaidSafe the company will earn safecoins by releasing its own apps, and also by improving the core code. A third revenue stream would come from what Lambert described as a “fairly significant intellectual property portfolio which is there for protection.” Yes, patents – anathema to many in the open source world, but potentially useful for protecting developers on the Safe network down the line.”
This is what is mentioned about the 1% on the licensing page, I really wish I would have been on the investment end of MaidSafe
Our code is protected by a revenue clause that allows non-GPL codebases to be created completely at the behest of the developer, with only a very small 1% (of revenue) fee without any additional charges, such as developer programs or API keys. The revenue generated here enables MaidSafe to maintain and improve the network for the vast majority of free users, while also repaying our brilliant and patient shareholders.
Yes, I’ thought original shareholders are already to be repaid in safecoin though - ie an allocation has already been made. So the 1% goes to the private company then, not the foundation…hmmm
I do see a problem. It goes against the grain of declared ethos etc and could raise doubts - and eyebrows. It could suggest the whole project is mainly motivated by private profit, rather than the stated main aims. A lot of people are invested because they believe more in the ethics and equality etc. It would be a shame if a sour taste was left in anybody’s mouth and project is perceived as being motivated by greed. I’m pretty confident it isn’t by the way, but I’m not a troll, whereas others are and could seriously damage confidence in the project as a whole. I would definitely reconsider this as ultimately it could be counter productive. 1% of commercial dev revenue from a whole internet economy could potentially be absolutely huge. We need to ensure the project is not perceived as tarnished, whether true or not.
This is an ongoing concern for us that I have let slip in the furor. As original shareholders are paid out in safecoin, they have to give up their shares. This then means the for profit MaidSafe becomes closer to a charity or not for profit. I think if the network is to grow then we need to consider all angles
1: The 1% fee is for commercial companies who are not using purely crypto as a means revenue (should this be restricted to only safecoin ?).
2: Even if MaidSafe becomes not for profit completely, I think it should be forced to ensure it pays its way (innovate or die). If the 1% became huge the foundation can and I am sure would redirect those funds. If a charity in the UK has too many funds it is forced to give them up (the RNLI, lifeboat was the richest in the UK and was forced to use up it’s funds).
3: In event the 1% brought in a load of cash, it makes perfect sense to distribute this to the communities (Builders in the early stages).
4: I also see the 1% as a mechanism to direct funds to getting people on the network from all over the world. So a none profit way of just spend the cash to get the other 5 billion connected. The advantage is not calculable. This is the biggest area of concern I have at the moment.
5: Personally I think this is a good way for the old companies to pay for the new companies and perhaps it should be more if we had enough time to think about it and have the foundation mange the funds and distribution. We will all need fiat for a wee while yet I am sure.
So fundamentally this is not yet set, but I have purposefully left it in place just now to give us some scope for making a charge on the for profit centralised Internet service fiat based companies. It will take the same shape as the rest of MaidSafe, thats for sure, well as long as I am involved in the company and that is the wider the distribution the larger the opportunity.
Please though folks, do not hesitate to chat about this and figure the best way, obviously we do need to fix it in place. The bottom line for me from day 1 though has been that we never stand in the way of innovation or progress, our project is not as important as evolution and we all need to police that part for sure. So please feel free to look at all ways this should work, I have put it of a bit for now, but after the network is live this will be a critical issue to get right. I think it will motivate and encourage open source if we do it right.
So this is ethical as well as having to make business sense for the whole community, in MaidSafe style it will be purely open and transparent. I totally believe MaidSafe has some great opportunities for profit, the 1% I do not see as that real opportunity though, it is through further innovation. The 1% is a tool we the community should be able to make use of, or perhaps not. I do not think any of us are completely convinced either way just now.
I should clarify what I meant here. MaidSafe is almost 50% owned by the MaidSafe foundation and almost 30% owned by the staff. Staff do not have shares though, it’s a block I had and stays a block and staff can only get paid out via dividends, that will be swapped out for safecoin as well. At that time the staff share those coins amongst themselves, so we need to get value there for sure.
