Narrative 2.0 - Open Source

Product: Narrative

Hello all,

Since the sunsetting news, I've emailed a few times with @MOLLY O to suggest this as the best way forward for Narrative, but I realised this conversation needs to take place in the open.

Long before Beta launch, we discussed in the Community the downside of Narrative not being open source.  At the time, we discussed it in terms of slower growth: the fastest way for a small project to grow rapidly is for it to be developed collaboratively, and a vibrant ecosystem of new angles on the Content Economy would need that sort of environment.

Now, of course, we find ourselves in the most extreme case highlighting what was previously discussed: the original core development Team no longer has the means to do any development, so the speed of growth is now zero.

If a traditional Board approach to management of the platform is taken, with perhaps 4 members from the Narrative Company and seven, nine or eleven members from the Community, votes could settle development decisions.

If the Company does not wish to develop the infrastructure for Community elections to this Board, it could initially receive selected Community members, and elections could be held further down the line, once the project is back on its feet and ticking along healthily.

@Brian Lenz would no doubt be a central determinant in whether this way forward is possible.  Brian, this would no doubt require that you remain minimally active at least until the project has attracted open source developers that you can perform a hand over to.  But perhaps, if this is something you want, you could remain a core member of the development team if you can sustainably participate as an open source developer yourself.  Being the architect of the current code base, any on-going relationship you might choose to have with the development would probably be beneficial.

 

Why Open Source

1) This point in time does not have to be a dead end: in fact it can be the beginning of what Narrative may have needed all along, in order to thrive.

2) Narrative, with its tenets of transparency and Community Governance, was at odds with itself in having a unilateral approach to development decisions, as many Community members noted.  In this sense, this new approach can be considered a purer, more internally consistent incarnation of the initial vision.

3) The influx of new developers could see the project acquiring new functionality at a faster pace than was possible previously, after an initial adjustment phase.

4) The token would almost certainly rally at the news that Narrative is being reborn as an open source project, injecting new vitality into the platform's ecosystem.  As long as it is clearly communicated that creating demand for NRVE will be the first pragmatic orders of business for the new dev Team, confidence would probably reach heights not yet seen.  We must remember that this has previously never been clearly emphasised.  As long as Narrative 2.0 is perceived as now squarely tackling sustainability, we'd already be ahead.  Items to focus on tackling first could be tipping, post boosting for a fee, a small immediate signup fee (or wait a couple of weeks), and fees for Publications to feature their content within the Publication, and feature the Publication more prominently on the 'News Rack' where all Publications would be browsable.  I'm sure there are more.

5) There have been signs of anger from some Narrators over the sunsetting news, understandably, and some folks seem to be gearing up to seek redress.  The situation could become very unpleasant quite quickly if complaints are filed with various agencies.  This may seem like justice to the plaintiffs, but it would effectively put the final nail in the coffin of a project that can otherwise live on.  Taking the first steps towards Open Source Narrative would completely diffuse this negative spiral.  And the first step could be as simple as convening a CAG call.

Open source provides the Narrative Company with a means of fulfilling their fiduciary duty to give their utility token a utility.  I think this question, of 'how much did the Company do that was within its power to give its claimed utility token a real utility', would be central to any procedure against the Company.  As such, I think this avenue needs to be earnestly explored.

 

Original Post

Activity Stream

@Malkazoid -  I think this is an excellent and well thought out suggestion to move forward with Narrative rather than abandon it.  I believe we would all love for Narrative to succeed - at least those of us who came here because we believed in the idea and want to create a quality site to display our content and be able to enjoy quality content from others.

If the Team doesn’t have the intent to develop Narrative further as a stand-alone ‘mod’ for Hoop.la, then I believe this suggestion to go open-source is the best way forward.

Right now the codebase is up for sale. I don’t know what kind of sum the Team finds a reasonable offer, but perhaps we could raise money as a community to buy it and create the ‘Narrative Organization’ that will organize and overlook the open-source development.

Although that’s still just a start. We’d need more than 1 person to learn the code, and find ways to keep the democratic community governance values intact while anyone can study the code while in beta.

I honestly don't think the platform will sell. The technology, maybe. But someone would have to have the expertise and the interest in using it for what it is. It might be less expensive for them to develop from scratch. For that reason, the open source transition is most likely the best option for the company. The community could opt for X amount of NRVE to be set aside in escrow for the company in exchange for transitioning to community control. Should the value of NRVE ever rise enough to make it profitable for the company, the payoff would alleviate much of their initial expense and recoup their initial investment. 

@Slaz @Garden Gnome Publications Great idea! Regarding raising NRVE:

1. The team and Narrative combined have still 50 mio NRVE (locked for now), this is more than 25% of the maximum supply. If NRVE ever recovers, this would represent an enormous value.

2. Another option would be a token swap. Sending in 100 old NRVE and e.g. getting back 80 new NRVE plus 20 NRVE for the escrow, so the contribution would be proportionately to the amount of the held tokens.

 

That seems like a decent backup plan. I'd volunteer to help give an open-source Narrative a kick in the pants and one thing I'd push for is having a more sustainable funding model. The main problem I see is that they were putting off getting the advertising added and that's probably the main thing that hurt them because just relying on niche sales was never going to be sustainable. If it's just a matter of buying the codebase and keeping the already existing Narrative.org domain, well, I wouldn't mind buying some equity IF we're really serious about building a sustainable model here.

Heidi Hecht posted:

That seems like a decent backup plan. I'd volunteer to help give an open-source Narrative a kick in the pants and one thing I'd push for is having a more sustainable funding model. The main problem I see is that they were putting off getting the advertising added and that's probably the main thing that hurt them because just relying on niche sales was never going to be sustainable. If it's just a matter of buying the codebase and keeping the already existing Narrative.org domain, well, I wouldn't mind buying some equity IF we're really serious about building a sustainable model here.

Agreed.

Advertising revenue only becomes significant with high traffic, so the Team has been in a chicken and egg type quandary.  Building the advertising engine no doubt also was going to require a significant effort.  

But along the way to high traffic and advertising, there are many other ways to increase sustainability.  One of them is to revise rewards down to more sustainable levels.  If NRVE climbs back to $0.01 or $0.02 on the news of going open source with Community Governance guiding development, but the rewards pay outs are also reduced by 3-5 times, payouts would still be much higher than the USD worth of the last November payout, and the model would be much closer to sustainability.  

I think the Community would understand well after this crisis, that earnings will have to grow commensurate with the growth and sustainability of the site.  And with lower rewards at the outset, the greed factor which has exacerbated many of the early issues on the site, would be reduced.  It should even be on the table to at least consider suspending payouts for a period of time while the platform undergoes its reorganisation.  This way the token price can respond positively to the open source news, without suffering any downwards pressure from monthly cash outs after rewards - all with the prospect of rewards returning once the system has enough functionality for the token to float properly.

In fact, payouts could be reintroduced gradually.  We develop an income stream from post boosting fees, and then reintroduce small rewards commensurate with that income stream.  We develop fees for Publications to feature their content and themselves, and the rewards grow a bit more.  The token mint can still be part of the formula, but reduced, and in proportion to real revenue...

Certainly an approach to be considered.

Sure. I think there would be some benefit for paid post boosts or even paying a small fee (like, half a cent) to make a post, which would probably grant the added benefit of helping cut down on the spam problem. Or maybe do what Squidoo used to do before it got bought out by Hubpages and make it easy to add affiliate links, only Narrative owns the affiliate links and splits revenue generated by affiliate sales 50/50 or something.

Heidi Hecht posted:

Sure. I think there would be some benefit for paid post boosts or even paying a small fee (like, half a cent) to make a post, which would probably grant the added benefit of helping cut down on the spam problem. Or maybe do what Squidoo used to do before it got bought out by Hubpages and make it easy to add affiliate links, only Narrative owns the affiliate links and splits revenue generated by affiliate sales 50/50 or something.

Yes - all of these approaches would add up!

When do you think the original team might give answer to this proposal?  

If this moves forward, please count me in. I will help in whatever way I can.

 

Serroc posted:

When do you think the original team might give answer to this proposal?  

If this moves forward, please count me in. I will help in whatever way I can.

 

I think they might possibly agree to a CAG call on the topic of Open Source.

@MOLLY O says it was considered but rejected because there were too many hurdles at this time.  The key notion here is that there should be some discussion with the Community about these hurdles.  Even if it turns out to be truly unviable, at least the Community will be on the same page with respect to that.

Even beyond Open Source, shutting down the platform out of the blue with a brief posted message, after two months of silence, is a bit like breaking up by text message.  Yeah - nobody appreciates that.

A CAG call to sync everyone up would be a massive improvement.

Now I'm curious about what "hurdles" she thinks there would be. If there's some regulatory thing that I don't know about, I could maybe see it. But making something open-source shouldn't be an issue unless you're worried about trade secrets or competition.

It's a possibility, @Malkazoid, even if I see it a hard road. Narrative is not just about the platform, and so many factors have to fit, starting from the crypto-economy, which also brings responsibilities. I see this possible from a core team not only with the expertise but also agreeing on the overall vision, and committed at some level (what we had before, if it worked...). Really difficult to bring up at this point.

The rewards system would most definitely need to be tweaked. A portion of the mint can be set aside for dev costs. There could also be mandatory staking, based on percentage earned, so that the value of the token doesn't deflate so quickly. 

I also like the affiliate link idea. If earning affiliate income were a possibility, that would attract the entrepreneurial set. I'm not sure about the platform owning the code. But there could certainly be a way for affiliate income reporting to be transparent with the platform taking a portion for opportunity costs.

