* These are ideas that pop in my head. Someone please make this, or let me know if it already exists.
* These are free to use for everybody and anybody. If you do become the next multi-billionaire from one of my ideas, congrats.
And I would appreciate it if you could send a million or so my way if you feel like it.
A blockchain managed collaborative platform where strangers can create together.
What is it:
Sometimes you have an idea, but you simply do not have the skills, the connections or the money to make it a reality.
Or maybe you have amazing skills in programming, but no marketable ideas.
Or you love marketing and are looking for the next project to sink your teeth into.
If these three people would come together, amazing things can happen.
But what if these people live on opposite sides of the world? Trusting strangers on the internet is risky.
What if you give your idea to the programmer, and they run with it, leaving you out in the cold?
Or if you program the most amazing app possible, and the marketing guy gives you peanuts while they roll in cash?
Or if you market the hell out of the app, it works, and the one who had the original idea takes all the money, even if they didn’t do anything besides have an idea?
How can you create trust and fairness?
How does it work:
The first person (originator) creates a new idea. An app, a website, a service, etc.
Then there is a period of time for funding. People pledge money (getting tokens in return), time (whatever their skill is), or an asset (like a server, or a camera, etc).
Once the estimated goal is reached, the project goes live, on the blockchain. It is now forever known who holds the original idea. The rights belong to anyone and everyone who joins in.
In the software there is a time tracking mechanism that allows people to register their time, with proof (screenshots?).
Everyone who joins in gets tokens. Those tokens can only be exchanged for money once the idea starts to be profitable.
People who pledge suggest how many tokens their time/money/service is worth, and those already in have to decide with a majority vote if the accept or not.
The first pledge obviously will be decided by the Originator. After that, the originator and the first pledge, and so on.
People work on the project and make it go live. Decisions will be made by majority vote, within 24 or 48 hours. Everybody can put up a decision for a vote. Per decision one extension can be asked and will automatically be granted.
Income from the project will be changed into tokens and based on how many tokens you have, you get to withdraw your part of the project.
This requires people with ideas being able to let go of ownership of their idea and allow a group to make decisions. This is difficult to do.
People who pledged a lot of money and/or time will have the same say than those who only pledge a little.
This could be migrated by the time limit on the voting process. People who are not active will not see the vote within 24 hours and therefore not cast their vote.
How would we make sure that the income in FIAT money does not go to one person, but instead onto the blockchain, into the project?
Regulations and Rules:
If you want out of a project you can either simply stop working on it, and what you have done up to that moment counts for your percentage of contribution.
If you do not want to be associated with the project anymore at all, you can offer your tokens to those inside the project. Only if they do not want them, you are free to sell your tokens outside of the current group.
Division of FIAT money is done by automatic calculation.
No one job is automatically more valuable than another. You offer your time and how many tokens per hour you feel it is worth, and the ones already in the project accept or reject.
One exception to that is the Originator. Their original input is worth 100%, and lessens with each added contributor, but can never be zero. In order for them to increase their tokens/percentage, they will have to add work or call for decisions.
Each decision accepted will count for 1 token. If the decision gets rejected nothing happens. People who vote do not get tokens, they vote to improve the project. If they do not know enough to vote, they can abstain without penalty.
Each token is only given after the majority of the project votes that the other deserves it. If they vote no, the tokens are kept in escrow and the money that that person should have gotten will go to charity. Nobody gains from withholding payment.
If there is a split vote (50% for and 50% against) the decision is automatically rejected until someone changes their mind, or a new proposal is suggested.
The originator has a great idea to create an app. It is a reading game for kids. Originator starts the project and has 100% of the tokens. A programmer joins and says he takes 5 tokens for the part. Originator accepts. Then, originator suggests a name, and the name is accepted. She gets one token for suggesting that decision.
A writer joins the project. She asks for 1 token per story and the other two accept.
Now the app goes live, and the originator gets 11.76% of the profit, the programmer gets 29.41% of the profit and the writer gets 58.82% of the profit.
In this simple scenario the programmer might feel that he is not going to get enough. He could put up a decision to give himself more tokens and the writer and originator can accept or reject.
He can also suggest that any future updates to the program are worth a minimum of 2 tokens.
Another option is if the programmer says he will take 1 token per hour of work he puts in the program and uses time tracking/screenshots to prove his timestamps.
In this case, I used an app as a project, but this can be anything. Writing a book, buying a house and renting it out on air bnb (legal?), organizing a music festival (just be better than Fyre please…), etc.
Is this possible?
What would you change?
How do you see this succeeding?
How do you see this failing?
What questions do you have about this project?