As shareholders are paid out in safecoin their shares destroy (basically they become part of the foundation) increasing the foundation holdings. I see the whole thing eventually collapsing into the foundation in some form, The foundation will give up its shares to mind to fund its efforts with its own charitable models (innovation and education).
I know this is something the staff would like and so would our shareholders as they will have received hopefully amazing returns via safecoin by then. Of course the further innovations may yield other opportunities, but that’s just like any business and still may be better under the umbrella of the foundation.
I should also add that MaidSafe are behind a push for CODA to be the focal point for all IP from all companies in our space as an umbrella protection and means of income. It was us that actually brought this up to the surprise of many involved We are probably going to have to push that harder though as it seem to be us pushing all the time and not much happening. Maybe thats another area this community can be involved at some stage.
ps in answer to item 1. I think it should definitely restricted to safecoin to prevent say Google, Amazon etc just developing their own crypto to be paid in, which would defeat the object.
Good point and it would also prevent alienation of the alt coins and currencies, which is an important source of potential competition and support. Good call @wes .
Sorry am I missing something, only how does stating “crypto only” prevent a crypto google- coin from being accepted? So we’d be ok with the potential for massively pre mined google coin type cryptos to possibly evolve as main currency? What am I missing, I expect decisions of this sort will be made by the “community” though won’t it anyway, so we can put to some kind of vote?
For sure there will be huge community involvement. I think what @Wes is saying that it’s like GPL, either they are all revenue from crypto or they pay the 1%.
Just in case, I re-read this and its a bit wooly for my liking. The community will be wholly in charge of these types of decisions such as safecoin only etc. This is the communities network and although we will be doing a bunch of the core work, we get no privileges from that. It’s one reason I really like this discourse thing, not controlled by us and thats amazing. The economics in particular will need agreement.
So worry not @AlKafir but never get complacent either, I figure you won’t and that’s very cool.
No, I won’t lol, I’m basically just trying to ensure we are avoiding any potential issues much further down the line. I’ve just got a vague idea that opening up to all crypto could somehow lead to an abuse of the system. I haven’t fully formulated how, just a bad gut feeling really, combined with a few possible scenarios that I may have to think through a bit more. I’m really just trying to cover all angles and avoid any pitfalls as I really want this project to succeed.
I for one appreciate that. Keep doing it. it’s easy to miss stuff, especially us in the office just now its truly mental. Cheers I owe ye a big huge beer Actually I owe the whole community that. I am only happy cause I managed to do a couple of all nighters and got some code done Gotta love weekends
Hi, just a thought about a possible scenario, which may suggest we shouldn’t accept all crypto. Let’s imagine Safenet has become quite popular and quite likely to subsume current internet services. A large corporation, (say Amazon) wants to operate within this new eco system, however does not fancy paying the 1% back into the system. Some corporate arse-hole thinks, hmmmm……we can make substantially more profit if we accept payment in crypto, rather than cash. They further reason that with exchange fees etc, they’d be better off just accepting their own crypto which would work in exactly the same way as an Amazon voucher effectively. They could do exactly as Maidsafe did with Mastercoin protocol or similar, the only difference being that they keep the full issue amount. These are now Amazon vouchers, only redeemable at Amazon and not traded (as little incentive as can only use at one outlet). These vouchers can be purchased from the old-fangled internet Amazon site for cash, for use on Safenet – Amazon wallet etc provided. This way Amazon hedges it’s bets, as to which internet will become dominant and can sell on both, without incurring the 1% fee. You may question what a customer’s incentive is to buy the Amazon crypto, but the same question can be asked of any voucher/gift card/token system.
. I’ve only just thought of this 10 mins ago as I got in from work and sat having a brew and fag, so I’m probably missing something glaringly obvious - so can somebody please point out either why this is not possible, or why it is not a problem, even if it happens.
How do you prevent people from developing their own crypo on the service? And doesn’t that directly undermine the philosophy of the system? Or am I misunderstanding the discussion?
We are probably going to have to push that harder though as it seem to be us pushing all the time and not much happening. Maybe thats another area this community can be involved at some stage.