I would also be willing to contribute to make this a reality. However, judging by the radio silence from the team members, I am not too confident anything short of a buyout will move this forward. 

I just wanted to jump in here to let you know that we're listening and paying attention to your thoughts. We really do appreciate the creativity and passion you guys have to try to make something happen here! 

I don't have anything definitive to offer right now, as we're still processing the ideas and considerations. I will just throw out a few thoughts to make sure everyone understands what would be required to keep Narrative alive in some form.

  1. Ownership, custody, and responsibility. There's a lot more to the Narrative platform than just the codebase.
    1. There's a smart contract for NRVE, which includes mechanisms for recurring token minting and team + company tokens. Some trusted entity will need to be responsible for that (by controlling a NEO wallet that controls the smart contract).
    2. User data. The Narrative back end includes private user data (email addresses, encrypted passwords, 2FA data, NEO wallet addresses, etc.). This obviously can't be made public and generally put under community control. There needs to be a trusted entity managing the system.
    3. Revenue & Rewards management. A trusted entity needs to manage all of the Narrative revenue and rewards processing.  This includes all of the Narrative wallets, which must be processed each month to make the rewards system work.
    4. Code management. A trusted entity will need to oversee the management, maintenance, and development of the codebase. Most open source projects typically have a team of people in charge controlling the software development lifecycle.
  2. Hosting costs. There are monthly cloud hosting fees required to keep the platform running.
    1. Someone would need to pay these monthly service fees to ensure the platform keeps running.

There are more things to consider, but this should start to give an idea of what would be involved for any kind of community management to occur. Because of these considerations, there really needs to be a single entity that takes ownership of everything listed above. This is why some kind of purchase to transfer ownership seems like the most reasonable path forward. Simply open sourcing the software isn't enough to make this happen. If we did just that, the platform would go dark until someone subsequently took the platform and got it running again. And without the data, that would meaning starting over from scratch (think Users, Niches, Publications, Posts, etc.). So this entity would need to take ownership and control of the data, as well, in order to continue from the current state of the platform.

I hope this helps provide some clarification regarding the considerations in play. Feel free to continue brainstorming ideas!

I've done UX work before, so if Narrative 2.0 happens, I would be happy to give UX feedback. And I can do social - the creative part, not the analytics. I've attended social media conferences for a decade, and spoken at them. Heck, the Disney Social Media Moms Conference even adopted the hashtag I created for their first one when they didn't have one already. Copy editing is how I make a living. So, just throwing that out there...

Thank you @Brian Lenz, that's very helpful!

Could you give us an idea of the hosting costs?

Would the Narrative Company be opposed to remaining the custodial entity of the data, codebase and accounts?  Would you be willing to look at what your costs could be reduced to if you were no longer covering the costs of hosting and development?  This would entail stripping back any non-necessary personnel, and the Company members present on the Board would probably need to be paid in NRVE and at the same rate as the Community board members...

I think that going away with just a banner in the home page  is not a good action to do in respect to people that invested money and time on the platform. It is similar to fraud.

However, I agree with the idea of MALKAZOID about open sourcing Narrative source code and I would like to suggest an idea that can be a good one: to create a sort of  Narrative DAO for governance and updates where NRVE tokens can be used for voting process on features, prices and things like that (take as example MakerDao). 

 

It would be interesting to see how a Wefunder might go, if a mature plan for an open source Narrative (along with formalised, meaningful Community influence on development), were announced prior.  

I can only speak for myself: I would contribute to that fundraiser, and would leave enthusiastic feedback.

Many great ideas! I may add:

1. On the website there is still this Narrative Sunsetting announcement. People who do not look at this thread here, might leave and never come back, so it would be very important to link this topic here also on the Narrative website.

2. There are so many things to consider. Breakdown of the initial and monthly costs, calculation of the total costs and how to raise the required funds.

3. We already discovered that there might be abstract legal problems with the name 'Narrative'. I therefore propose that the name is changed- e.g. to NRVE.

4. The code and tech are the means through which the company can fulfil their legal obligation to run the platform and give the token utility. For that matter, people paid about 10 Mio USD. Why should anyone now pay for the code and tech a second time, also considering that additional crowd funding money is very limited? I assume warding off a lawsuit and other severe consequences should be good enough for the team? The value of the code and tech together with the crowdfunding money should be calculated and then transformed into equity and the team should receive a substantial part of it, if Narrative will be successful in the future.

5. Crowdfunding is a great idea. In case another wefunder-initiative is not successful, we should consider other platforms or ways to raise capital.

 

 

 

Regarding advertisement: as long as we have people on board like @Garden Gnome Publications, @Gary Trousdale 2 and @Malkazoid who have the rare gift to inspire many others, we can save advertising money.

We can go to colleges, universities and sports clubs and recruit new members.

https://wefunder.com/narrative/buzz We should also contact these potential investors.

@Brian Lenz Thank you indeed for this detailed information! May I ask if you see potential to (at least partly) shift dev work and hosting services to cheaper countries, e.g. India?

I may be a little slow but would this actually be a 21 person board, or are there lesser roles than the top 15?

@Drixx Madison, actually 33. Those are all separate boards. The governing board would oversee the business and the community. Essentially make the decisions about where to host servers, develop community features, etc. That's the board of directors. They would appoint 1 person to serve on each of the other committees with specific fiduciary responsibilities. The user data team and the the token/rewards team would all, except for that one appointee, be elected by the community. But, to keep it pure, no one can serve on both teams at the same time.

For the code team, now that I think about it, after the governing board chooses one person from among its members to serve on that committee, they then select two members from the community as appointees, and then the user data team and the token/rewards team do the same. So, because one person from each of the committees is also on the governing board, that's a total of 33 people. 

The responsibilities for each committee and the board would have to be spelled out in a white paper, or constitution, that guides the direction with some checks and balances.

@Malkazoid and others,

I realize that many of you have invested a great deal of time and money in Narrative, and it's hard to let go. But you should.

It's been clear to me for a long time that the team had no idea what they were doing, and the platform was going to die. I wrote an analysis of the Narrative failure two months ago:

https://toughnickel.com/starti...ps-Fail-a-Case-Study

I have urged people to shift to other platforms, but many persisted in "believing" that somehow things would turn around.

They didn't - and nobody should be surprised.  The failures of Narrative were not due to unforeseen external factors.  In my opinion, they can be attributed entirely to mismanagement on the part of the founders.  

Now people are investing time and energy into looking for ways to continue Narrative. Please don't do that. There is nothing here worth salvaging, and I hate to see people with so much to contribute wasting their efforts.

There are just under 10,000 members, and about 2,000 visitors per month. There are probably knitting blogs with more traffic! Also, a significant percentage of those members and visitors are the spammers, plagiarists, and scammers that have plagued Narrative from the start.

The code is slow and bloated, built with features nobody wants or needs, and lacking features that the community has requested almost from the Beta launch.

The platform is tied to Monopoly money, with no viable economic model to sustain or increase the value.

Honestly, if someone were to GIVE me all of the Narrative code, intellectual property, and data, I'd toss it in the trash and walk away. It can't be salvaged.

There are a lot of platforms out there that would really benefit from the best of the Narrative community. Please use your knowledge, wisdom, time, and energy in places that it will do some good.

 

In my opinion the idea of @Malkazoid to create an open source Narrative platform is really wonderful. The community consists of so many different people but still we have formed a unique group, even if we had arguments and fights down the road. It's totally understandable that many people will quit now but I think there are also many who want to continue- fulfilling the vision of the core team with the new Narrative.

I really met many great people here, e.g. @deniswallez who certainly is one of the most honest and respectable persons I encountered. @Malkazoid @Garden Gnome Publications @Serroc @Christina Gleason - real people, real personalities, everyone has his unique story to tell. And maybe the new Narrative would be small and modest at the beginning, maybe with little or no reward payouts at the start? Would this really matter? We fought about the most ridiculously little things here- now we as community have to face an existential crisis. This is a chance to make everything new and better. If we dare to take it.

I am in and I hope others also.

 

@robert nicholson

Thank you for your analysis!

If I summarize your case study https://toughnickel.com/starti...ps-Fail-a-Case-Study correctly, the following was the main problem:

'Outbound communication from the team was equally poor. Major decisions and feature releases were not discussed with the most engaged users; they were simply announced on the site, often blindsiding the community.'

I agree, but the new Narrative could be very different in this respect: as the experienced community members could play a much bigger role and also because the mistakes that had been made in the past, will help to avoid them in the future.

Wouldn't it be interesting for you as well to part of this experiment and see where it will lead to?

@Ted @Rosemary @MOLLY O @Brian Lenz

Sorry that I was rude before, but you will understand that I and many others are angry.

I am sure if we all want a new Narrative to be successful, there will be a way to reach this goal. The biggest asset of Narrative is the great and unique community, the rest can be built upon it. It might be smaller and more modest at the start, but that does not matter, at least not to me. And as this was or still is your project for which you worked so hard during the last 2 years, I hope that you will support it. I don't want to be part of a new tribunal or any other decision board, there are many other people who are much more qualified for that, but I just don't want this to fail now.

It would be very kind if you supported us with the necessary information and also sent out an e-mail to all Narrators that this initiative to form an open source Narrative exists and that everyone is welcome to participate and bring in new ideas. And a link on your website to this topic would also be great. Currently people look at the website, see that it will be shut down and possibly never return again. Very sad.

Thank you indeed!

