1. Will it be like an Ebay auction?
  2. Will the minimum bid for all Niches be $75?
  3. How long after suggesting a Niche will that Niche be ready to bid on?
  4. Will there be one large pool of Niches to start or will Niches constantly be rolled out?
  5. What will be the time limits for the auctions, 1 day, 2 days, etc? 
Original Post

I hear you MrGoodsett - I still don't like that at all.

Reading up on the rest of the initial auctioning system - I now realise a lot of it is well designed though: whereas before, my sense of this injustice was blinding me to the system as a whole.

Thinking back to my suggestion of letting folks submit their niches privately, and only the niches that have several members proposing them go to auction - I now can see I failed to incorporate some important details to make it feasible.  The way I first described this, the niche creation process would have been centralised, putting a burden on the Narrative Team, where they would have to work more, and all they would probably reap from that extra work is discontent.  Because they would have had to decide without the community's input, whether a niche is valid or not, redundant or not, etc...

What if the initial niche sale transpires as follows.

REVISED INITIAL AUCTIONING PROPOSAL

1) folks are allowed to choose, in private and over the course of 48 hours, 5 niches they want to own.

2) All niches are then revealed to the community for approval voting only, not for bidding... yet.  No need to reveal who suggested which niche at this stage.  So the community votes on whether the niches are valid, offensive, redundant, etc...  The voting includes ranking redundant niches in order of preference, so that only one niche remains from each group of redundant ones.

3) Now its the time to finally reveal which of these niches were suggested by more than one person, and who those people were.  Those niches would be auctioned, with the folks that submitted them as the only bidders.  Of course the niches that only one person suggested would be purchasable for the fixed fee of NRVE equivalent to 75 usd, by the person who came up with the niche.  Only if that person turns down the opportunity, should that niche be opened to auction to everyone.

BOTTOM LINE

If you suggest a niche that nobody else thinks of, you should get a chance to own it... 

If there is some sort of intractable reason why this is not feasible, fair enough, but I think we should transparently discuss what that intractable reason is because several of us are not seeing that reason!  It is entirely possible we're short-sighted, or have not given this as much thought as the Narrative Team has - that's even probable.  I think it would be nice to know what we've missed.

Giving primacy to wealth over intellectual property, in this instance is really only defensible as a last resort.  And that is what it would be, in the process I've just outlined: a last resort to determine ownership if there is contention over a niche because more than one person thought of it.

During a gold rush, did prospectors have to tell the entire world if they found gold on a tract of land?  Of course not.  If they found it, they started mining it and they staked a claim to that land.  Imagine the riots that would have occurred if someone had proposed only rich people would get to mine the tracts that had gold on them, after everyone had been forced to tell them where the gold is?  Sounds bizarre, right?  Well this is essentially what we're heading towards.

Of course the Wild West had brutal ways of resolving contentions over rich tracts of land - folks shot or stabbed or brained each other a fair bit.  

We can improve on that unfortunate history by auctioning if there is contention.  But forcing every niche into an auction after harvesting everyone's favourite niches is simply unfair and far from the optimal way to set up a meritocracy.

In conclusion - I like most aspects of the initial setup now that I'm more familiar with it, but I really expect some discussion with the Team about this particular issue.  I know you and I are not the only ones it bothers... 

A lot of us are here supporting Narrative precisely because it claimed to set out to avoid the pitfalls of other networks out there, that are plagued by whales, and monopolies.  Whilst a lot of the designs for Narrative do improve things, I'm hoping the Team will be open to discussing improving even further whenever they get the chance to.   After all, isn't that the value of having a well-disposed community who believes in the common goal that has united it?

No system is perfect, but if a flaw can be fixed, it should be?   

 

 

I do like your suggestion Malka, and I think for me that would work alot better. as I have ideas for Niches but not much in a financial sense. but I guess I can see why it is the way it is and we have to roll with it and try our best to get the best deal we can and yes getting nothing is part of that or some other outcome but it is just start for all and very fair from a starting point. Put in your suggestion and then everyone bid. founders first then all after that.

