From 9b13d86684ee36d444a28c843dcdff5e6fb9b23b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fabian Schuh Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:26:47 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] BSIP-0007: more discussion --- bsip-0007.md | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/bsip-0007.md b/bsip-0007.md index dda531a..cace76a 100644 --- a/bsip-0007.md +++ b/bsip-0007.md @@ -69,11 +69,11 @@ transactions using that feature in the future. Every BitShares customer that wants to gain advantages of that Privacy Mode needs to pay an increased fee for its service. These fees are distributed among all owners of the `STEALTH` asset. -# Regulatory issues +# Regulatory Issues One of the first and thorniest problems we tackled is the nasty fact of *Regulatory Risk*. There exists a vocal contingent of people who want very much -that an FBA (fee based asset) be created to fund this feature upgrade to the +that an FBA (fee based asset) be created to fund a feature upgrade to the BitShares blockchain. They want that everyone be thus enabled an opportunity to participate in the fee stream originating from future use of the feature by purchasing shares of a FBA. @@ -99,10 +99,10 @@ jurisdiction that is presumably not subject to securities concerns. # Specifications Since every innovation on the blockchain level has to come with a protocol -upgrade (previsouly denoted as a *hard fork*), this upgrade can also come with a -so called *management account* that is specific for this specific innovation or -feature. An FBA's asset (such as the [STEALTH asset](bsip-0008.md)) can only be -issued by this "management account" and only for that particular feature. +upgrade (previsouly denoted as a *hard fork*), the upgrade also comes with a so +called *management account* that is specific for this specific innovation or +feature. For regulatory reasons, the blockchain itself is seen as the creator of +the asset and has the sole permission to issue new shares. The initial share holders of the FBA asset have to be defined upon the hard fork by the developers of the feature. It is left to the developers of the innovation @@ -118,6 +118,19 @@ Daniel Larimer: I would say that far more than Worker Proposals or anything else, the Fee Backed Assets is incentivizing entrepreneurs to come up with ideas, come up with features and then go and fund them and make it happen. +This proposal helps fund new features and innovations without the need to dilute +BitShares to pay for its developments. However, having the features transaction +fees be paid to the holders of the corresponding FBA results in a reduced +revenue for BitShares holders, which is only fair since they haven't funded the +feature. However, the infrastructure is still provided by BitShares and as such +a cut of the features transaction fees may be directed to the BitShares holders +by burning or reserving in the reserve funds. + +The developer of a FBA-supported innovation can chose a mixed funding model and +make use of a worker to fund parts of the development. As a consequence a +higher percentage of the transcaction fees should be directed towards the +BitShares holders. + # Copyright This document is placed in the public domain.