Yes. DAOs is a big subject. I’ve talked to Adam B. Levine of Tokenly and LTBC about them in depth. Until we have real smart contracts we are forced to handle a lot of the trust issues through centralized solutions with some of it working with multisig. I believe we can get there someday and I agree that should be the roadmap for sure.
What are your thoughts on how they would work? Have you watched any of the slockit videos? I was pretty motivated by those…
Maybe a prerequisite of this project is a smart contract on safe network. The network should have enough features to implement smart contracts on top of it. I think @dallyshalla has done some work here?
I’m thinking similarly about the prereq for the full blown framework but that might be a while (weeks, months, years?) and I want to do something in the interim.
Something that has also been bouncing around in my head is how to make this distributed? Meaning can we say that as long as the projects fit some predefined format, that can be hosted (shown, discussed, managed) on any app that follows that formatting. This way it’s not just one central app being the gateway for the projects and the devs and others who will work for the projects. Many hubs and some could be specialized and only want to work with certain content while others might do anything and everything. What are people’s thoughts on this?
Edit:
After I wrote this I saw that @Blindsite2k posted about creating a way to decentralize media production. I think platforms like this could use this format/protocol. That app could focus on producing films and use the same underlying tools???
First comes a bootstrapped distributed crowdfunding DAO, then other DAOs can use it to bootstrap themselves. This is the dream!
Is a smart contract platform needed for this to become a reality? Probably. Perhaps we could port the scripting language from Ethereum/Rootstock but replace it with totally different guts, based on safecoin and perhaps a distributed clock protocol to replace blockchains, if necessary.
Interestingly, ethereum or rootstock could probably be used with proper abstraction to be replaced later when a SAFE alternative is born.
Some points:
There ought to be some panel that can check security of any apps that enter the crowd funding platform. Let’s face it, there are many ideas we can make up, though without persons with the knowledge to produce them then it can set up plenty of disappointment.
Just because someone is screaming “I have money, let’s get the crowd-sales going!!” doesn’t give a good reason to make a crowd-sale. For sure a real intention to make something happen should exist, with at least know-how already involved. Also, the amount of real effort available is a huge consideration to lead to a successful application.
Regards to the platform, to make a crowd-sale you need a website and wallet addresses.
In this post I mentioned what led to a successful promotion that now has a project on its way to delivery:
Considerations For Future Crowdsales SAFE Network projects - #5 by Jabba
A crowd-sale platform residing on SAFE Network is exciting especially, and I got confused a few times, are we demanding a crowdfunding platform for some network other than THE SAFE Network? because right now it won’t be possible to use SAFE for crowdfunding. We can use bitcoin block chain and embed material in it, later we will have coins for SAFE Network when it’s up and running.
We can use the omni without using any of omni’s branded platforms, can literally fork omni, or even write our own wallet with new “guts”. If you wanted the platform here today, then you can definitely fork the existing implementations and rebrand them that’s for sure. I am finalizing a voting application that uses the omni coins, effectively we will be able to cast votes and validate them using bitcoin keys that hold omni created assets; can see more about it here: GitHub - safex/vote: voting module for SafeExchangeCoin holders
I’m not championing omni here, just riding the rode. SAFE will pave a new road, at least then more devs will be devoting a full time to their applications. Which would make a crowd-funding platform very important so it makes sense to be forging plans today. The main question I have is: Are we needing a walled garden crowdfunding platform of our own today, or planning to have one for when SAFE is live?
OK, first I’m not a techie, so don’t rip me to shreds, but I’ve been pondering the possibilities of @seneca’s Decorum and it seems to be the answer to a lot of this discussion.( I can’t recommend enough that users who haven’t already, listen to @fergish’ “Crossroads” show interview with Seneca,…roll a fat one, then ponder the possibilities… . 
)
In short my understanding (please correct if wrong) is that Seneca is building a protocol first, then apps that interact with it. The first of these is likely to be a forum. The important bit is the protocol and the interesting bit (to me) is the way in which the coins of the forum (used for likes) are created using the structured data aspect. In this case the coins are for “likes”, but the possibilities are seemingly quite limitless…votes etc.
I’m thinking of how it’s all going to work and not sure how Seneca’s Decorum forum is going to do it, but I can think of one way we could go I think. Other Decorum forums (I’m thinking “Crowd Founding forum”) can be done in exactly same way, once Decorum working…:
We have crowd sale for “Crowd Foundling forum coins”, created from a different SD type on Safenet. The Community buy into the crowd sale, then instantly have a “share” in a de-centralised forum. This would be the very first thing to crowd fund in my view, as it would give us a central point to start from.
At this point we could use the coins to vote on projects to fund using the coins as votes (instead of likes). This would be similar in effect to the ideas contained in @dallyshalla’s Safex project. The only difference I see is that one project is an Exchange that could grow into other things and the other is a core crowd funding de-centralised forum/app thingy that could also evolve in other ways.
Maybe the coins could also be used as reputation coins and in a similar way to an Etherium idea, the top “rep” earners get to do something like Mod, or vote on contracts…whatever… the thing is that we all decide everything together from the start - it would be another Community developing, just like the Safex will.
Anyway, maybe getting mixed up with stuff, but defo listen to that interview…
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?
Along the same lines of limiting you’re talking about perhaps?
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…
It seems that this kind of platform would create the proper environment where serious devs should then take the time to work in the safe space.
For instance to deal with ‘dead addresses’ just have a requirement for a registration of the address prior to dividend payment one solution to the “are-you-alive-token”
a decentralized github would be very good to have to handle code with this.
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…