Fwd: [RepLab] Funding RepLab
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Bryan Bishop
Nov 24, 2009, 10:36:29 AM11/24/09
to Open Manufacturing, kan...@gmail.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sam Putman <atman...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:01 AM
Subject: [RepLab] Funding RepLab
To: RepLab Discussion List <rep...@googlegroups.com>
Well this is a big question. :-) Fortunately, there are many good answers.
First, I think Marcin has a good model for his operation with the 1000
True Fans. I intend to join up as a True Fan as soon as some paperwork
is taken care of, and think more people should do so. $10 a month for
global food security and village-level resilient technology is the
best deal I can imagine.
It's kind of distinctive to Marcin and Factor e though. Most of us
will not be on a plot of land in the middle of nowhere building a
resilient community toolkit that includes permaculture as a prime
directive. Maybe we should be! But a lot of the RepLab locations are
going to be in cities, and I don't think I could get 1000 True Fans to
pay my for my rent and groceries, and train fare, and weekend money,
to say nothing of the excess over that I'll need to chip in on
development of RepLab. Actually, I intend to do just that, by selling
them MakerBeam stuff, but that's not Marcin's model. It does point to
the fact that there's lots of ways to make money.
RepLab locations can and will generally pay for themselves through
dues, paid by the hackers who are teaming up to make the RepLab
happen. Whether we want to federate this, or plan on each RepLab being
its own experiment in social dynamics, is up to us.
Kickstarter, obviously, was very good to us, and I expect I'll be
going back to the well with other projects in future. Kickstarter is
useful for some kinds of projects, but you almost have to build the
project around Kickstarter for maximum benefit. Kickstarter would be a
convenient way to raise money to rent a space, for instance: if you
needed 10 people to put in 200 apiece, and wanted to rent by X date,
that's a good way to collect money from those 10 people. I'm out of
invites, but I know where to get them, so if you want to try this get
in touch.
What I would propose for funding RepLab projects might be something
like this. We design a web platform where people can buy votes with a
credit card, and other people can design project bids: a complete
build plan, with design goals, timelines, bills of materials, and
modest compensation for labor and facilities expenses. A first round
of voting, one-person-one-vote, would determine if we thought a
project was feasible. Anything that crosses the 70% mark enters the
second round of voting, which is one-dollar-one-vote. Any project that
accumulates enough money to happen gets the money transferred to them,
then we keep an eye on people while they build the awesome.
We might make a modest minimum purchase, 10 or 20 dollars in bids, to
filter out people who aren't serious. This should give us high quality
in our initial votes, and one dollar one vote is a fair way to
allocate donated money. One can always move dollars from project to
project until a particular project crosses the line, in which case the
dollars you've committed go to the team that won the bid.
How exactly to reward people for their investment is something to work
out further, but look: I've seen people spend a hundred thousand
dollars so they can go to the desert and play Dance Dance Immolation
while shooting themselves with fire. We can do this.
I think between dues on facilities, and the above crowdfunding
platform, we can build our tools rapidly, like functioning by this
time 2010 rapidly.
Anyone interested in coding the web platform? It would be nice to
collect money starting in January.
cheers,
-Sam Putman
--
makerbeam.com
--
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
From: Sam Putman <atman...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:01 AM
Subject: [RepLab] Funding RepLab
To: RepLab Discussion List <rep...@googlegroups.com>
Well this is a big question. :-) Fortunately, there are many good answers.
First, I think Marcin has a good model for his operation with the 1000
True Fans. I intend to join up as a True Fan as soon as some paperwork
is taken care of, and think more people should do so. $10 a month for
global food security and village-level resilient technology is the
best deal I can imagine.
