Re: IPO of an Open Source Project

On 12/20/2012 03:14 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> 3. Debt-based investment (loans given in exchange for future
> repayment plus interest). Think Abundance Generation, Lending Club,
> Prosper.
> 
> Sure that's a good model too, tho interest rates tend to be high.
> With a URI based system you can model many instruments.

One of the most interesting things to come out of the UK crowdfunding
legislation is that this model is far more popular than equity-based
investment. The current thinking seems to be along the lines of two
deterrents for equity-based investment:

1. A start-up doesn't want to dilute itself if it doesn't have to. A
   forgivable loan is far more preferable to a founder that knows that
   they can pay back the loan than equity.
2. Giving equity to 1,000s of other micro-owners can be a management
   nightmare, and there is no software yet that does a good job of
   managing this extra burden. One way to mitigate this is to chunk all
   funders into a pool (an LLC that gets one vote in the company).

> I will probably make it clear that the credits are not securities to 
> start with.  But say if one day the project is generating income
> (think mozilla) it might be reasonable to look back on who
> contributed to the project and offer rewards / incentives / buybacks
> or even a t shirt.

Sounds very reasonable. Essentially - do the work because you love it,
and if this goes somewhere, there is a record of your work. One could
argue that code commits could be a form of 'credit', although, a
bounty-like system may be better for the project in the long run.

> Things like stack overflow have benefited from a scoring system.  But
> if the added incentive can be made to change this to real money, that
> would be very close to the end game.

There is an argument to be made that the second you add monetary goals
to an open source project that it corrupts the project. However, it's
hard to give weight to that argument based on the more popular open
source projects (the majority of which are driven by corporate-backed
developers). The Linux kernel, MySQL, RedHat, Ubuntu... the list goes on.

> This is a great question and I am unsure I know the answer.  If it's 
> going to bring regulatory hurdles, then a conservative approach will 
> need to be taken.  But the idea is to show that the technology adds 
> value and can incubate projects, and provide a dividend to society.

A very respectable goal, certainly.

> I think we need to view regulators not as obstacles, but people whom
> we can win the hearts and minds of.

Absolutely, and a number of the regulatory folks I've had dealings with
(mostly at the FCC, and in small government) want things like this to
succeed. So much so that they're actively looking for ways they can
engage people attempting to do what we're trying to do here. They want
to change the laws in sane ways to encourage as much innovation and
production as possible without requiring a size-able up-front investment
by the more traditional financiers of innovation and technology.

I have a chat with a think tank up in Washington DC that is focusing on
this sort of thing. I'll see if they have any concerns about regulatory
issues... getting in contact with someone at the SEC that is writing the
US crowdfunding laws is on my short punch list for the early part of
next year as well.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Problem with RDF and Nuclear Power
http://manu.sporny.org/2012/nuclear-rdf/

Received on Saturday, 22 December 2012 01:04:47 UTC