Quote from: othe on October 17, 2015, 04:03:11 PM

Quote

In any case, if the crypto market can't pay a good income, then it is okay if developers will choose not to work on the market.

Perhaps you missed this link in my post:

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on October 17, 2015, 11:04:31 AM

But there is no way I would set a crowdfunded donations threshold that high, because I doubt it could be reached (because it isn't a comparative equity offering)...

The point of that quote link is that some developers have raised a lot of money and they are in a position to buy an exclusive on my white paper and have "first mover" advantage. As equity amasses to the coin that can be the "first mover" then it has an advantage in terms of funding developments and furthering its lead over others, and this can become insurmountable, e.g. Bitcoin.

Right now we are laying the ground work for the next big move in the BTC price to new all time highs (probably 2017, but starting to move up in later half of 2016), so it is of the essence to be in that position before the moves starts.

Quote from: coins101 on October 17, 2015, 04:07:21 PM

Unfortunately, many will take the view that this will be open source at some point, so most will just wait.

Ditto the above. I think the most value will come from my invention by putting it exclusively in a coin that people are invested in, so then they have the most incentive to invest in my work as an addition to their investment. The most value would come from doing my own coin along with a lot more work to complete, and I retain that option if none of the other coins can meet my minimal compensation threshold.

Quote from: othe on October 17, 2015, 04:03:11 PM

Quote

I assume NoodleDoodle or who ever did that optimization earned what they felt was a good return on their investment.

He got 0 for it. He even donated as every core member to development that makes it a fat minus.

Those who raised a lot of money had an ICO or premine. Monero didn't. I am happy to contribute to Monero if their claimed donation model works. That is why I am here making this thread. Many people have claimed to me that ICO and premines are bad and that donations with a "fair" distribution is better. Okay so prove it to me. I want to see which model can fund the development of the best anonymity design. This thread is an experiment to teach me more about the economics of the crypto market, as well as my other stated objectives.

Quote from: othe on October 17, 2015, 04:03:11 PM

Quote

I am not here to donate my time. I can't afford it.

Why are you even working on that stuff then, get a job that pays you what you need. Should be easy.

I am trying to make this my job. If it doesn't work out, I will lick my wounds and charge it to experience.

Quote from: smooth on October 17, 2015, 02:54:41 PM

I suppose you could also make that argument that without all of these things you don't really have a very strong solution overall and again are engaging in wishful thinking (which was in many ways the premise of TPTB's original Ion "Bitcoin killer" concept, before he neutered it).

It is still possible I keep it only for the Ion project.

But the Ion project would take more months to develop, and the anonymity would probably be added after the high TPS and block chain scaling, so that means this anonymity feature might not reach the market until mid-2016 (perhaps sooner but maybe not).

So on balance, I am trying to do what seems to make the most sense overall by being flexible and observing all options, weighing all the risk factors and what is best also for me as both a user of crypto and a potential lead developer or a just a contributing developer.