Просьба попинать мой английский особенно артикли (К #86JXI8) :
I think that Developers(D) don't want work for foggy outlook of payment. But also some users don't want to get risk of prepaid without garantee of getting code. I think that it would be better to divide users to Clients(C) who pay only for code and Investors(I) who directly pay for Developer but get money for their risk after successful development.
It's my scheme of craudfunding:
Phase 1: Predevelopment.
Creating the feature.
Clients send money to fund for ending (FE) (can be refunded).
Developers create offers to feature.
Investors send money to fund for begining of developer (each has own) with requistion of wanted money after successful development (can be refunded).
Phase 2: Development.
The Developer chooses Investors if fund for ending greater then requested money of choosed Investors (difference will be paid after successful development) and declare development.
Other funds for begining refund to Investors.
The Developer gets money from choosed investors.
The Fund for ending freeze for refund.
New Investors can send requistion to developer. If the developer accepts them and fund for ending have enough money then funded money send to the developer and Investors wait for finishing development.
If development terminates the fund for ending refund to clients.
Phase 3: Release.
After finishing code and fixing bugs the feature releases.
Fund for ending pays for investors and the developer.
Вопрос багов и арбитража не рассматривался.
#SSAENK/3QT
/ @o01eg
/ 4654 дня назад
Фичи обычно таки implemented. В общем "Developers begin implementation of feature"
#SSAENK/V6D
/ @etw
/ 4654 дня назад
@etw Там это называется offer, они не пилят фичи, но говорят, что собираются пилить.
#SSAENK/C81
/ @o01eg
-->
#SSAENK/V6D
/ 4654 дня назад
@o01eg ну тогда все равно "Creating a feature offer"
Creating the feature (the, кстати, тут неправильно употреблено) как-то странно звучит.
#SSAENK/A03
/ @etw
-->
#SSAENK/C81
/ 4654 дня назад
Пока так: http://pastebin.ca/2122162 Хотя всё равно кривовато.
#SSAENK/29J
/ @goren
/ 4654 дня назад
@goren Ага, смержил исправления:
I think that Developers(D) don't want to work with a nebulous perspective of a payment. On the other hand, users don't want to risk prepaying without any guarantees of receiving code. I think that it would be better to distinguish users as Clients(C) who would only pay for code and Investors(I) who will pay to Developer directly but will get compensated for their risk after successful development.
Here is my scheme of crowdfunding:
Phase 1: Predevelopment.
Somebody creates the feature.
Clients send money to a fund for completing (can be refunded).
Developers create offers of the required feature.
Investors send money to the starting fund of a developer (each has one's own) with request of wanted money after the development is a success (can be refunded).
Phase 2: Development.
The Developer chooses Investors if the fund for completing the project is greater than the sum of money requested by chosen Investors (difference will be paid after successful development) and declares start of the development.
Other starting funds are refunded to the Investors.
The Developer gets money from chosen Investors and starts to implement the feature.
The Fund for ending is frozen for refund.
New Investors can send requests to developer. If the developer accepts them and the fund for completing has enough money, then the funded money is sent to the developer and Investors wait for development to complete.
If development terminates without achieving project's goals, the fund for ending is refunded to clients.
Phase 3: Release.
Development phase finishes after implmeneting the feature.
Fund for ending is paid to investors and the developer.
#SSAENK/VU6
/ @o01eg
-->
#SSAENK/29J
/ 4654 дня назад
Цоперайт © 2010-2016 @stiletto.