 

 

 

I don't think the code or membership count is at issue here. For me the value of the platform moving forward rests in people like @Malkazoid and other founding members and patrons with a strong motivation to move it forward and see it succeed as an open source project. The code can be reworked, and if it is sound and the platform is responsive, membership will come as well. Furthermore, if it were to happen, strong consideration should be given to moving off of the NEO Blockchain as it seems to be a sinking ship at this point. 

Narrative is still a strong brand name and the overall vision as outlined originally by the team is still sound. There's no reason to give up on it now if the will still exists to move it forward.

New Social Media posted:

@robert nicholson

Thank you for your analysis!

If I summarize your case study https://toughnickel.com/starti...ps-Fail-a-Case-Study correctly, the following was the main problem:

'Outbound communication from the team was equally poor. Major decisions and feature releases were not discussed with the most engaged users; they were simply announced on the site, often blindsiding the community.'

I agree, but the new Narrative could be very different in this respect: as the experienced community members could play a much bigger role and also because the mistakes that had been made in the past, will help to avoid them in the future.

Wouldn't it be interesting for you as well to part of this experiment and see where it will lead to?

No, I think my criticism was more fundamental...  the team ignored user input, and made a long series of bad decisions.  That has resulted in a platform that is so broken it's not worth salvaging.  I understand that people hate to write off their losses.  Nobody wants to say that Narrative was a waste of their time.  But it's really sad to see people continue to waste their efforts.  Put your energy into another platform!

 

JR posted:

I don't think the code or membership count is at issue here. For me the value of the platform moving forward rests in people like @Malkazoid and other founding members and patrons with a strong motivation to move it forward and see it succeed as an open source project. The code can be reworked, and if it is sound and the platform is responsive, membership will come as well. Furthermore, if it were to happen, strong consideration should be given to moving off of the NEO Blockchain as it seems to be a sinking ship at this point. 

Narrative is still a strong brand name and the overall vision as outlined originally by the team is still sound. There's no reason to give up on it now if the will still exists to move it forward.

Actually, those are exactly the things that are at issue.  Membership, traffic, and code are all terrible.  Narrative is not a strong brand - in terms of awareness and visibility it's pathetic.  

Yes, there are a small handful of great people here.  But they are not tied to Narrative.  They are people who are free to move on and devote their efforts to other platforms.  And that's what they should do.  Narrative is dead, and it's not coming back.  

If it becomes a matter of scrapping it and starting over, what would you do differently, Robert Nicholson? Maybe look at something that wouldn't require so much development "overhead"?

@Robert Nicholson 2 Why would those of us who are founders give up on the project now? We have virtually nothing to lose from trying to move the project forward and everything to gain if it ends up reviving. Your main criticisms were based upon the unresponsiveness of the team and their lack of technical ability to deliver. The proposal on offer now as far as I understand it involves phasing out the involvement of the core team to a minimal role or phasing them out entirely if they so wish. 

I stated that Narrative is a strong brand "name" not  a strong brand as it stands now. However, even if it wasn't a strong name, we could simply consider what we are discussing now as tangential to a new project with the only caveat being that we carry forward the best of the vision originally outlined and that  those who invested in Narrative at the beginning be compensated with a tiny piece of the pie in exchange for some level of involvement to push the project forward.

@Robert Nicholson 2 - some of your critique is based on conjecture: none of us are privy to the actual code the Narrative Team has developed.  The chances that much of it can be built further upon should not be discounted out of hand: to do so would not be rational, and you have always come across as very rational.

 

@JR - jump on the Narrative Discord.  Perhaps @BloggerKrunal can create a channel for Narrative 2.0 there?  There are a lot of users on the Narrative Discord, so it probably makes sense to stay with that setting?

 

Heidi Hecht posted:

If it becomes a matter of scrapping it and starting over, what would you do differently, Robert Nicholson? Maybe look at something that wouldn't require so much development "overhead"?

That's a BIG question.  A few of the high-order items:

(1) Scrap the cryptocurrency.  It's insane to try to build a successful online business and simultaneous juggle the challenge of building an economy around a currency.

(2) Get experienced outside investors onboard to provide feedback and oversight.

(3) Put in place automated "screening" tools - plagiarism checkers and grammar checkers - to screen out garbage content before it is published.  

(4) Don't get fancy with the software architecture.  Use basic stuff and open source components.  Keep it simple, and roll out updates fast.

(5) Set aside a portion of the development budget to respond rapidly to community requests.  Don't write long-term visions and "manifestos" - they are obsolete as soon as they are published.  Instead, stay flexible and listen to your users.

(6) Support ads from day 1.  You need a real source of revenue.

 

 

JR posted:

@Robert Nicholson 2 Why would those of us who are founders give up on the project now? We have virtually nothing to lose from trying to move the project forward and everything to gain if it ends up reviving.

Why?  Because reviving Narrative is a huge effort.  @Brian Lenz has identified a few of the hurdles - and for once I agree with him.  It's just not going to happen, so all the effort being put into "how to do it" is wasted.  

The platform has very little value - the effort needed to transition to some sort of new entity with open source development would take far more than the platform is worth.  

So my advice - to the people here I respect - is to simply cut your losses and move on.  There are lots of other platforms waiting for you!

Malkazoid posted:

@Robert Nicholson 2 - some of your critique is based on conjecture: none of us are privy to the actual code the Narrative Team has developed.  The chances that much of it can be built further upon should not be discounted out of hand: to do so would not be rational, and you have always come across as very rational. 

I really don't need to see the code, in order to make a judgement call.  Yes, that probably comes across as arrogant and irrational, but it's based on decades of experience - both as a software developer, and as a software industry executive.

First, the performance sucks - and given the trivial traffic, there's absolutely no reason for that. It reeks of bad architecture.

Second, it's very non-standard.  There are a bunch of tools that will tell you what software infrastructure a website is running - and they don't show much about narrative.org.  In short, the team has decided to "do it their way."  Which is probably why they wasted so much money.

Third, trivial changes and additions to the site take forever.  "Major" releases take 6-8 weeks, and frankly don't add much functionality.  That tells me there are serious issues with the quality of the code base, the skills of the developers, or both.

Fourth, the feature set is way off base. That's a big reason for Narrative's failure.  So why invest in a codebase that was built to do the wrong things?  Much better to start from scratch and try to do it right.

Fifth, people ALWAYS over-estimate the value of a codebase, and under-estimate the costs of modifying it.  If the changes required are anything but trivial, it's almost always faster and cheaper to start from scratch.

 

Robert Nicholson 2 posted:
Malkazoid posted:

@Robert Nicholson 2 - some of your critique is based on conjecture: none of us are privy to the actual code the Narrative Team has developed.  The chances that much of it can be built further upon should not be discounted out of hand: to do so would not be rational, and you have always come across as very rational. 

I really don't need to see the code, in order to make a judgement call.  Yes, that probably comes across as arrogant and irrational, but it's based on decades of experience - both as a software developer, and as a software industry executive.

First, the performance sucks - and given the trivial traffic, there's absolutely no reason for that. It reeks of bad architecture.

Second, it's very non-standard.  There are a bunch of tools that will tell you what software infrastructure a website is running - and they don't show much about narrative.org.  In short, the team has decided to "do it their way."  Which is probably why they wasted so much money.

Third, trivial changes and additions to the site take forever.  "Major" releases take 6-8 weeks, and frankly don't add much functionality.  That tells me there are serious issues with the quality of the code base, the skills of the developers, or both.

Fourth, the feature set is way off base. That's a big reason for Narrative's failure.  So why invest in a codebase that was built to do the wrong things?  Much better to start from scratch and try to do it right.

Fifth, people ALWAYS over-estimate the value of a codebase, and under-estimate the costs of modifying it.  If the changes required are anything but trivial, it's almost always faster and cheaper to start from scratch.

 

I agree with your assessment from the outside, but it remains just that.

It is entirely possible that increased performance can be achieved fairly easily, but simply was not a priority in this Beta phase - as you said yourself, there was very little traffic, so development power may have been prioritised elsewhere, pending the need for greater performance.  That would be a completely rational decision.

I respect your experience, but it does not change what you do not know about the code base.  The time taken between releases may have been because they were fighting earlier choices, or they may have been caused by completely different factors.

Yes, people can overestimate the value of existing code bases, but that does not change the fact that you should look at something before you throw it in the trash: doing that does not come at a great expense.  You are not expressing the opinion that there is nothing of sufficient value: you are expressing a certainty powerful enough to tell other people what to do with their time.

Malkazoid posted:
Robert Nicholson 2 posted:
You are not expressing the opinion that there is nothing of sufficient value: you are expressing a certainty powerful enough to tell other people what to do with their time.

Absolutely! 

Despite the commitment and efforts of you and others, Narrative has been a miserable failure.  

For months, despite all of the problems, people have deluded themselves by believing that things would turn around.  

There is simply nothing here of value.  My advice is that you invest your efforts in something that has a realistic chance of success.  

JR posted:

I don't think the code or membership count is at issue here. For me the value of the platform moving forward rests in people like @Malkazoid and other founding members and patrons with a strong motivation to move it forward and see it succeed as an open source project. The code can be reworked, and if it is sound and the platform is responsive, membership will come as well. Furthermore, if it were to happen, strong consideration should be given to moving off of the NEO Blockchain as it seems to be a sinking ship at this point. 

Narrative is still a strong brand name and the overall vision as outlined originally by the team is still sound. There's no reason to give up on it now if the will still exists to move it forward.

I would definitely move it off the NEO blockchain. After researching the block explorers, I'm not impressed with this blockchain. 

Also, I agree with @Robert Nicholson 2 on his assessment except for the crypto part. One can build a successful crypto economy, but you can't do it by encouraging everyone to cash out of it. Imagine if the U.S. printed $1 million new US dollars every month then told everyone to convert it to another currency and removed all utility of the USD. What would you do? You'd cash out for another currency. 

