[Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

[SimPLsol at aol.com]

briany writes:
* Investors will have to put a lot more money up for the developer to
give up ownership of the product to the investors
* Multiple investors "owning" a product and dividing profits is a pain
(and not so lucrative)
... I don't think a 3rd party Rev product split too many ways
excites anyone just yet

Regarding point 1:
     There is no reason why the developer can't be one of the investors. Lets 
say the developer bids a 20,000 project and the investors agree to this 
price. Three investors invest 5,000 each. The developer discounts his/her 
contribution 5,000. Everyone has 5,000 invested and they all own 1/4 interest.
     Right now the developer is generally fronting all of the development 
costs and retaining total ownership. That is alright but some bigger projects 
(brighter ideas) require more financing and this model accommodates it. Better 
sometimes to own a smaller piece of a bigger pie.
     With this idea the developer has the option of surrendering as much (and 
only as much) interest in the project as he/she wants or can afford.
Regarding point 2:
     Most of the most famous corporations in the world (General Motors, 
Pfizer, Microsoft, Ford, Boeing, Nestle, etc.) use this model. Most large companies 
are "owned" by many stockholders - and it seems to be working. Arguably, gov
ernments are "owned" by many taxpayers.
     An option might be to limit the buyin price, say minimum investment of 
1,000 or 10,000 or ? This would be variable by project. Another option is to 
limit the number of investors - again, variable by project.
Regarding point 3
     If the product fills a need at a reasonable price, why would the users 
care how the profits are split?

     This idea, if implemented properly, would make it easier to create new 
products that are too big for individual developers and too small (or 
unimportant) for the Mother Ship.
PL