3 ms·

> Should I get paid for my multiple contributions to faker (I don't think I should)? The biggest thing that excites me about the possibilities for the future o

> Should I get paid for my multiple contributions to faker (I don't think I should)? The biggest thing that excites me about the possibilities for the future of smart contracts is that creators of all kinds could automatically benefit from any work they do. This scenario, for example: Any company that used faker.js to make a profit would have X% of that revenue feed back to the smart contracts. The creator would probably get the most, followed by the maintainer, then anyone who had a PR approved, then maybe people who submitted good bug reports. All automatically, and all directly in to everyone’s wallet. Not only would this be an easy way for creators to get paid, it would also incentivize the maintenance of those creations. And if you didn’t want to get paid, you could simply have funds directed to charity or opt out of your share entirely.

staticassertion 5y ago
The second someone puts out a 'faker.js' that does this companies will drop it, just as they ban AGPL software.
- joshspankit 5y ago
  As I mention in a different reply: > I totally agree that it does not work in the current version of the real world.
max49 5y ago
>The biggest thing that excites me about the possibilities for the future of smart contracts is that creators of all kinds could automatically benefit from any work they do. >Any company that used faker.js to make a profit would have X% of that revenue feed back to the smart contracts. Doesn't work in the real world. If you rely on them to tell you what their profit are for a project, they'll just give you a value of 0$ and continue to not pay you the same way they did before. The blockchain/smart-contracts adds no value compared to changing the licence on your code because either way you have to beg/sue them to get paid. Even with a client who is well intentioned and wants to pay you, they will never want to link their profit to a smart contract and expose their financial data. Measuring profit btw is very complicated and there is a lot of human interpretation to it, you can have a company worth bilions of dollars with top employees making millions per years even if it technically has never made a profit. And also, the risk of a bug in the smart contract emptying their account would be enough to stop any serious companies.
- joshspankit 5y ago
  I totally agree that it does not work in the current version of the real world. We just don't have enough insight in to all the moving parts so there's no way we could properly compensate a long chain of people even if we wanted to. If we were in a different version of the world (which we might end up in), it will be a no-brainer for someone to create a company that openly builds on the work of others and shares profit with those others. It democratizes the "I only need a small piece of a big pie" business model.
sbt567 5y ago
This sounds like a dream to me. How can it happen with open source software (where anyone can build and modify the software freely)?
- joshspankit 5y ago
  In [my] ideal version of this, any monies made "down the line" from that open source software would feed back to anyone that helped build it. If 9 people contributed to a feature that a company used in their sales workflow, then each of them would get a percentage determined by the smart contract they reviewed when contributing. If a founder came along and saw that a specific open source project could be the foundation for a business, then they could use it to build that business and feed back a portion of all profit as an operating expense. Then everyone involved would be benefited by contributing.
burtonator 5y ago
The biggest challenge here is measuring the quality of someone's contributions and adjusting compensation accordingly. Not every commit is worth the same level of compensation. Companies like Google/Amazon have to go through and adjust compensation based on talent and contribution levels, but how would that be done in Open Source?
- joshspankit 5y ago
  Agreed. Even in my ideal scenario that's still a part that is difficult. My only thought is that that compensation amount is determined before the PR is accepted (or maybe even before it's asked for, like a bounty). In [my] ideal scenario it's not the people that are vetted and compensated, but the work itself. A student who comes up with a particularly genius contribution could be compensated as equally as someone who worked in the field for decades and proposed the same contribution. Note: it also requires an environment where work is recorded publicly so that plagiarism is essentially impossible, though that brings it's own challenges.
joshspankit 5y ago
-3 points. Wow that's a strong response! Quick notes: - I'm talking about a hypothetical ideal future as I see it, and why that's exciting to me - I don't think we're anywhere close to where we need to be for this to be realistic. More like 50+ years when we figure out patents, copyright, delivery, and fine-detail privacy-friendly monetization (person X purchased Y because of seeing a billboard and having conversations with sales rep Z.) - I like moonshots. I think that setting big ideals as goals is a great way to get to where we can be as a society and as a planet. No one else is obligated to share that mindset or those goals (or even agree that those ideals will get those goals)

staticassertion 5y ago

The second someone puts out a 'faker.js' that does this companies will drop it, just as they ban AGPL software.

joshspankit 5y ago
As I mention in a different reply: > I totally agree that it does not work in the current version of the real world.

max49 5y ago

>The biggest thing that excites me about the possibilities for the future of smart contracts is that creators of all kinds could automatically benefit from any work they do. >Any company that used faker.js to make a profit would have X% of that revenue feed back to the smart contracts. Doesn't work in the real world. If you rely on them to tell you what their profit are for a project, they'll just give you a value of 0$ and continue to not pay you the same way they did before. The blockchain/smart-contracts adds no value compared to changing the licence on your code because either way you have to beg/sue them to get paid. Even with a client who is well intentioned and wants to pay you, they will never want to link their profit to a smart contract and expose their financial data. Measuring profit btw is very complicated and there is a lot of human interpretation to it, you can have a company worth bilions of dollars with top employees making millions per years even if it technically has never made a profit. And also, the risk of a bug in the smart contract emptying their account would be enough to stop any serious companies.

joshspankit 5y ago
I totally agree that it does not work in the current version of the real world. We just don't have enough insight in to all the moving parts so there's no way we could properly compensate a long chain of people even if we wanted to. If we were in a different version of the world (which we might end up in), it will be a no-brainer for someone to create a company that openly builds on the work of others and shares profit with those others. It democratizes the "I only need a small piece of a big pie" business model.

sbt567 5y ago

This sounds like a dream to me. How can it happen with open source software (where anyone can build and modify the software freely)?

joshspankit 5y ago
In [my] ideal version of this, any monies made "down the line" from that open source software would feed back to anyone that helped build it. If 9 people contributed to a feature that a company used in their sales workflow, then each of them would get a percentage determined by the smart contract they reviewed when contributing. If a founder came along and saw that a specific open source project could be the foundation for a business, then they could use it to build that business and feed back a portion of all profit as an operating expense. Then everyone involved would be benefited by contributing.

burtonator 5y ago

The biggest challenge here is measuring the quality of someone's contributions and adjusting compensation accordingly. Not every commit is worth the same level of compensation. Companies like Google/Amazon have to go through and adjust compensation based on talent and contribution levels, but how would that be done in Open Source?

joshspankit 5y ago
Agreed. Even in my ideal scenario that's still a part that is difficult. My only thought is that that compensation amount is determined before the PR is accepted (or maybe even before it's asked for, like a bounty). In [my] ideal scenario it's not the people that are vetted and compensated, but the work itself. A student who comes up with a particularly genius contribution could be compensated as equally as someone who worked in the field for decades and proposed the same contribution. Note: it also requires an environment where work is recorded publicly so that plagiarism is essentially impossible, though that brings it's own challenges.

joshspankit 5y ago

-3 points. Wow that's a strong response! Quick notes: - I'm talking about a hypothetical ideal future as I see it, and why that's exciting to me - I don't think we're anywhere close to where we need to be for this to be realistic. More like 50+ years when we figure out patents, copyright, delivery, and fine-detail privacy-friendly monetization (person X purchased Y because of seeing a billboard and having conversations with sales rep Z.) - I like moonshots. I think that setting big ideals as goals is a great way to get to where we can be as a society and as a planet. No one else is obligated to share that mindset or those goals (or even agree that those ideals will get those goals)