W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Crowdfunding: Assurance variations

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 15:47:03 -0500
Message-ID: <4F528347.6040007@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-webpayments@w3.org
On 02/26/2012 01:49 AM, Andrew Durham wrote:
> Cooperative Dominant Assurance Contract
>
> Iím pretty sure the rules are free of conflicts (though rule 6 might
> be redundant). I don't grasp the math. And I couldn't describe this
> with game theory or program it. But coming up with it was really
> fun. And it shows a variety of possibilities for future crowdfunding
> that creators of a new system might want it to be able to
> facilitate.

This is really neat - first time I have heard of a Cooperative Dominant
Assurance Contract. I followed the links you included and read those as
well... bottom line - I think that this is something that we can (and
should) support in PaySwarm. We would have to modify the Payment Intents
specification slightly, but it would be worth it to support this use case.

Keep in mind that we're not too focused on Payment Intents right now, as
we still want to make sure that the base of the system is implemented
and is working properly before building on top of it. However, what you
describe is a very interesting social/financial experiment and I don't
see any reason why the current architecture couldn't support it.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarm Website for Developers Launched
http://digitalbazaar.com/2012/02/22/new-payswarm-alpha/
Received on Saturday, 3 March 2012 20:47:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:20 UTC