Today we announced $2.9MM in funding from Union Square Ventures, Thrive, Collaborative Fund, and others. We're eager to get back to work.
Happy to answer questions.
Happy to answer questions.
It seems like many users are creating bounties for projects that they work on and then fulfilling those same bounties.
Most projects also have a single user with over 90% of the ownership of a project. While that mirrors how many OSS projects are structured, it doesn't really favor the "collaborative" message of Assembly. Are you doing anything to adjust that, or is it something that is fine in your minds?
If an OSS project gains traction, it generally becomes a PaaS solution with 3-5 major providers and many smaller providers. How in the world can Assembly hope to promise people revenue with that model?
Open bounties represent new ownership potential. Transparency is important here - it is one reason why ownership is on the blockchain, this allows it to be verifiable outside of Assembly.
> It seems like many users are creating bounties for projects that they work on and then fulfilling those same bounties.
All new ownership in a product is earned through the same mechanism. This makes progress transparent and participation fair.
> Most projects also have a single user with over 90% of the ownership of a project. While that mirrors how many OSS projects are structured, it doesn't really favor the "collaborative" message of Assembly. Are you doing anything to adjust that, or is it something that is fine in your minds?
Active products rarely have owners with anything close to 90%. Some products may be skewed to an individual that's done a lion share of work initially, but there are many others that are more spread out or become so with time. Opposed to completely working alone, having others to bounce ideas or make other contributions that complement your skills is what Assembly community members find collaborative.
> If an OSS project gains traction, it generally becomes a PaaS solution with 3-5 major providers and many smaller providers. How in the world can Assembly hope to promise people revenue with that model?
It's challenging to compare Assembly products to traditional open source projects & libraries. The Assembly community is building real products, they just happen to have source code that is open source and participation is open, transparent, and collaborative. To clarify, Assembly does not promise a product will earn revenue...only that if any profit is generated, it will be distributed to the contributors. Assembly is already distributing proceeds from revenue producing products, some members are earning over $1000 a month for previous contributions. This aligns Assembly's success with our community.
You didn't answer my question. The real answer is that the project contract can create a situation where a project initiator could completely abandon a project and still continue to earn shares in the project due to the "obligatory service charge" nature of the bounty system for early adopters.
> This makes progress transparent and participation fair.
mdeiters receives 20% of all new bounties completed on the coderwall project. In what way is that fair?
> Active products rarely have owners with anything close to 90%
Two of the top 8 projects on the projects page have over 90%, and three have over 70%.
Let's just say we learned a lot afterwards, so good luck to you. Great if you can pull it off. Just don't fake it for too long :-)
Our story: http://www.cnet.com/news/fairsoftware-virtualizes-startups/
Looking at https://github.com/asm-helpful/helpful-web and other repos, look like all the open source activity must be inside assembly. That presume everyone want to be part of it, and that everyone look for financial gains.
Is possible to accept contributions in the normal sense, and only have inside assembly the "core team" or only the members that are part of the financial-side of the project?