You have two choices on building a successful economy: Go with a strong currency that already exists (fiat--or USD), or develop a closed system (cryptocurrency), which will limit your audience, but focus on strengthening the economy with an actual monetary policy.

Robert Nicholson 2 posted:
Malkazoid posted:
Robert Nicholson 2 posted:
You are not expressing the opinion that there is nothing of sufficient value: you are expressing a certainty powerful enough to tell other people what to do with their time.

Absolutely! 

Despite the commitment and efforts of you and others, Narrative has been a miserable failure.  

For months, despite all of the problems, people have deluded themselves by believing that things would turn around.  

There is simply nothing here of value.  My advice is that you invest your efforts in something that has a realistic chance of success.  

@Robert Nicholson 2, perhaps you are not embracing the potential for new directions - it seems you are projecting into the future obstacles which would no longer be there if the Community can directly influence development.

What we are discussing here isn't even really about the codebase.  Even if it makes more sense to start from scratch, the vision of Narrative still has strong value.  The other platforms you mention do not provide the things that attracted the committed contributors to the Narrative platform and and Community, otherwise we would not have come here in the first place.

In essence, your arguments here are no different than if you were telling someone whose house has burned down that they should not rebuild it - the fire means the very ground itself is cursed, and they should go live in another part of the country.

Garden Gnome Publications posted:
Also, I agree with @Robert Nicholson 2 on his assessment except for the crypto part. One can build a successful crypto economy, but you can't do it by encouraging everyone to cash out of it. Imagine if the U.S. printed $1 million new US dollars every month then told everyone to convert it to another currency and removed all utility of the USD. What would you do? You'd cash out for another currency. 

You have two choices on building a successful economy: Go with a strong currency that already exists (fiat--or USD), or develop a closed system (cryptocurrency), which will limit your audience, but focus on strengthening the economy with an actual monetary policy.

My argument against cryptocurrency as a basis for a web business is simple:

Startup ventures have a success rate in the neighborhood of 10%.

I don't know the "success" rate for cryptocurrencies, but let's assume for the sake of discussion that its about the same:  10%.

Try to do BOTH - and your chances of success are 1%.

I've worked with a number fo VC firms over the years. One rule of thumb that almost every investor and business advisor uses is "do one thing, and do it really well."

I believe that trying to build a successful online business AND trying to build a working economy around a cryptocurrency is almost a guarantee of failure.

 

Malkazoid posted:
Even if it makes more sense to start from scratch, the vision of Narrative still has strong value.  The other platforms you mention do not provide the things that attracted the committed contributors to the Narrative platform and and Community, otherwise we would not have come here in the first place.

This is actually something we've been discussing on Discord.  What exactly do you see as the value of Narrative?  What is the differentiator?

Could that "something" - whatever it is - be carried forward by influencing another platform?  

Could it be carried forward by building a new platform?

Just be clear - taking over Narrative is  going to be a BIG effort.  It's going to require a full-time team, a legal business entity, investment money, coding expertise, and more.  I simply don't believe that's going to happen. 

I  my opinions, if anyone from the Narrative community has the resources to pull off an effort of that scope, they'd be far better off throwing away the Narrative baggage and starting from scratch.  

Robert Nicholson 2 posted:
Garden Gnome Publications posted:
Also, I agree with @Robert Nicholson 2 on his assessment except for the crypto part. One can build a successful crypto economy, but you can't do it by encouraging everyone to cash out of it. Imagine if the U.S. printed $1 million new US dollars every month then told everyone to convert it to another currency and removed all utility of the USD. What would you do? You'd cash out for another currency. 

You have two choices on building a successful economy: Go with a strong currency that already exists (fiat--or USD), or develop a closed system (cryptocurrency), which will limit your audience, but focus on strengthening the economy with an actual monetary policy.

My argument against cryptocurrency as a basis for a web business is simple:

Startup ventures have a success rate in the neighborhood of 10%.

I don't know the "success" rate for cryptocurrencies, but let's assume for the sake of discussion that its about the same:  10%.

Try to do BOTH - and your chances of success are 1%.

I've worked with a number fo VC firms over the years. One rule of thumb that almost every investor and business advisor uses is "do one thing, and do it really well."

I believe that trying to build a successful online business AND trying to build a working economy around a cryptocurrency is almost a guarantee of failure.

 

And yet there's bitcoin, ethereum, Ripple, Tether, Litecoin, EOS, Stellar, and Cardano....

Robert Nicholson 2 posted:

This is actually something we've been discussing on Discord.  What exactly do you see as the value of Narrative?  What is the differentiator?

Could that "something" - whatever it is - be carried forward by influencing another platform?  

Could it be carried forward by building a new platform?

Just be clear - taking over Narrative is  going to be a BIG effort.  It's going to require a full-time team, a legal business entity, investment money, coding expertise, and more.  I simply don't believe that's going to happen. 

I  my opinions, if anyone from the Narrative community has the resources to pull off an effort of that scope, they'd be far better off throwing away the Narrative baggage and starting from scratch.  

Can you point to another platform that provides the potential for Community influence that Narrative COULD provide, going forwards?  I know of no platform with the type of Board I outlined at the top of this thread.  

Of course the valuable aspects of Narrative could, in a new platform, be combined with some of the things the Community has clamoured for since the early Alpha.  But for one, I would find it unethical to take the good ideas @Ted and his Team worked hard to build upon, and cannibalise them.  

The legal business entity exists.  It is called the Narrative Company.  I don't want to take over Narrative.  I want it to go open source, and see its operational structure change to incorporate Community influence in development.  That also happens to sound like less work than running off with the Team's ideas.

 

And yet there's bitcoin, ethereum, Ripple, Tether, Litecoin, EOS, Stellar, and Cardano....

Yep - not arguing.  There are successes.

But look at the number of cryptocurrencies - and then consider the number that are successful.  The odds are against you - big time - right?

And the odds are against startup businesses as well.

So why try to do both?  

That's just really, really, really, really stupid.

 

Malkazoid posted:
Can you point to another platform that provides the potential for Community influence that Narrative COULD provide, going forwards?  I know of no platform with the type of Board I outlined at the top of this thread.  

 

Just to be clear, Narrative's vision of community oversight has not worked.  You have spent countless hours criticizing the failures, and proposing alternatives (which may or may not be any better).

I still don't get what value you see in Narrative, or anything that the team has done.  If you believe you know how to make a successful social / content site, then distill that vision, find some developers, and build it.   

I honesty can't think of a single feature or attribute of Narrative that distinguishes it from other sites, other than a few people, such as yourself.  And those people are not tied to Narrative, unless they choose to be.

If you find a home on another site, post a link on Discord, and I'd welcome the chance to follow you.

 

Robert Nicholson 2 posted:

Yep - not arguing.  There are successes.

But look at the number of cryptocurrencies - and then consider the number that are successful.  The odds are against you - big time - right?

And the odds are against startup businesses as well.

So why try to do both?  

That's just really, really, really, really stupid.

 

Narrative was meant to be a content economy.  

Nobody said building one would be easy, but the failure of NRVE so far is directly attributable to simple factors that could have been avoided.

@Robert Nicholson 2, it is easy to call something stupid when it does not succeed.  But the argument you are making is basically one against proprietary measures.  NRVE is simply a proprietary currency.  You don't call Apple stupid because of its proprietary choices, because they've been immensely successful.

In a sense, NRVE has been through its toughest trials - it was overvalued from the outset, because it represented a product that existed only on paper but was required to raise enough capital to sustain development for years.  Then it was battered by the crypto winter.  Then it underwent the ordeal of very low demand and high sell pressure with each reward cycle.

I think what you are failing to see is that none of that matters: as long as demand is created, and sell pressure brought under control, NRVE will do what every single currency does under such conditions: it will recover.  If need be, rewards can be suspended until functionality catches up enough to create demand.  They can start up again from a much lower starting point, and strong incentives to not cash out will be all the more effective, because the small amounts will be worth more for the perks they afford you when staked, than they are in USD.  

We've already suffered from the immense mismatch between the initial value of NRVE, and the actual value of the product.  Anywhere we might go from here, if based upon the actual value of the product, is not a path subject to some strange crypto curse.  If the product grows and gives people cause to adopt it, the currency will grow accordingly.  It is that simple.

Robert Nicholson 2 posted:
Malkazoid posted:
Can you point to another platform that provides the potential for Community influence that Narrative COULD provide, going forwards?  I know of no platform with the type of Board I outlined at the top of this thread.  

 

Just to be clear, Narrative's vision of community oversight has not worked.  You have spent countless hours criticizing the failures, and proposing alternatives (which may or may not be any better).

I still don't get what value you see in Narrative, or anything that the team has done.  If you believe you know how to make a successful social / content site, then distill that vision, find some developers, and build it.   

I honesty can't think of a single feature or attribute of Narrative that distinguishes it from other sites, other than a few people, such as yourself.  And those people are not tied to Narrative, unless they choose to be.

If you find a home on another site, post a link on Discord, and I'd welcome the chance to follow you.

 

@Robert Nicholson 2 - you might not be able to see it, but you are clearly and repeatedly talking about the past.  Nobody here is talking about moving ahead without changes.  In fact, fairly extensive changes are precisely what is under discussion.  Did you read the post that started this thread?

I see no point in debating this with you, if you take every opportunity to ignore what is being proposed for the future, so you can bash what did not work in the past. 