It's kind of distinctive to Marcin and Factor e though. Most of us
will not be on a plot of land in the middle of nowhere building a
resilient community toolkit that includes permaculture as a prime
directive. Maybe we should be! But a lot of the RepLab locations are
going to be in cities, and I don't think I could get 1000 True Fans to
pay my for my rent and groceries, and train fare, and weekend money,
to say nothing of the excess over that I'll need to chip in on
development of RepLab. Actually, I intend to do just that, by selling
them MakerBeam stuff, but that's not Marcin's model. It does point to
the fact that there's lots of ways to make money.
RepLab locations can and will generally pay for themselves through
dues, paid by the hackers who are teaming up to make the RepLab
happen. Whether we want to federate this, or plan on each RepLab being
its own experiment in social dynamics, is up to us.
Kickstarter, obviously, was very good to us, and I expect I'll be
going back to the well with other projects in future. Kickstarter is
useful for some kinds of projects, but you almost have to build the
project around Kickstarter for maximum benefit. Kickstarter would be a
convenient way to raise money to rent a space, for instance: if you
needed 10 people to put in 200 apiece, and wanted to rent by X date,
that's a good way to collect money from those 10 people. I'm out of
invites, but I know where to get them, so if you want to try this get
in touch.
What I would propose for funding RepLab projects might be something
like this. We design a web platform where people can buy votes with a
credit card, and other people can design project bids: a complete
build plan, with design goals, timelines, bills of materials, and
modest compensation for labor and facilities expenses. A first round
of voting, one-person-one-vote, would determine if we thought a
project was feasible. Anything that crosses the 70% mark enters the
second round of voting, which is one-dollar-one-vote. Any project that
accumulates enough money to happen gets the money transferred to them,
then we keep an eye on people while they build the awesome.
We might make a modest minimum purchase, 10 or 20 dollars in bids, to
filter out people who aren't serious. This should give us high quality
in our initial votes, and one dollar one vote is a fair way to
allocate donated money. One can always move dollars from project to
project until a particular project crosses the line, in which case the
dollars you've committed go to the team that won the bid.
How exactly to reward people for their investment is something to work
out further, but look: I've seen people spend a hundred thousand
dollars so they can go to the desert and play Dance Dance Immolation
while shooting themselves with fire. We can do this.
I think between dues on facilities, and the above crowdfunding
platform, we can build our tools rapidly, like functioning by this
time 2010 rapidly.
Anyone interested in coding the web platform? It would be nice to
collect money starting in January.
cheers,
-Sam Putman
--
makerbeam.com
--
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
Bryan Bishop
Nov 26, 2009, 12:37:12 AM11/26/09
to Open Manufacturing, kan...@gmail.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ben lipkowitz <fe...@sdf.lonestar.org>
Date: Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Subject: [RepLab] Re: Funding RepLab
To: rep...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Leo Dearden wrote:
>> What I would propose for funding RepLab projects might be something
>> like this. We design a web platform where people can buy votes with a
>> credit card,
>> ...of voting, which is one-dollar-one-vote. Any project that
> Each funder defines one or more packets of funding. Each packet has a
> preference ranking of projects that the packet could go to.
>
> All projects are ranked according to Condorcet election (
> http://www.freestateproject.org/archives/state_vote/voting_methods).
>
> If election winning project reaches its target, and there are enough votes
> with that project on their preference list to fund the project, then the
> project get funded at the requested level, taken in order from all the votes
> that listed them according to preference (1st choice funding then 2nd, etc).
> Regardless of whether the project got funding or not, it is removed from
> this election and the process is repeated with the remaining projects and
> votes/funds, until there are no remaining projects or no remaining votes.
normally i trim my replies more, but as stated this is a hugely
complex idea and requires a full page to explain. i had to read it
three times and look up an obscure election protocol before i
understood just what you guys were on about. if you want people to
eagerly jump on the bandwagon, the concept has to be easy to grasp
immediately.
i suggest dropping any reference to 'voting' or 'election' as this is
really a way of allocating funds to a number of projects. saying
'election' conveys lots of false assumptions or connotations which
probably were never intended.
this algorithm has the unfortunate (?) effect of favoring
low-investment un-adventurous research. limericks, not novels. is that
what you really want?
