Logical bug in the concept

[w1kke]

This concept does not work in my opinion as it has a logical flaw:
The process does in no way ensure that the team/person that was backed will later launch the service that they got the backing for on the platform.
And if they do there is no way to guarantee that the pricing will be in any way reasonable.

As the Foundation does not get a copy of the source code this cannot be ensured.

Possible solutions I can think of are:
1.) The team has to give a copy of their source code to the Foundation as a backup if they will not offer the service or discontinue to do so. The Foundation can then offer it based on the cost of the resources consumed.
2.) There is a KYC and a legal binding document that the backed team has to sign to get the backed tokens - although this has many many implications regarding international laws etc.

Regarding the cost of the service:
The solution will be benchmarked as another step and this will be determined as the baseline for the cost of the service.

[raamb]

@w1kke a pre-requisite for a submission is to have the service running on the SingularityNet platform which entails a KYC and a curation process.
As part of the curation we can enforce certain guidelines for services deployed as a solution for an RFAI.

[w1kke]

@raamb the service will run on the platform of the developer and not on a platform of SingularityNET.
So if this developer chooses to take it offline you would put a guideline that they then have to give back the AGIs? Or if they do this before X days have passed?
This could be maybe handled via a vested release of the tokens - after some time the service is not this new anymore so it is ok to take it offline?

I think these guidelines have to be ironed out before anything can get released. Why should anyone back a RFAI request if they don't know what the exact outcome would be.

[raamb]

This could be maybe handled via a vested release of the tokens - after some time the service is not this new anymore so it is ok to take it offline?

This is exactly what I had proposed to Ibby when we discussed this, a vested schedule will solve for this.

I think these guidelines have to be ironed out before anything can get released. Why should anyone back a RFAI request if they don't know what the exact outcome would be.

No doubts on this, completely agree.

[Godaiandi]

Agree