I think we all need to accept that to survive this long crypto winter we are all going to accept cost  cutting at Narrative ie services , and contribute if you can help keep Narrative alive. I'm happy to pay £50.00 GBP  per month if that helps.

@Robert Nicholson 2 - you might not be able to see it, but you are clearly and repeatedly talking about the past.  Nobody here is talking about moving ahead without changes.  In fact, fairly extensive changes are precisely what is under discussion.  Did you read the post that started this thread?

I see no point in debating this with you, if you take every opportunity to ignore what is being proposed for the future, so you can bash what did not work in the past. 

It's not about a debate for me.  I just hope you will not waste your time on a dead venture.

Yes, I understand that you are talking about moving forward.  The reason I focus on the past is because you're talking about building on top of it.

In my opinion, Narrative isn't just without value - it has negative value.  Why build a new structure on a crumbling foundation?  

If you really believe there is something here worth salvaging, then by all means pursue it.  If it all comes to naught, then I will look forward to seeing your contributions to another platform in the future.

 

 

Robert Nicholson 2 posted:
JR posted:

@Robert Nicholson 2 Why would those of us who are founders give up on the project now? We have virtually nothing to lose from trying to move the project forward and everything to gain if it ends up reviving.

Why?  Because reviving Narrative is a huge effort.  @Brian Lenz has identified a few of the hurdles - and for once I agree with him.  It's just not going to happen, so all the effort being put into "how to do it" is wasted.  

The platform has very little value - the effort needed to transition to some sort of new entity with open source development would take far more than the platform is worth.  

So my advice - to the people here I respect - is to simply cut your losses and move on.  There are lots of other platforms waiting for you!

Can you recomend wich platform is stabile? 

Malkazoid posted:
Robert Nicholson 2 posted:

This is actually something we've been discussing on Discord.  What exactly do you see as the value of Narrative?  What is the differentiator?

Could that "something" - whatever it is - be carried forward by influencing another platform?  

Could it be carried forward by building a new platform?

Just be clear - taking over Narrative is  going to be a BIG effort.  It's going to require a full-time team, a legal business entity, investment money, coding expertise, and more.  I simply don't believe that's going to happen. 

I  my opinions, if anyone from the Narrative community has the resources to pull off an effort of that scope, they'd be far better off throwing away the Narrative baggage and starting from scratch.  

Can you point to another platform that provides the potential for Community influence that Narrative COULD provide, going forwards?  I know of no platform with the type of Board I outlined at the top of this thread.  

Of course the valuable aspects of Narrative could, in a new platform, be combined with some of the things the Community has clamoured for since the early Alpha.  But for one, I would find it unethical to take the good ideas @Ted and his Team worked hard to build upon, and cannibalise them.  

The legal business entity exists.  It is called the Narrative Company.  I don't want to take over Narrative.  I want it to go open source, and see its operational structure change to incorporate Community influence in development.  That also happens to sound like less work than running off with the Team's ideas.

I can name two social networks that´s community privacy orientated and actively being developed right now:

https://humm.earth/ (Still in early development)

"An influence-free, beautifully simple peer-to-peer publishing platform, with an aggregation hub. Think of it as fully distributed WordPress made for the writers and content creators of the future, powering independent apps and an intentional community."

https://wt.social/ (+350.000 registered users)

"A spin-off from WikiTribune, WT.Social is designed to be a social media network focused on news sharing and discussion. It seems to blend a little bit of the collaborative editing nature of Wikipedia with social media."  https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...-it-work-well-maybe/

I was involved in the community from pre-ICO and I fully agree with Robert Nicholson (2) there really isn´t much of value in this project, the team is highly delusional regarding the project, they made a valuation of the project at $10Mil. in their wefunder campaign, I think it would be difficult getting even $50.000 selling it.

Regarding your initial post @Malkazoid I really don´t think you should give financial advises (eg. the NRVE token will surely rally if going open source) I remember a discussion with you, in the TG channel a year ago, where you continued to state, that the NRVE token couldn´t go lower then $0.05 even though there at that time was near zero trading volume.  

Regarding your initial post @Malkazoid I really don´t think you should give financial advises (eg. the NRVE token will surely rally if going open source) I remember a discussion with you, in the TG channel a year ago, where you continued to state, that the NRVE token couldn´t go lower then $0.05 even though there at that time was near zero trading volume.  

Hello @[email protected] II

Do you disagree that the token would rally, if Narrative announces it is going open source?  Just pause and think for a second: right now, the project is gone.  Dead.  Meaning the token has a theoretical value of zero.  The news that it is being reborn in a form that will see it developed by a new Team would represent a colossal improvement in the outlook of the token, compared to zero outlook.  Just so we are clear: to rally only means to recover to some degree.

Second point - I am not giving financial advice.  I'm not suggesting anyone should purchase NRVE.  I'm suggesting Narrative should become an open source project.  Hopefully that is clear.

Last point - even if I were giving financial advice, having been wrong in the past would not disqualify me from doing so.  Everyone is wrong at one point or another.  

Take care.

Yes, I understand that you are talking about moving forward.  The reason I focus on the past is because you're talking about building on top of it.

I'm talking about making the effort to assess whether there is anything to build upon.  That assessment can only be rationally made by qualified open source developers taking a look at the existing code base, and evaluating whether any parts of it are beneficial as a starting point for modification and further maturation.  

Malkazoid posted:
Regarding your initial post @Malkazoid I really don´t think you should give financial advises (eg. the NRVE token will surely rally if going open source) I remember a discussion with you, in the TG channel a year ago, where you continued to state, that the NRVE token couldn´t go lower then $0.05 even though there at that time was near zero trading volume.  

Hello @[email protected] II

Do you disagree that the token would rally, if Narrative announces it is going open source?  Just pause and think for a second: right now, the project is gone.  Dead.  Meaning the token has a theoretical value of zero.  The news that it is being reborn in a form that will see it developed by a new Team would represent a colossal improvement in the outlook of the token, compared to zero outlook.  Just so we are clear: to rally only means to recover to some degree.

Second point - I am not giving financial advice.  I'm not suggesting anyone should purchase NRVE.  I'm suggesting Narrative should become an open source project.  Hopefully that is clear.

Last point - even if I were giving financial advice, having been wrong in the past would not disqualify me from doing so.  Everyone is wrong at one point or another.  

Take care.

Who would buy it?

Who is familiar with the NRVE token and is following the project?

At the moment I would say that almost anybody familiar with the NRVE token, will already be holding it (if they are interested in that), either for making an investment or potentially using it on the platform. At the same time you have millions of rewards payouts lately, without any trading volume, many of these people is not looking to hold the token.

Again, who will buy, where is the demand coming from, the team have spend the last two years claiming that it´s simply supply and demand that will happen when Beta launches, then when publication went live. That didn´t happen.

Who would buy it?

Who is familiar with the NRVE token and is following the project?

At the moment I would say that almost anybody familiar with the NRVE token, will already be holding it, if know if they have thought of making an investment/using it on the platform. At the same time you have millions of rewards payouts lately without any trading volume, not of of these people is looking to holding the token.

Again, who will buy, where is the demand coming from, the team have spend the last two years claiming that it´s simply supply and demand that will happen when Beta launches, then when publication went live. That didn´t happen.

Those who sold because the token now has a theoretical value of zero, would have a pretty powerful motivation to buy some back at a huge discount.  If six months from now, there are 5 open source developers, the platform is operational, and new functionality is starting to be added with a couple of releases per month, adding use cases for the token - the increased confidence would translate into the return of some of the people the project has lost.

Malkazoid posted:

Who would buy it?

Who is familiar with the NRVE token and is following the project?

At the moment I would say that almost anybody familiar with the NRVE token, will already be holding it, if know if they have thought of making an investment/using it on the platform. At the same time you have millions of rewards payouts lately without any trading volume, not of of these people is looking to holding the token.

Again, who will buy, where is the demand coming from, the team have spend the last two years claiming that it´s simply supply and demand that will happen when Beta launches, then when publication went live. That didn´t happen.

Those who sold because the token now has a theoretical value of zero, would have a pretty powerful motivation to buy some back at a huge discount.  If six months from now, there are 5 open source developers, the platform is operational, and new functionality is starting to be added with a couple of releases per month, adding use cases for the token - the increased confidence would translate into the return of some of the people the project has lost.

Those who sold, there hasn´t been much trading volume lately. Who are those imaginary people you talk about, when and how did they get their tokens and why would they want to come back trying to trade a token with very low liquidity?

And you state that they potentially can buy back at a huge discount, that implies that the token should have a higher value, well the last + one year doesn´t suggest it should and that was with a payed development team, which claimed to have gained around $8-10Mil from the ICO (money which are not accounted for in details btw.).

Who are the none payed developers going to be, they will have far more interest in getting involved in projects that are striving and build from the ground being truly open source, right now the Narrative team has stated that they believe another centralized entity needs to take over.

The Narrative platform had 2000 unique visitors in the last 30 days, there really aren´t many around anymore.

Those who sold, there hasn´t been much trading volume lately. Who are those imaginary people you talk about, when and how did they get their tokens and why would they want to come back trying to trade a token with very low liquidity?

You are making the mistake of looking only at USD values of volume.  You should be looking at the amount of NRVE transacted.  On December 6th, 262 USD of NRVE were transacted, which that day came to well over 1 million NRVE.  That's a lot of selling.  Way beyond sell patterns from previous reward cycles (by about a factor of 10).

 

 

And you state that they potentially can buy back at a huge discount, that implies that the token should have a higher value, well the last + one year doesn´t suggest it should and that was with a payed development team, which claimed to have gained around $8-10Mil from the ICO (money which are not accounted for in details btw.).

