Official request to P2P Foudation

From Value Network
Jump to: navigation, search

Goal: Write an official request to p2p foundation to play the role of custodian. They need that in order to set up the legal framework. This request needs to make explicit the rules of distribution.

Consensus

  • Allow the p2p foundation to play the role of custodian [see Ishan's distinction between "custodian" and "trustee"] [reference required...].
  • Use a value accounting system for redistribution of funds to participants
  • Keep the project open, i.e. allow other members (individuals or organizations) to join.
  • The output will not be closed [still debating about the license]

Points of divergence

Should we use some of the funds to reward past work on OVN infrastructure?

Proposed solutions

  • Radical no
    • PROS
      • simple, avoid messiness of where to draw the line (do we pay aristotle for logic?)
      • encourages participation in the future work
      • provides clarity for donors to a crowdfunding exercise that their donation will provide for something new to be done, rather than something that already exists to be back paid
    • CONS
      • assumes no value was created by contributors before arbitrary point in time
      • violates the principle that all value is rewarded by ignoring the shoulders we stand on
      • encourages people to re-register their built inputs as new value added (it took me 70 hours to build this thing I've 'donated' so I'll register 70 hours in this new project - note this is now more or less equivalent to the 'log past work' method)
  • Set a fixed % for past work (pay out immediately then ignore in future liquidity events OR don't payout immediately but % for past contributions is fixed and applies to future liquidity events?)
    • PROS
      • fits old economy thinking, fixed percentages with dilution only at financing events (note dilution is only triggered by cash in old system, as if this were the only subsequent value that counted)
      • if existing work percentage is paid out immediately, prior value chain is rewarded, while a known percentage is provided for new work, which can be communicated to funding sources for their approval prior to donating - similar to 'use of funds' disclosure in an old economy prospectus
    • CONS
      • gives founders special status, which says some contributions are more important than others based on founding - would prefer an explicit metric for founding as a dimension of value
      • assumes the relative value of founder's contributions are fixed irrelevant of subsequent value added (if non diluting)
      • applies an arbitrary evaluation of prior work based on amount raised rather than on a valuation liquidity event(consumption for consideration)
  • Log past work on OVN as contributions to SENSORICA and wait for revenues to get rewarded [Set starting value dimension metric levels for past work (implies starting percentage, which moves with further contribution)]
    • PROS
      • initial donated work is evaluated on the same scale (value equation) as subsequent 'new' work
      • allows for subsequent 'donation' of pre-existing value during the execution of a project, on the same basis as initial value donation
      • transparent (not hiding founder bias in any special 'class' of equity)
      • delays payment for existing contributions until a future liquidity event
    • CONS
      • past work must be evaluated, which is time consuming and prone to error (memories fail us)
        • prior to use of the value accounting protocol, or
        • if work was evaluated using a different set of value dimensions or metrics, or
        • if the foreign value equation is not trusted
  • Cite past work when used in future work and use the citations in the value equation when distributing funds
    • PROS
      • follows the principle of rewarding the entire value chain
      • defer evaluation of inputs until a liquidity event (only do the work of evaluation when it is warranted)
    • CONS
      • presupposes we have metrics for the cited work, or that we are deferring evaluation until liquidity event, at which point memories may be even dimmer than they are at project initiation
  • treat grants and crowdfunding proceeds differently from revenue generation liquidity events to interface with old economy counter parties, by using grants and crowdfunding to fund future work (pay salaries as debated elsewhere, for living wages only) and use the value equation to distribute any future revenues from the existing and new work (see options above.. prefer full evaluation of past and present work in terms of the value equation)
  • propose others...

Valuation and distribution of funds

  • Based on use value of delivered software contributions (not time contributions), to be determined by the participating value networks. Which means we will not know the value of each software contribution until the participating value networks have had a chance to use the software.
  • If funds are distributed according to those use value rules, then no funds will be distributed immediately. If participating software projects need money immediately, they may apply to the participating value networks for advances against future funds distribution. This would not be considered a loan: the overall OVNI project would assume the risk.

Content and Organization

Discussion: What are the pieces of software involved, how do they interface each other, who wants to be involved.....

Here is a starting picture of the pieces of infrastructure, please feel free to edit it, add comments, etc.

Important Links