Harj posted:

I do like your suggestion Malka, and I think for me that would work alot better. as I have ideas for Niches but not much in a financial sense. but I guess I can see why it is the way it is and we have to roll with it and try our best to get the best deal we can and yes getting nothing is part of that or some other outcome but it is just start for all and very fair from a starting point. Put in your suggestion and then everyone bid. founders first then all after that.

I'm very curious what makes you see why it is the way it is?  If I'm missing something, I'd genuinely enjoy some help finding out what it is!  I'd love nothing more than to be able to proceed with the knowledge that we're getting off on the right foot.  After all, it's a long road to what Narrative will eventually become... if we don't take care to start out right, where will we end up after all the opportunities for wrong turns along the way?

BTW - I'm not proposing founders should not get first dibs!  I'm a founder, and I do understand why it was judicious for Narrative to offer the perk of first dibs to larger contributors.  It greatly improves the outcome of the ICO.  And now that founders have been promised first dibs, we certainly cannot and should not roll that back...

I just think that within that round of first dibs, those of us with more money shouldn't be preying on the visions of the larger community.  We should be proposing our own ideas and getting a chance to buy those niches.

I see your point Mal but the quesiton is... is it just and a equal opportuntity at the start ? and I feel it is! I have a chance to be a founder and still do but I choose not too due to funds. but  everybody started at the same point and if the rules are set the same for all thats fair. make a suggestion and then all bid. What is not to like about that Mal ?

Harj posted:

I see your point Mal but the quesiton is... is it just and a equal opportuntity at the start ? and I feel it is! I have a chance to be a founder and still do but I choose not too due to funds. but  everybody started at the same point and if the rules are set the same for all thats fair. make a suggestion and then all bid. What is not to like about that Mal ?

Erm... it is not a just and equal opportunity at all.  What I am proposing would be.

What is just and equal about serving up all the best ideas, and then allowing the richest members to grab them?  Precisely nothing.

Do you think we would have creative industries if intellectual property worked that way?  If you wrote a screenplay or a novel, you then had to put it in a pool for the wealthy folks of the world to bid against you for ownership of it?  

I'm hoping you understand just how profoundly back to front this particular aspect of the rollout is.  I can see why it might seem like an acceptable route if there is nothing better, but if there is, it would be truly strange not to choose the better route.  So I'm wondering why you think the less fair route is the better one?

 

There is another advantage to my proposal.

When folks put forth privately their 5 top niches - it allows them to focus more genuinely on what is suitable for them.  They've been through a thought process and selected 5 niches after contemplating what is the most compatible with them, as well as what might bring in revenue.

With the current system of everyone bidding on everyone else's proposed niches, you will have a degree of distraction from that initial inner direction.  You'll get people ditching some of their choices to be able to bid on what's hot.  The downside to that is that there will be a higher percentage of people who end up winning niches they don't actually care about: they started bidding on other niches out of a fear of missing out on what everyone else thinks is hot, as opposed to their own direction.

This is one of the darker forces at work in our world - I don't think it is an exaggeration to say this.  The rush to conform to other people's sense of what is precious, as opposed to celebrating and living according to what is precious to us as individuals.  One approach leads to conformity, monocultures, and unrealised unique talents.  The other leads to rich diversity and living what truly resonates within.

I'm not immune to this risk of chasing something shiny.  I don't think many people are.  It is wise to encourage people to pursue what is naturally attractive to them, rather than take what is naturally attractive to them and turn it into a commodity - in a process where ultimately the majority of materialist impulses in an auction setting will exaggerate the attraction of get-rich niches.

A niche owner who doesn't really care about their niche on a deeper level than hopes of profit, will tire sooner of their niche, and not maintain it as well.  That's not good for the community.

All the creators of the masterpieces we enjoy the most in the world will tell you the same thing - you don't create something truly special solely from the desire to get rich.  You might, however, get rich from creating something genuinely special.

Narrative will be special if it becomes a community primarily of people doing what they love, rather than of people doing what they think everyone else wants them to do so they can profit from that perceived want. 

An analogy from my industry: people think they want another sequel to their favourite movie franchise, even though more often than not, the sequels are not as good as the original despite larger and larger budgets.  What they really want is another completely original film to come along.  Another Shawshank Redemption.  But those films don't come along much these days precisely because everyone is busy chasing what they think everyone wants to see.  Car chases, boob jobs, explosions.  They put formulas together in the hope it will rake in the big bucks, and the world slips further into mediocrity.

If we want Narrative to have better content than the preponderance of garbage we see bobbing around on Steemit and Facebook, I think we should decide what impulses we want to encourage in people, from the get-go.  This may seem abstract to some folks, but the intent of an endeavour determines its outcome in so many ways, and that process of determining starts in the earliest moments of the endeavour, and hardens rapidly thereafter. 

That's why I am putting so much energy into Narrative now, early on.  I'm investing time in writing thorough parcels of my best-effort understanding of how we can walk the walk after talking the talk, even though the current community forum system rewards making dozens of barren posts far more. 

I care more about the future of the project than my own short term standing or profit.  But if after this malleable phase the project starts to solidify as something not so different to previous networks, I will have the wisdom to know I cannot change that, and will put less of my energies into it. 

 

@Malkazoid You make a lot of great points. I was afraid that I was among few who were hesitant about putting forward the best or most creative niche ideas. As an investor but not having the finances to become a founder, I believed the best alternative to contributing to the Narrative success was to become an owner of a really great niche and thus help to build the platform (as small as my contribution may be). Right now I am conflicted, do I just sit back and wait for an ROI or do I plunge forward and be an active participant in N.N?  

mrgoodsett posted:

@Malkazoid You make a lot of great points. I was afraid that I was among few who were hesitant about putting forward the best or most creative niche ideas. As an investor but not having the finances to become a founder, I believed the best alternative to contributing to the Narrative success was to become an owner of a really great niche and thus help to build the platform (as small as my contribution may be). Right now I am conflicted, do I just sit back and wait for an ROI or do I plunge forward and be an active participant in N.N?  

Well I know what I want - I want you and everyone else to be able to move forwards feeling they have a real shot at staking a claim that they will be able to work at with passion.  I don't want anyone to feel conflicted or discouraged because of an early procedure that feels like it undermines the reasons we were passionate about this journey in the first place.  I really hope you move forwards as an active participant. 

The richest among us are not necessarily those who have the most to offer the network in terms of quality.  The ICO is about harvesting the contributions of the wealthy to build this new project, but the niche attribution should be, as much as possible, about everyone feeling there is real opportunity ahead if they put forth the best niches they want to own, and are given a real chance of owning them.

With the small size of the community compared to years down the line, even after the Founders niches round, there will be real opportunity for you to acquire a niche you care enough about to work hard within it for years, enjoying the journey and reaping rewards for it... IF you are not forced to give up those niches at the get go so people with ten times more means than you can snatch them up?  Your five favourite niches represent your individual, most potent motivators.  What sense does it make for the system to actively push you to give those up to others you can't compete with financially?  I really hope we don't snatch away the precious motivating energies of a whole group of early adopters.

 

mrgoodsett posted:

@Malkazoid Thanks for the motivation for the Average Joe. I will tell you one of my NICHE ideas, "Best Niches of Narrative", it would be a niche focusing on the best Niches of Narrative. I actually have over 2 dozen Niche ideas right now. 

That’s a cool niche idea - a meta-niche!

I think it would be fun to operate and really successful.  Out of respect your creation, I will not bid on it.  

I'm hoping for some interaction from the Team about this.

Founders get access to the dev team so I'm going to link them to this thread, but the discussion may end up happening in a Founders only area.  If so, I'll let you know how it goes.  

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×