That's an absurd comparison - we've suspected for a long time now that Narrative's finances were very negatively impacted by the plummeting of crypto values, and more specifically, NEO's huge fall.  The 8-10 million ICO figure you are quoting had no direct relevance after that, unless you are suggesting valuations should be based on money lost?

The value of the token has been adapting to sentiment about the project in real time, not all in one go.  So obviously, the rise I would expect upon an announcement that Narrative is being reborn with a different Team, open source ethos, and a structure that guarantees the Community feedback will be reflected in development, would be a rise relative to the lowest point where the project was being canned - not a rise relative to the original ICO sentiment.  Isn't that obvious?

 

Who are the none payed developers going to be, they will have far more interest in getting involved in projects that are striving and build from the ground being truly open source, right now the Narrative team has stated that they believe another centralized entity needs to take over.

If I believed you were asking these questions constructively, I'd happily engage with you on them.  But you're essentially asking an absurd question: how do you expect anyone to tell you exactly which developers will see value in an open source next gen social platform project.  I don't have a crystal ball.  

'Truly open source'?  I'm not sure what you imagine would be the turn off of the form of open source we might arrive at with Narrative, since we haven't determined it yet.  You are pissing on something that has not yet been defined, and the scope of which is actually the real topic of the thread.  

The Team sees a centralised entity remaining the custodian of the databases and accounts because that is currently understood to be a requirement for the backend of a content economy platform.  If you have some ideas about how a trusted central legal entity can be dispensed of in a content economy platform, by all means, please share them.  The existence of such an entity does not prevent the project from becoming open source.

The Narrative platform had 2000 unique visitors in the last 30 days, there really aren´t many around anymore.

Yes - thank you for reminding us about the low point Narrative is at: we're all aware.

Harj posted:

I think we all need to accept that to survive this long crypto winter we are all going to accept cost  cutting at Narrative ie services , and contribute if you can help keep Narrative alive. I'm happy to pay £50.00 GBP  per month if that helps.

@Harj - if the Narrative Team agrees to a Board structure with a clear majority of members coming from the Community, and agrees to the code base being shared with the Community, I would match your contributions.  But more importantly, if they agree to these things, I think a wefunder campaign would achieve some degree of success, netting enough funds to resume much more thrifty operations.  Narrative can receive much more development than it has seen, at far lesser expense, if the hard choices are made.

If you're a Founder or Patron on Narrative, feel free to join the discussions on Narrative Community Discord Server about Narrative 2.0 - Open Source. So we can present some concrete data to discuss on it with Team. Others can also join if they believe in this concept. 

FYI

Founders

@Bryan @Condes777 @Malkazoid @ClosetCrypto @Ahope 9 @Dias Flac @cicbar @Rich S @Omarsaleh66 @Eduardo Hernández @Gerbino @GUNDECKd @Banter @freedom @Hickster747 @Emad @Soňa @Kyle Kidd @Lion @WinstonT @Winston Turnage @decentraliser @Howsewife @Jeroenski74 @SoCalifas 

Patrons

@Emily Barnett @Harj @mrgoodsett @MichelleG @Whitmal @Madhanic @Sergei @Dr. Rick @chrisabdey @Dinuxen @Roger Sels @jcalumpit @Andreas Hauser @RobbyCannard  @Vidrakolyok @Raptor0  @arajpoot @b1tbyb1t @Christian Kuhl @imolev @carlos @jcletics @JoDee Walters @Calvin @Crypto @ClosetCrypto @Bumbak

Malkazoid posted:
Those who sold, there hasn´t been much trading volume lately. Who are those imaginary people you talk about, when and how did they get their tokens and why would they want to come back trying to trade a token with very low liquidity?

You are making the mistake of looking only at USD values of volume.  You should be looking at the amount of NRVE transacted.  On December 6th, 262 USD of NRVE were transacted, which that day came to well over 1 million NRVE.  That's a lot of selling.  Way beyond sell patterns from previous reward cycles (by about a factor of 10).

That doesn´t make any sense, you are arguing that the $ value of the token is highly undervalued at present and at the same time you refuse to use the trading value in $

Malkazoid posted:

 [email protected] II posted:

And you state that they potentially can buy back at a huge discount, that implies that the token should have a higher value, well the last + one year doesn´t suggest it should and that was with a payed development team, which claimed to have gained around $8-10Mil from the ICO (money which are not accounted for in details btw.).

That's an absurd comparison - we've suspected for a long time now that Narrative's finances were very negatively impacted by the plummeting of crypto values, and more specifically, NEO's huge fall.  The 8-10 million ICO figure you are quoting had no direct relevance after that, unless you are suggesting valuations should be based on money lost?

The value of the token has been adapting to sentiment about the project in real time, not all in one go.  So obviously, the rise I would expect upon an announcement that Narrative is being reborn with a different Team, open source ethos, and a structure that guarantees the Community feedback will be reflected in development, would be a rise relative to the lowest point where the project was being canned - not a rise relative to the original ICO sentiment.  Isn't that obvious?

First, the team just valuated the platform at $10Mil. in the Wefunder campaign. And the team publicly stated that the private ICO brought in @$5,7Mil. and the drastic decline in cryptocurrency happened around 30 days later, so they had plenty of time to exchange some of the funding to USD (from Binance to GDAX/Coinbase Pro). We just don´t know, but the team calculated with 3-5 years before the platform was self sustainable, so securing those development funds should have been a top one priority.

Secondly there really haven´t been that much trading volume and trying to use the argument that the liquidity should be done in NRVE is just pure nonsense.

Who is going to buy the NRVE token and provide liquidity? (you really have a bad habit of not answering qustions that doesn´t fit your agenda).

Malkazoid posted:

[email protected] II posted:

Who are the none payed developers going to be, they will have far more interest in getting involved in projects that are striving and build from the ground being truly open source, right now the Narrative team has stated that they believe another centralized entity needs to take over.

If I believed you were asking these questions constructively, I'd happily engage with you on them.  But you're essentially asking an absurd question: how do you expect anyone to tell you exactly which developers will see value in an open source next gen social platform project.  I don't have a crystal ball.  

'Truly open source'?  I'm not sure what you imagine would be the turn off of the form of open source we might arrive at with Narrative, since we haven't determined it yet.  You are pissing on something that has not yet been defined, and the scope of which is actually the real topic of the thread.  

The Team sees a centralised entity remaining the custodian of the databases and accounts because that is currently understood to be a requirement for the backend of a content economy platform.  If you have some ideas about how a trusted central legal entity can be dispensed of in a content economy platform, by all means, please share them.  The existence of such an entity does not prevent the project from becoming open source.

In my first replay to you I included a link to two open source privacy focused social platforms, you should look at them. What are the attraction of having a centralized entity?

I´m not seeking the name of the developers you seem to think will put up out of nowhere, I´m asking what would there initial motivation be, when taking in to consideration the other open sourced social platforms already being developed, like the two I mentioned?

And the unique numbers of visitors is interesting because it´s properly among them  you would have to count for public awareness of this the Narrative rebirth, wouldn´t you agree?

And at the same time, wouldn´t the rallying have to come from this group of people, or is there anywhere else people are widely discussing NRVE?

@[email protected] II - you've misunderstood my point regarding NRVE valuation.

The point is that there was MUCH more selling activity after the announcement of the sunset, than there was the same time last month, when rewards were released.  In other words, and very unsurprisingly, about 10 times more NRVE was sold due to the announcement that NRVE would soon have NO VALUE.  Looking only at the USD volume, you cannot appreciate that extremely relevant fact.

You asked me who would buy NRVE if Narrative continues as open source, and you asked me, incredulously, who the sellers were who might buy some NRVE back.

I have quite simply pointed to the activity that proves that people sold a lot of NRVE on the belief Narrative was disappearing.  It is as simple as that.

As for a centralised entity, it isn't a matter of attraction but of necessity.  Who holds the keys to the many NRVE and NEO accounts required for the economy to function?  Who safeguards the private information of users in the databases?

Open source is the way to go. It should have been from the start. It's a fundamental process in the world of crypto. Not only can your community expand upon your creation and have a say in it, they can be the users that display what they want and how they want it, ensuring its success.

I have worked in the crypto industry, way before we reached the prices we're at now, and I'd be happy to offer my voice to the community, in the event that the community takes the reigns. To know that my expectations and advice were actually listened to would be a huge positive from the start.

 

Malkazoid posted:

@[email protected] II - you've misunderstood my point regarding NRVE valuation.

The point is that there was MUCH more selling activity after the announcement of the sunset, than there was the same time last month, when rewards were released.  In other words, and very unsurprisingly, about 10 times more NRVE was sold due to the announcement that NRVE would soon have NO VALUE.  Looking only at the USD volume, you cannot appreciate that extremely relevant fact.

You asked me who would buy NRVE if Narrative continues as open source, and you asked me, incredulously, who the sellers were who might buy some NRVE back.

I have quite simply pointed to the activity that proves that people sold a lot of NRVE on the belief Narrative was disappearing.  It is as simple as that.

As for a centralised entity, it isn't a matter of attraction but of necessity.  Who holds the keys to the many NRVE and NEO accounts required for the economy to function?  Who safeguards the private information of users in the databases?

I know who those sellers are, mostly users from the platform that got reward pay-outs, some of them is not interested in the platform, but only the pay-outs. The numbers your mentioning isn´t going to suddenly drive up the price of the NRVE token, there´s really not that much trading volume.

Who holds the private information, is exactly one aspect that blockchain tries to change, no central entity, your data belongs to you.