> If you can wait until Christmas, I can write the funding policy engine by
> then (in Python would be my preference). I'm not the right person for the
> rest of the project, so I don't want it either. :-)
if you really believe this is the right way to do things, just go
ahead and write a demo app that people can do pretend 'what if'
scenarios. people will understand much faster what it is, and decide
whether they like it or not, which is all that really matters in the
end.
some similar concepts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system
rational street performer protocol
http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/rspp
open source hardware bank - unfortunately they only seem to be
promoting their own projects.
http://www.oshwbank.org/
From: ben lipkowitz <fe...@sdf.lonestar.org>
Date: Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Subject: [RepLab] Re: Funding RepLab
To: rep...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Leo Dearden wrote:
>> What I would propose for funding RepLab projects might be something
>> like this. We design a web platform where people can buy votes with a
>> credit card,
>> A first round
>> of voting, one-person-one-vote, would determine if we thought a
>> project was feasible. Anything that crosses the 70% mark enters the
>> second round...
>> of voting, one-person-one-vote, would determine if we thought a
>> project was feasible. Anything that crosses the 70% mark enters the
>> ...of voting, which is one-dollar-one-vote. Any project that
>> accumulates enough money to happen gets the money transferred to them,
>> then we keep an eye on people while they build the awesome.
>
>> then we keep an eye on people while they build the awesome.
>
>> One can always move dollars from project to
>> project until a particular project crosses the line, in which case the
>> dollars you've committed go to the team that won the bid
>
> I suggest the following algorithm:
>> project until a particular project crosses the line, in which case the
>> dollars you've committed go to the team that won the bid
>
> Each funder defines one or more packets of funding. Each packet has a
> preference ranking of projects that the packet could go to.
>
> All projects are ranked according to Condorcet election (
> http://www.freestateproject.org/archives/state_vote/voting_methods).
>
> If election winning project reaches its target, and there are enough votes
> with that project on their preference list to fund the project, then the
> project get funded at the requested level, taken in order from all the votes
> that listed them according to preference (1st choice funding then 2nd, etc).
> Regardless of whether the project got funding or not, it is removed from
> this election and the process is repeated with the remaining projects and
> votes/funds, until there are no remaining projects or no remaining votes.
normally i trim my replies more, but as stated this is a hugely
complex idea and requires a full page to explain. i had to read it
three times and look up an obscure election protocol before i
understood just what you guys were on about. if you want people to
eagerly jump on the bandwagon, the concept has to be easy to grasp
immediately.
i suggest dropping any reference to 'voting' or 'election' as this is
really a way of allocating funds to a number of projects. saying
'election' conveys lots of false assumptions or connotations which
probably were never intended.
this algorithm has the unfortunate (?) effect of favoring
low-investment un-adventurous research. limericks, not novels. is that
what you really want?
> If you can wait until Christmas, I can write the funding policy engine by
> then (in Python would be my preference). I'm not the right person for the
> rest of the project, so I don't want it either. :-)
if you really believe this is the right way to do things, just go
ahead and write a demo app that people can do pretend 'what if'
scenarios. people will understand much faster what it is, and decide
whether they like it or not, which is all that really matters in the
end.
some similar concepts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system
rational street performer protocol
http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/rspp
open source hardware bank - unfortunately they only seem to be
promoting their own projects.
http://www.oshwbank.org/
John Griessen
Dec 7, 2009, 1:03:39 PM12/7/09
to openmanu...@googlegroups.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Sam Putman
.
.
.
Kickstarter would be a
> convenient way to raise money to rent a space, for instance: if you
> needed 10 people to put in 200 apiece, and wanted to rent by X date,
> that's a good way to collect money from those 10 people.
Another crowdfunding site called ChipIn uses paypal and is not as good for
> From: Sam Putman
.
.
.
