Not much time to write a post and maybe I should wait to get a better post or here but I’ll summarize first. #2 is huge. I don’t believe we want a bunch of half baked ideas turned into crowd funding campaigns. That doesn’t help the network at all. In fact it could hurt the network a lot in perception.
What really got me thinking down the lines of what I’m calling crowd founding was a conversation i was having with @frabrunelle about DAOs. He sent me a link to this slockit presentation. It is different from traditional Crowd funding in that the community funds an idea that it at least possible. Devs at least agree that it’s possible. As you @Al_Kafir mentioned we need a way to validate and hash out ideas and put at least interest level into the project. Then a huge part of this is that the funders control the purse strings and can hire the devs they need for the project or for features of the project.
This idea is very cool. They’re doing things like that with Augur as well. Where early investors already invested in some sort of reputation coin as far as I understand it. The only problem I see is that people with money can buy reputation and/or votes in an indirect way. So that should be prevented.
definitely a decentralized forum is a great tool for this, and could include a crowdfunding platform; or the crowdfunding platform inherits the decorum as part of the crowdfund’s parameter.
those coins can be traded on safex, I can see that happening, by integrating the crowdfund’s coin wallet software. In slock it, the dao makes plain text agreements and gains a ‘service provider’ the holders of coins assign that service provider and can vote on who it is they deal with as a service provider. There is a lot of innovation to connect to that: decentralized github for code projects for one, decentralized communications: decorum. The voters can join in on a multisig address that deals with spending funds as a collective, or awarding someone or some service provider authorization on funds as well.
I can rework the voting process, that can create a vote that spends coins. People would enter their public key to forge a multisignature key of the crowdfund, then they can produce a signature that meets the requirement of the multisignature which leads to spending that’s completely feasible. A developer could produce their public key, and the group would sign until a majority of signatures is produced to move the coins to the developer.
I had an idea to help curb this a while back. It’s not simple and not every project would want to do this. I’ll try my best to explain it here.
If you break the project up into stories/features and each community member (wallets with a Minimum amount of tokens in them) force ranks the features from greatest to least important and those rankings are averaged out you would end up with the communities ideas on what is most important. Now those wallets can vote on the direction of the project. Those that ranked closest to the communities ranking, their votes would be weighted more heavily than those who are farthest from what the community has decided is most important. This way votes are not only based on the number of influence tokens you have.
Yes, this was my initial concern, until on Poloniex and something dawned on me. I was watching users being awarded “marks” for whatever reason by other users and realised they were just low value coins. It then clicked, that if bestowed by others and had low worth, then the only issue left was people “buying” rep…so we have to mitigate that as far as possible.
Thinking further, I thought that as long as we “know”( to some degree) who can buy in the first place (restrict to forum users perhaps) then further limit the amount one can purchase, then we’ve already mitigated it a lot.
Remember that these coins are not intended to have much monetary value, not initially certainly, ( as restricted to community) probably for a long time, but even if not, then the value shouldn’t rise if the “core community” just keep hold of them.
The intent is just to use for voting - I’ve been all round in my head and this seems the fairest system…well almost.
I know this is a bit “out there”,and unsure of feasibility but as Safecoin is just one type of SD object, then “votecoin” etc could be created in same way.
OK, so how about that now maidsafecoin is spread out quite a bit (so quite fair)…couldn’t Maidsafe just send an equal amount of “votecoin” to every Safe address at the same time at launch? The community would instantly have one safecoin, 1 vote etc…is this a mad idea?
Hmmmm…I think we might be talking about slightly different things…because I wander about a bit.
I’m thinking of something that precedes the actual “crowd funding” part. I’m thinking of creating the de-centralised “crowd foundling forum” (at little to no cost but involving of the forum or larger community). The intention is just to create a de-centralised “place” or forum with in-built coin voting mechanism for the crowd funding community. This isn’t really intended as an investment - ideally all the community should have coins purely to vote in which direction your “crowd founding” community goes in structuring itself - its just a starting point…nothing else really.
At the end of the day if the coin gains value, then it can only be that the forum/community has grown/got richer and monetised in some way…so win-win really.
This is a very intriguing idea and if my idea of funding features on an ongoing basis was to be adopted by the community and if we hoped to do something in the interim, something like this would surly be necessary.
A couple months back I tried my best to put the idea of using tokens towards a crowd founding DAO (@GabrielDVine) into a document. This was the basis of the discussion I had with Adam B. Levine. Please have a read and let me know what you all think of this. Some of it is perhaps a bit too complicated and some of it I’m sure is pretty naive but take a read and explain the good/bad/ugly. If you have a problem with the link, right click, copy link address, paste it into another tab’s address bar and hit enter.
Just so you know, the idea of all those different kinds of tokens for one project, as described in the document, was considered to be very hard to manage by someone who understands tokens very well. A fork of omni with our own wallet might make it simpler.
I suggest we try our best not to have a walled garden at all. Sure at first we might need that (your idea of forking omni might work), but ultimately I’d love to be able to use a format or protocol that would allow multiple apps to “host” projects. I mentioned this here:
The protocol that Decorum is trying to build so our posts can run on many apps might also work in this way. This might be a totally naive proposition…
In the vehicle on a trip but was thinking about this more. Going along with your “crazy” idea. Maidsafe doesn’t really have to do this do they. Why can’t we just create a token in the same number of the initial crowd sale and send them to every address that holds maidsafe coins on a specific day. I have no idea on the way to do this at this point. The whole point of this token would be to show interest in ideas for future apps on the safe network. With the omni protocol we can track every address and the number of coins at these addresses… crazy idea? I think it might be a crazy revolutionary idea!