I would suggest that you make a new thread here or on Discord, where people can discuss and work on getting the Narrative 2.0 into the world, this thread properly has turned in the direction of the fundamentals pursuing that

I know who those sellers are, mostly users from the platform that got reward pay-outs, some of them is not interested in the platform, but only the pay-outs. The numbers your mentioning isn´t going to suddenly drive up the price of the NRVE token, there´s really not that much trading volume.

Who holds the private information, is exactly one aspect that blockchain tries to change, no central entity, your data belongs to you.

Ok - I accept that you do not believe the news that the project will continue, under very different conditions, would cause the token price to rise from its current value of 0.000099 USD.  I disagree with you.  Not much else to say.  I am looking at trading volume as a proportion of market cap, where as you are looking at trading volume in isolation, as a USD figure.  I know which data point is more relevant compared to the other, but I can't force you to agree with me.

Yes, all user data can be held on the blockchain.   But that is not the current architecture.  So if we decide to head in that direction, who oversees the transition?  

When it comes to the account transactions, I personally would be opposed for now, to it being completely smart contract driven, with modifications only being approved democratically.  This should be something to strive for eventually, but Narrative is not out of the early development phase, where a centralised hand is a valuable efficiency and failsafe.

The concerns from @Brian Lenz are essential, in my opinion. Ownership and responsibility are the key points. Without a clear solution to that part of the problem, nothing good can happen.

And I also have to mostly agree with @Robert Nicholson 2. Hence, wanting to take the challenge and given that a possibility is there, a strong government - with a clear vision and quick pace - is needed, or the attempt would certainly fall apart under the weight of hard premises.

So, my opinion is that the transfer of ownership is needed, the new owner taking responsibility for the challenge. And by transfer of ownership, I mean purchase, of course, because I cannot imagine the Company giving away the thing for free. It would have to be an absolutely reasonable price - also taking into account the damage currently done to the existing community and that a new owner outside the community can be hardly imagined - but, in my opinion, a transaction should be there.

I can't imagine the company going open source, on a project already declared as failed, still "retaining" ownership and responsibility - especially if this involves a delegation of government -. Open source or not, there should be a new owner. No other way, for me. And even in that case, I would be prudent in going open source, since the tech part is not the issue here. Issues would be about the economy, the dynamics, most parts of the design, marketing, the financials, etc.. And those parts should unavoidably be the competence of the new owner. Open source - if possible - would only solve a little part of the equation.

I think the main option is to see if there is a pool of people agreeing on a vision, willing to invest BOTH money and time. Only money or only time is not going to work anyway, IMO.

Malkazoid posted:

I know who those sellers are, mostly users from the platform that got reward pay-outs, some of them is not interested in the platform, but only the pay-outs. The numbers your mentioning isn´t going to suddenly drive up the price of the NRVE token, there´s really not that much trading volume.

Who holds the private information, is exactly one aspect that blockchain tries to change, no central entity, your data belongs to you.

Ok - I accept that you do not believe the news that the project will continue, under very different conditions, would cause the token price to rise from its current value of 0.000099 USD.  I disagree with you.  Not much else to say.  I am looking at trading volume as a proportion of market cap, where as you are looking at trading volume in isolation, as a USD figure.  I know which data point is more relevant compared to the other, but I can't force you to agree with me.

Yes, all user data can be held on the blockchain.   But that is not the current architecture.  So if we decide to head in that direction, who oversees the transition?  

When it comes to the account transactions, I personally would be opposed for now, to it being completely smart contract driven, with modifications only being approved democratically.  This should be something to strive for eventually, but Narrative is not out of the early development phase, where a centralised hand is a valuable efficiency and failsafe.

But you cant even manege to answer who is going to make the platform continue, what are these peoples specific motivation for continuing Narrative instead of contributing to already established projects?

I`m not looking at trading volume isolated, I don´t even get what the heck your trying to say? I asked you who would start buying the NRVE token.

The need for user identity is only relevant because the team didn´t managed to get the reward algorithm working properly to leave out low quality.  So why pursue this at all right now, if needed there will properly be much better alternative later on.

And there really are not any need for the content (excluding comments) to be handed over to a new central entity, the content creators still own there content and could just re-upload that to the Narrative 2.0 platform. That way some of the low quality content could be "removed".

The smart move would be to start Narrative 2.0 without the NRVE economy at first, then it could be implemented sometime in the future.

But you cant even manege to answer who is going to make the platform continue, what are these peoples specific motivation for continuing Narrative instead of contributing to already established projects?
I have answered those questions in various posts in this thread.
I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in rehashing them.  There are several aspects of Narrative that are unique.  Those aspects drew quite a few people to become stakeholders in the project, as you well know.  The current sad state of the project is not a complete indictment of those unique aspects of the project, and so it stands to reason that just like me, and quite a few other Narrators who think Narrative should continue, there will be developers out there who will choose to contribute to Narrative.  If you disagree, great, that's your right.  But I'm not sure why you want to expend energy trying to convince me I'm wrong.  
 

I.m not looking at trading volume isolated, I don´t even get what the heck your trying to say? I asked you who would start buying the NRVE token.

I'm running out of ways to say this.  The people who sold 10 times more NRVE than expected after this rewards cycle, obviously did so because they thought there would be no future to the utility token.  If that picture changes, some of those people will buy some of that NRVE back.

The need for user identity is only relevant because the team didn´t managed to get the reward algorithm working properly to leave out low quality.  So why pursue this at all right now, if needed there will properly be much better alternative later on.

The question is, is there sufficient value in the current database, with its current stakeholders, to pursue a future built upon them.  If the answer turns out to be yes, then there will need to be a transitional phase during which we deal with the reality that user data and content are not on the block chain, and must have a centralised custodian.  Nobody here is saying these things have to be centralised forever.  But the topic of the thread is an open source Narrative, and currently, Narrative is centralised in that respect.  We're just being pragmatic about that.  Nothing more.

And there really are not any need for the content (excluding comments) to be handed over to a new central entity, the content creators still own there content and could just re-upload that to the Narrative 2.0 platform. That way some of the low quality content could be "removed".

 Yes, that would be an option.  But why create hours of work for everyone if it is not necessary?  I have no desire to have to reupload all my content, if it can be avoided.

The smart move would be to start Narrative 2.0 without the NRVE economy at first, then it could be implemented sometime in the future.

Yes.  I've suggested that in this thread, so naturally I agree with you: it is something to be considered!

@Vico Biscotti - I agree with much of your take on things.

But the Narrative Company can still exist as an entity, and remain custodian of various aspects of the project, without that translating into a liability.  It all depends on the Board structure and operational procedures adopted.

Volkswagen willingly aided the Nazi war effort, and today, they are a thriving company.  I don't think there is anything remotely so dire, despite the less than stellar current results, about the Narrative Company, that it cannot continue to exist as an entity involved with the platform in certain specific roles.

Malkazoid posted:
But you cant even manege to answer who is going to make the platform continue, what are these peoples specific motivation for continuing Narrative instead of contributing to already established projects?
I have answered those questions in various posts in this thread.
I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in rehashing them.  There are several aspects of Narrative that are unique.  Those aspects drew quite a few people to become stakeholders in the project, as you well know.  The current sad state of the project is not a complete indictment of those unique aspects of the project, and so it stands to reason that just like me, and quite a few other Narrators who think Narrative should continue, there will be developers out there who will choose to contribute to Narrative.  If you disagree, great, that's your right.  But I'm not sure why you want to expend energy trying to convince me I'm wrong.  
 

I.m not looking at trading volume isolated, I don´t even get what the heck your trying to say? I asked you who would start buying the NRVE token.

I'm running out of ways to say this.  The people who sold 10 times more NRVE than expected after this rewards cycle, obviously did so because they thought there would be no future to the utility token.  If that picture changes, some of those people will buy some of that NRVE back.

The need for user identity is only relevant because the team didn´t managed to get the reward algorithm working properly to leave out low quality.  So why pursue this at all right now, if needed there will properly be much better alternative later on.

The question is, is there sufficient value in the current database, with its current stakeholders, to pursue a future built upon them.  If the answer turns out to be yes, then there will need to be a transitional phase during which we deal with the reality that user data and content are not on the block chain, and must have a centralised custodian.  Nobody here is saying these things have to be centralised forever.  But the topic of the thread is an open source Narrative, and currently, Narrative is centralised in that respect.  We're just being pragmatic about that.  Nothing more.

And there really are not any need for the content (excluding comments) to be handed over to a new central entity, the content creators still own there content and could just re-upload that to the Narrative 2.0 platform. That way some of the low quality content could be "removed".

 Yes, that would be an option.  But why create hours of work for everyone if it is not necessary?  I have no desire to have to reupload all my content, if it can be avoided.

The smart move would be to start Narrative 2.0 without the NRVE economy at first, then it could be implemented sometime in the future.

Yes.  I've suggested that in this thread, so naturally I agree with you: it is something to be considered!

As often when discussing with you, it leads to no answers.

Malkazoid: "I have answered those questions in various posts in this thread."

And then you rambles on about nothing instead of providing an actual answer.

Malkazoid: "I'm running out of ways to say this.  The people who sold 10 times more NRVE than expected after this rewards cycle, obviously did so because they thought there would be no future to the utility token.  If that picture changes, some of those people will buy some of that NRVE back."

But there really haven´t been that much trading volume, meaning there is no liquidity to the token. Do you really think there is a large amount of potential investors looking to buy back/into the NRVE token? That will first change if the platform starts to gain traction (meaning widely awareness and use), not because a part of the community wants the platform to go open source.