Kickstarter would be a
> convenient way to raise money to rent a space, for instance: if you
> needed 10 people to put in 200 apiece, and wanted to rent by X date,
> that's a good way to collect money from those 10 people.
promoting as Kickstarter.com, but there's no 5% fee drain either.
Seems better for projects where costs are tight, and you already know the
ones interested -- not as much promotion needed.
>
> What I would propose for funding RepLab projects might be something
> like this. We design a web platform where people can buy votes with a
> credit card, and other people can design project bids: a complete
> build plan, with design goals, timelines, bills of materials, and
> modest compensation for labor and facilities expenses. A first round
> of voting, one-person-one-vote, would determine if we thought a
> project was feasible. Anything that crosses the 70% mark enters the
> second round of voting, which is one-dollar-one-vote. Any project that
> accumulates enough money to happen gets the money transferred to them,
> then we keep an eye on people while they build the awesome.
>
> We might make a modest minimum purchase, 10 or 20 dollars in bids, to
> filter out people who aren't serious. This should give us high quality
> in our initial votes, and one dollar one vote is a fair way to
> allocate donated money. One can always move dollars from project to
> project until a particular project crosses the line, in which case the
> dollars you've committed go to the team that won the bid.
to get an ecommerce site going. It might work as a base for that system.
It's ready to go for the credit card payment accepting part at least,
and having a catalog of different things to pay for described well.
You would have to describe the items bought as fluidly applicable
to different projects -- project shares, or get in trouble with
credit card Co. guarantees where people can reverse the charges for
delivering the wrong thing.
John Griessen
Sam Putman
Dec 7, 2009, 2:27:46 PM12/7/09
to openmanu...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:03 AM, John Griessen <jo...@foseda.com> wrote:
>> We might make a modest minimum purchase, 10 or 20 dollars in bids, to
>> filter out people who aren't serious. This should give us high quality
>> in our initial votes, and one dollar one vote is a fair way to
>> allocate donated money. One can always move dollars from project to
>> project until a particular project crosses the line, in which case the
>> dollars you've committed go to the team that won the bid.
>
> Sounds interesting. I'm learning to use Apache OFBiz (Open For Business)
> to get an ecommerce site going. It might work as a base for that system.
> It's ready to go for the credit card payment accepting part at least,
> and having a catalog of different things to pay for described well.
>
> You would have to describe the items bought as fluidly applicable
> to different projects -- project shares, or get in trouble with
> credit card Co. guarantees where people can reverse the charges for
> delivering the wrong thing.
>
>
> John Griessen
>
That is part of the reasoning behind the subscription model. What is
>> We might make a modest minimum purchase, 10 or 20 dollars in bids, to
>> filter out people who aren't serious. This should give us high quality
>> in our initial votes, and one dollar one vote is a fair way to
>> allocate donated money. One can always move dollars from project to
>> project until a particular project crosses the line, in which case the
>> dollars you've committed go to the team that won the bid.
>
> Sounds interesting. I'm learning to use Apache OFBiz (Open For Business)
> to get an ecommerce site going. It might work as a base for that system.
> It's ready to go for the credit card payment accepting part at least,
> and having a catalog of different things to pay for described well.
>
> You would have to describe the items bought as fluidly applicable
> to different projects -- project shares, or get in trouble with
> credit card Co. guarantees where people can reverse the charges for
> delivering the wrong thing.
>
>
> John Griessen
>
purchased is entirely clear: subscription to a non-profit research
foundation, on a daily, monthly or yearly basis. The credits purchased
are used to allocate the funds managed by the research foundation,
which I've been calling (RL)^2, the RepLab Research League.
This requires plenty of things I can't do and/or don't have time for.
I'm available to sit on the board of directors of such a foundation,
for instance, but have no interest in acting as director or treasurer
or secretary. I also don't code.
I have been talking to people. Nick Person among others has expressed
interest in the coding side of things. Nonprofits have also been
contacted.
cheers,
-Sam.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages