Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
21 lines (18 loc) · 2.85 KB

questions.md

File metadata and controls

21 lines (18 loc) · 2.85 KB
layout title permalink
page
Questions
/questions/

Remaining interrogations

  1. Who do the initial 1000 generated tokens belong to ?
  2. Are tokens ever given retroactively for previous collaborations ?
  3. What happens to tokens given to a contributor if his contribution is taken away ?
  4. Is there a measure of impact of contributions (Like with git detective for example ?)
  5. This token system functions well as long as the loop is closed since tokens are only worth something inside the system. Are there plans for real investment to go through the platform ? If that is the case how can an investor make sure that his investment does not loose value simply through the contributions made ? (That is also why a measure of impact is necessary) The value of the token is then the impact and not just the number of contributions.
  6. Measuring bytes of difference might be interesting for some projects like documentation for example... Similarly measuring number of commits could also be interesting in cases where the project aims to encourage engeagement... For code libraries it is interesting to measure re-use... It would therefore be important to focus on implement different measures for token generation and give the flexibility to develop new tokens through smart contracts for example... It could be an interesting next step.
  7. Is it not dangerous to have access tokens accessible through the API ?
  8. Adding a simple jupyter notebook with some images rendered ended up becoming 98% of the project... In terms of bytes most likely is that really represetntative of work put into the project ?
  9. Since all the information on the project value is stored on a central server isn't it actually centralized rather than decentralized
  10. As raised by Bayar, the gamification is interesting so is the valuation possibility but what about capital gains, dividends or interests..? These questions deserve reflection. In some sense once developers receive "proportional" shares of investment based on contribution who makes sure that the money invested is well invested ? There are multiple issues... The first one would be the cash flow of the whole system there seems at some point that there would be more money going out than coming in with more commits being "remunerated" than investments made even with a minimal investment of 50k per investor at the ICO. How is this model sustainable it incites people to make commits no matter their use to get tokens which will deplete the market of it's funds extremely quickly probably faster than money can come in. There is no incentive to keep coins in the market since there are no dividends... Nore interest nore anything of the like. No project can sustain itself if money goes straight from investors to individual developpers around the globe. A remuneration model might be still necessary to be developped although this is a pretty good start.