Around a year ago I spend quite some time, trying to bring attention to the team that the token economy wasn´t sustainable, you kept arguing that the price of the token would rise and that there was no reason is should not be $0.15 in July 2018.  The market saw it differently and it showed that your not very good at estimating the value of a market.

And I forgot to mention Keybase.io along humm.earth and WT.Social when you asked for alternatives to Narrative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keybase

Malkazoid posted:
But you cant even manege to answer who is going to make the platform continue, what are these peoples specific motivation for continuing Narrative instead of contributing to already established projects?
I have answered those questions in various posts in this thread.
I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in rehashing them.  There are several aspects of Narrative that are unique.  Those aspects drew quite a few people to become stakeholders in the project, as you well know.  The current sad state of the project is not a complete indictment of those unique aspects of the project, and so it stands to reason that just like me, and quite a few other Narrators who think Narrative should continue, there will be developers out there who will choose to contribute to Narrative.  If you disagree, great, that's your right.  But I'm not sure why you want to expend energy trying to convince me I'm wrong.  
 

I.m not looking at trading volume isolated, I don´t even get what the heck your trying to say? I asked you who would start buying the NRVE token.

I'm running out of ways to say this.  The people who sold 10 times more NRVE than expected after this rewards cycle, obviously did so because they thought there would be no future to the utility token.  If that picture changes, some of those people will buy some of that NRVE back.

The need for user identity is only relevant because the team didn´t managed to get the reward algorithm working properly to leave out low quality.  So why pursue this at all right now, if needed there will properly be much better alternative later on.

The question is, is there sufficient value in the current database, with its current stakeholders, to pursue a future built upon them.  If the answer turns out to be yes, then there will need to be a transitional phase during which we deal with the reality that user data and content are not on the block chain, and must have a centralised custodian.  Nobody here is saying these things have to be centralised forever.  But the topic of the thread is an open source Narrative, and currently, Narrative is centralised in that respect.  We're just being pragmatic about that.  Nothing more.

And there really are not any need for the content (excluding comments) to be handed over to a new central entity, the content creators still own there content and could just re-upload that to the Narrative 2.0 platform. That way some of the low quality content could be "removed".

 Yes, that would be an option.  But why create hours of work for everyone if it is not necessary?  I have no desire to have to reupload all my content, if it can be avoided.

The smart move would be to start Narrative 2.0 without the NRVE economy at first, then it could be implemented sometime in the future.

Yes.  I've suggested that in this thread, so naturally I agree with you: it is something to be considered!

As often when discussing with you, it leads to no answers.

Malkazoid: "I have answered those questions in various posts in this thread."

And then you rambles on about nothing instead of providing an actual answer.

Malkazoid: "I'm running out of ways to say this.  The people who sold 10 times more NRVE than expected after this rewards cycle, obviously did so because they thought there would be no future to the utility token.  If that picture changes, some of those people will buy some of that NRVE back."

But there really haven´t been that much trading volume, meaning there is no liquidity to the token. Do you really think there is a large amount of potential investors looking to buy back/into the NRVE token? That will first change if the platform starts to gain traction (meaning widely awareness and use), not because a part of the community wants the platform to go open source.

Around a year ago I spend quite some time, trying to bring attention to the team that the token economy wasn´t sustainable, you kept arguing that the price of the token would rise and that there was no reason is should not be $0.15 in July 2018.  The market saw it differently and it showed that your not very good at estimating the value of a market.

Again, there has been substantial increase in trading volume, RELATIVE TO MARKET CAP.  Ten times more so than this time last month.  The sell orders are there, and if some of them start getting snapped up because of a change of outlook, more sellers would place orders as the price rises, allowing volume to continue to increase.

Anyway, I didn't start this thread to argue this minor point.

It is quite clear to me that your adversarial tone, evident from your very first post in this thread, is just a continuation of how aggressive you became in our past conversation in 2018.  I don't think many people share your experience of conversing with me leading to no answers.  I just don't respond that well to people I sense are not ready to discuss things purely on their merits.  It is clear, from your repeated attempt to use a single missed prediction I made over a year ago when the project had not even launched its Beta yet, that you're being combative here.  Being combative tends to not yield constructive responses, so you really shouldn't expect any.

I'm just not interested @[email protected] II.  I started this thread to be constructive and I don't feel conversing with you stands a good chance of serving that end.  Sorry.

 

To all those who might feel the positive start this thread had has been somewhat derailed, there is a good conversation going on the Narrative Discord, in a channel devoted to Narrative 2.0.

https://discord.gg/hFEa77q

More will be posted here once some more things have been hashed out there.  And of course, we are expecting some data from @Brian Lenz here that can hopefully help us decide whether pooling our resources to keep the platform ticking over in energy conservation mode, is a possibility, pending any restructuring.

Malkazoid posted:

Again, there has been substantial increase in trading volume, RELATIVE TO MARKET CAP.  Ten times more so than this time last month.  The sell orders are there, and if some of them start getting snapped up because of a change of outlook, more sellers would place orders as the price rises, allowing volume to continue to increase.

Anyway, I didn't start this thread to argue this minor point.

It is quite clear to me that your adversarial tone, evident from your very first post in this thread, is just a continuation of how aggressive you became in our past conversation in 2018.  I don't think many people share your experience of conversing with me leading to no answers.  I just don't respond that well to people I sense are not ready to discuss things purely on their merits.  It is clear, from your repeated attempt to use a single missed prediction I made over a year ago when the project had not even launched its Beta yet, that you're being combative here.  Being combative tends to not yield constructive responses, so you really shouldn't expect any.

I'm just not interested @[email protected] II.  I started this thread to be constructive and I don't feel conversing with you stands a good chance of serving that end.  Sorry.

Again who are these buyers waiting to strike?

You make up your own terms to fit your narrative and keeps avoiding answering anything that does not fit your believes. I brought up the fact that you where using imaginary economics gains, in your effort to promote an open source version of Narrative, in my view that´s just nonsense since there really is not that many waiting to buy NRVEs. The Wefunder campaign ended with a pledge of around $100.000 and atleast $25.000 of those where from someone involved with the Hoop.la/Narrative business (I think it was Bob Hope).

So even selling some kinda shares in the company did not amount to more then $100.000 so why you think there potentially is an untapped marked, waiting to buy into a community run token, simply is beyond me.

So my best suggestion would be, to get a new platform up and running asap, using already available open source software and then try to merge the users and content from Narrative onto that platform eventually, in whatever way its possible.

The way you are going right now, most likely wont amount to anything and trying to sell a failed project with the forecast of future gains, is not very smart.   

And well you asked for alternatives to narrative, I provided three alternatives too which you have not applied any reason why a revived Narrative should be a better alternative.

 

EDIT. And btw. if you can not spare a few hours re-uploading the content you posted to the Narrative platform, I really do not think you have any idea how much work would have to be put into getting traction to Narrative 2.0.

@Malkazoid

You are a real hero!

@[email protected] II You might be partly right, but I would buy more, if there was a solid ground. And I am confident this is totally possible.

@robertnicholson My honest opinion: You started your personal revenge campaign because you are a paid advisor for other projects and you expected that Narrative would pay you too. As this did not happen, you made many many posts against Narrative, trying to frighten away as many users as possible. Everyone can check if this is true (e.g. your series called 'alternatives to Narrative'). To me there is no other explanation to the energy you put into this negative goal.

Are there new platforms you recommended, those that pay you for your services?

Do you get some bonus for this? Really, I find no words for your behavior. Very sad.

 

New Social Media posted:

@Malkazoid

You are a real hero!

@[email protected] II You might be partly right, but I would buy more, if there was a solid ground. And I am confident this is totally possible.

@robertnicholson My honest opinion: You started your personal revenge campaign because you are a paid advisor for other projects and you expected that Narrative would pay you too. As this did not happen, you made many many posts against Narrative, trying to dispell as many users as possible. Everyone can check if this is true (e.g. your series called 'alternatives to Narrative'). To me there is no other explanation to the energy you put into this negative goal.

Are there new platforms you recommended, those that pay you for your services?

Do you get some bonus for this? Really, I find no words for your behavior. Very sad.

 

Just to be clear, I never solicited work from Narrative, and I would not have accepted it had it been offered.  I don't work with people or companies unless I believe there is a reasonable shot at success, and it became clear to me early on that the Narrative team did not have what it takes to succeed.  

I actually did provide some free advice - knowing it would be ignored:

https://www.narrative.org/post/saving-narrative

None of the "Alternatives to Narrative" I reviewed are my clients.  The series was based on research I was doing anyway, and I thought it might benefit people who were ready to leave this sinking ship.

I am currently consulting with a company that is working on a new content platform.  If it comes to market, I will promote it, because they have some great ideas and some great technology.  However, there's a good chance it will not come to market in a recognizable form.  Potential investors (angels and VCs) have largely written off the content platform space, and are encouraging the company founders to take their ideas in a different direction.

 

Heidi Hecht posted:

Now I'm curious about what "hurdles" she thinks there would be. If there's some regulatory thing that I don't know about, I could maybe see it. But making something open-source shouldn't be an issue unless you're worried about trade secrets or competition.

 

I really recommend to join the Narrative Community Discord Server, I joined yesterday and there are really great discussions about the future options.

We really appreciate the passion to continue this project in some capacity.  But, I want to be clear that is highly unlikely we will make this open source and give it away.  Brian previously posted a couple reasons why this would be challenging.  Another key factor is some proprietary code that was developed prior to Narrative.  

If we change our minds on this, we will let you know.  

Suggestion Canceled

This action was taken by MOLLY O.
If you feel this has not been implemented properly or have some feedback about it, please click here.
×
Post
×
×
×
×