If we forked omni like you mentioned @dallyshalla this could be the first token on that platform with all the voting and everything built in. This would all one day move to the safe network but imagine the boon…
There would be issues with exchange addresses so how could this be done to handle those? Perhaps this could be a way to bootstrap the crowd founding framework multisig account. Example: send 1 (or X) maidsafe coin(s) to this address and get as many crowd coins as there are maidsafe coins in that address. Maybe we could put a maximum on the number per address if people are worried about a more equitable distribution. There would be transaction fees to handle too… ug.
If it was omni the interest in the project would be massive if all of a sudden your omni address showed a new SD token with the same amount as your maidsafe coins. Could really freak people out too…
[quote=“chadrickm, post:38, topic:7977”]
Why can’t we just create a token in the same number of the initial crowd sale and send them to every address that holds maidsafe coins on a specific day.
[/quote]Funny, you should say all that, as it was the idea I posted some time ago for “sistercoin”. I suggested Omni for the reasons you give and further said that the Only/Optimum time to do this would be launch.
I prophesised … that a need would arize for a blockchain based sistercoin before Safenet had the capabilities to provide the things one could provide in the meantime. I suggested that it would be a good thing to have, so that we would know which way the community wanted to direct/decide things.
There was little feedback given at the time though…so just dropped it…
Well perhaps the dots didn’t connect with those in that discussion for a bit. It took me two days for my brain to catch up and say, “CHADRICK, there is something to all this!” I believe it’s something that could be really big for the network at this infant stage and into the future.
Too often, people passionate about ideas have articulated them across scraps of paper, e-mails, and thoughts in their head. This constellation of notes looks a lot like the way the idea looks in your brain: thousands of neurons firing thoughts, making connections through synapses in a web of what were once disconnected memories and inputs. But if you want someone else to understand that mess of a web, you’ve got to find a way to get it into something more accessible.
My goal for this next week is to try to accomplish making it more accessible somehow…
The poll module takes a base64 private key that then allows you to
form a poll which is printed out in your home folder to a directory
Then you can share this file, and using the vote module you can put
the path to that .poll file. This way you can import your private key
and sign a vote based on the choices from the poll. The Voter then
generates a vote file.
Next steps is the validation so that you can feed a poll file, and
all the vote files and extract an answer that is validated against the
hashes, signatures, and public keys, along with the amount.
Included is a base64 bitcoin key generator; this is in an early state and we will continue to develop on it.
Note: this can be used to form a poll using any of the omni coins,
through indicating the Smart Property parameter. MAID = “3” and SEC =
If we are to do smart contracts on safe, and we will need to, in order to do ownership voting, dividend payments, etc. then we will need some kind of registry. Until we have smart contracts we are limited to building Distributed Organizations with people making decisions at key places. But when we have them we can build true Distributed Autonomous Organizations. At least that is how I see it. Please help me see differently if I’m off on this line of thinking.
I’m trying my best to dig into this, but I’m no expert in these things by any means. My career has to this point been server backend, web front-end apps. Until safe, crypto was something I was fascinated with but never dug into the deep workings. Now I’m learning more and more and I know I’ve got a ton of homework in order to learn all I possibly can.
The nice thing about an on-demand workforce is there are opportunities for experts to partner up with non-experts and it’s a win-win for everyone.
I’m not ready to give up on @dirvine and the team yet in regards to PtD.
That being said, I’ve also been thinking of different business models if PtD doesn’t work and would like the community’s input. I’m thinking through different scenarios and trying to find a fair way to pay both the developers and the investors through a dividend style payment with the hub. If PtD doesn’t work then the new requirement would be that the hub makes a profit or produces something of value. Because the software is open source there is always the ability to fork it and lower the cost or remove the cost entirely.
The cost of using the app and ease of use needs to far outweigh the effort of spinning up another version of the app for those less technical folks. It will surely be possible and many who are technically inclined will do it.
There needs to be a real value proposition for people to pay to use the app (any app for that matter). One idea I can think of at this time is charge a minimal fee for hosting projects. I’m not happy with this. We eventually end up in a walled garden scenario and we can do better I think.
A better idea might be to offer free use of the hub tools and networking (people would pay for their own data) and the projects would give the hub (ie developers and investors) a small share in their own projects (might be possible through smart contracts). We become partners and we want their ultimate success, because their success is our success! Eventually we build quite a diverse portfolio of shares in many projects. Everyone helping everyone along the way…
Each of those apps that are built through the hub has to determine their own business model. Having a community to help determine that model is quite a valuable thing to have I think.
I did not opine that a registry wasn’t needed, just that a Safe-native one is unnecessary when highly secure, well-established alternatives exist that can be used easily and powerfully over the encrypted Safe network.
I liked your post, but that doesn’t mean I can do it ;-). You mean everything Ethereum does? Like their virtual machine and the ability to run the exact code form their system on a virtual machine here?