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

[Brian Yennie]

> 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.

I don't see how that would work. A developer can't just arbitrarily 
invest in his/her own work without actually putting money down, or all 
of the other investors become unfairly diluted.

I suppose if all of the investors were forced to agree to the 
developer's contribution it might work, but how is that different from 
just offering him/her a percentage of profits?

As I see it, you're just saying that part of the agreement would be the 
developer's cut of the profits. Which is fine, but I think it would 
work better if there was a standard process rather than a lot of 
individual negotiations.

>      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.

Not disagreeing with that at all.

>      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.

That's fine- but it just amounts to reserving a portion of the profits 
for the developer, which of course could be part of any agreement. 
There is no need to draw it up as cash investment in one's self.

> 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.

I see your point, but developing an add-on for Revolution doesn't even 
remotely resemble raising capital for a billion dollar corporation. 
Most very small companies are NOT owned by many stockholders, and we're 
talking about something even smaller than a small company- a single 
project.

>      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.

Sounds complicated to me. If we're cooking up new investor agreements 
for every project, we're pretty much back where we started. We can 
already do that all we want. What I was proposing was a standardized 
process that goes through a single buyer group.

> Regarding point 3
>      If the product fills a need at a reasonable price, why would the 
> users
> care how the profits are split?

Users don't care how the profits are split- the people splitting the 
profits do. I wasn't clear enough I guess- I meant "everyone" to be 
everyone investing in the project.

>      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

Agreed here! I'm not married to my scenario either. I would be cool to 
see happen.

- Brian