Re: PaySwarm-powered Open Source Crowdfunding Platform

On 2 January 2013 20:29, Andrew Miller <amiller@cs.ucf.edu> wrote:

> The only problem is that it's vague language, but I think I know what
> you mean...
>
>
> - Credits are a "quantitative token of gratitude."
>    What's gratitude, and what does it mean for X to be a token of Y? I
> don't think you can answer that. But let me have a go at it.
>
>    I think the point is that the tokens are meant be meaningful in one
> domain, but _explicitly meaningless_ in some other domain. The tokens
> should disclaim any legal liability on the part of the issuer to
> provide any service or compensation whatsoever. It's like the opposite
> of a contract - a contract brings a relationship of some kind _into_
> the legal domain, but a "gratitude token" keeps the relationship _out
> of_ the legal domain.
>

yes

it's like a score on stack overflow


>
>
> - "It then decides to hand out those donations in relation to the
> credits people have earnt."
>
> Is this at odds with the first statement? I'm worried that any
> corporate entity that does this would be in trouble (but IANAL). If
> Company A issues these meaningless tokens, and then every month sends
> out a $10 to each token holder, would the company develop a liability
> to continue doing so because of common expectations? 'My words say one
> thing, but my actions say another.'
>

well there's no guarantee that donations will come in, or that they will be
distributed, but it would make logical sense for a project owner to
distribute donations according to contribution


>
> But let's suppose that the presentation of the tokens is successful
> and the issuer is not legally liable for anything. My definition for
> "token" is about a mechanism, the functionality of the token. Tokens
> can be transferred, possessed, presented, but not
> forged/counterfeited. Tokens can be traded or exchanged on markets
> like eBay and craigslist.
>

that would be a plus yes!


>
> Let's assume that there's a stable price (in USD) for a project's
> tokens. Now the tokens can be purchased by the public, but they're not
> securities since they're meaningless. The project could issue more of
> these and sell them to earn money (it wouldn't be a loan, since they
> wouldn't need to write it down as a liability in their books, nor
> would it be an investment since it wouldn't imply any ownership). So
> the effect of this is that there may be a difference between the
> "legal value" of the tokens and some other value, which we may call
> its social value.
>

sure


>
>
> I think this is what you mean - please tell me if I'm off-base?
> Gratitude tokens resemble financial instruments, except they're not.
> The point is to conduct economic activity (not commerce, but
> "organized gifting" or something), including modern technology like
> quantitative bookkeeping and secure tokens, yet outside the realm of
> commercial law and commercial finance.
>

yes exactly ... what we want to do is to foster an open source rewards
system


>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> > At no point are the credits anything more than a quantitative token of
> > gratitude from the project.
>
>
> --
> Andrew Miller
>