KriyaMoney. Part 4. Problems and their solutions
KriyaMoney. Part 1. Introduction
KriyaMoney. Part 2. The idea of
KriyaMoney. Part 3. Theory of
KriyaMoney. Part 4. Problems and their solutions
KriyaMoney. Part 5. Software implementation Warning! In this article, as in the previous one, there are a lot of formulas and almost no pictures. So the article will not be interesting to everyone.
The problem of evaluating the project
- Communities
- Formulas
- Invites
The problem of collusion for the purpose of wrapping
The problem of autonomous functioning of an isolated subnet
The problem of offline payments
The problem of "swelling" of the database
The problem of "bad" authors
The problem of anonymity / non-anonymity
Additional features
Example
Once again about the values of
UI Design
Links
Those who tried to understand the formulas of the previous part could understand that those formulas were not applicable to create a workable system. The main cause of the problem is that people mainly evaluate not based on their own conclusions, but based on the opinion of the majority. This is the effect of the crowd and there is no getting away from it. That is the nature of man. With open voting, it is impossible to force everyone to give ratings objectively. Anyway, the majority will be based on the authority of their acquaintance / friend / expert, or because of a fear that his assessment, different from others, will be seen and will be “avenged”, etc.
By the way, on Habré, this effect is solved by secret ballot. That is, there is no way to track who exactly minus karma (if you are not an administrator) and, accordingly, it is not known to whom to “take revenge”. Sometimes in discussions there were skirmishes with indignation over the "merged karma" with attempts to find out who did this and why, etc. But such a showdown does not bring any result. Apparently, therefore, recently such disturbances appear less and less (or I just don’t notice them).
However, if the system is conceived as decentralized, the secret ballot option is not applicable. So, everyone will have to evaluate with all the attached responsibility. And this is psychologically difficult and not everyone will risk putting a mark different from the rest. In addition, there is such a problem as inadequate evaluation of projects by illiterate users. That is, not all users want to understand the intricacies of the problems of project implementation and therefore evaluate the project very subjectively. Therefore, it is necessary to motivate users to set objective assessments based on their own informed opinions.
To solve this problem, one can propose introducing the concept of communities within which users will be able to evaluate projects freely, and those users who participated in the project (invested in the project) will also be able to make estimates. The opinions of other users should also be taken into account, not as much as the opinions of experts and investors. In this case, the interaction model is complicated and the calculation formulas are complicated. Therefore, I propose to distinguish the following groups of "voters":
1) investors;
2) experts;
3) other users.
Experts mean members of the local thematic community of which the author of the project being evaluated is a member. I will describe in more detail below.
There are many people and they are all different. There is absolutely no single value for everyone. Each person and each individual community has its own set of values. For some, the value is knowledge of the structure of the universe, for others, the value is to drink beer on the bench.
Therefore, it is necessary to group projects into separate thematic groups that will exist in parallel. And users, likewise, are united in communities. To determine the value of a particular project in a particular group, experts on the subject of this project are needed. Members of the local community themselves will act as experts on this topic.
The kriya of a local project depends on the value to society as a whole. Therefore, the project Kria should depend on the value of the project for the local community, as well as the value of a particular community for other communities.
Probably each specific thematic community will have its own value for society as a whole. And, in fact, the work that was carried out in a particular community will have some “significance” for others. But for the convenience of using the system, some unified measure is needed. The single measure is still Kriya. Therefore, the accrual of Kriya must be made both taking into account the "significance" of work for society and taking into account the "significance" of work for the community. Emission will depend on the Kriya value.
When participants positively evaluate the activity and are ready to invest their money, this means that society appreciates this activity. Obviously, for everyone else, the project will not be “significant” and, accordingly, they will not invest their money in this project.
The following user groups influence the determination of the significance of a project:
1) contributors - those who have invested their money in the project;
2) experts - those who are sufficiently competent;
3) everyone else.
Investors are those users who invest their money in a project. To invest in a project, you don’t need to create your own projects, somehow earn emissions, etc., but you just need to have some positive amount of money in your account. At the same time, they can be bought at the exchange exchange or from another user of the system. Therefore, any person can be a contributor.
By experts we mean members of the local community. We assume that users enter the community in order to create projects with the themes of this community. And therefore they are professionals. And this means that they will be able to act as experts. That is, they can reliably evaluate the technical part of the project. Project contributors evaluate from a consumer perspective, and experts evaluate from a technical point of view (its complexity, quality, reliability).
All the others, observing from the outside the events that take place, can evaluate the thematic community of the project as a whole and each project in particular. If experts vote positively for a bad project, this will lead to a loss of public interest in such a community of “experts”. Thus, experts will need to give an adequate and reasoned assessment in order to maintain the community’s weight at the highest possible level.
In connection with everything written above, it is required to redefine the formulas described in the third part.
The formula for changing Artha of a user after voting is completed:
The formula for issuing new money (with positive Kriya) will be calculated as follows:
I repeat that new money of surplus value is issued once for each project. At zero or negative Kriya, emission, of course, is not produced (equal to zero).
The formula for calculating the emission factor for the previous billing period (for example, for the previous 65536 cycles):
where
AvgCaedCriA for a few periods
- Average emission per unit of Kriya for the last few periods Avg. AmazedCriDa for the Estimated Period - Average emission per unit of Kria per settlement
where
AmountAllMoney is the sum of all money issued for these last few periods
where
SumAllMoneyPeriod is the Amount of all money issued during the billing period.
I repeat that in the initial period of the existence of the system the formula for calculating the Coefficient will not work. Therefore, up to the moment in 65536 cycles of the Co-issue, it is necessary to either take a constant value (constant) equal to, for example, 1.00. Or, otherwise, calculate the average emission values.
The emission factor will take into account the overall increase (or decrease) and will adjust the total emission of the system. This will add stability to the system as a whole. If the emission of the system has become very large, then this coefficient will limit the emission and vice versa. In addition, in fact, this coefficient shows the difficulty of obtaining new money.
The number of periods for calculating the emission coefficient must be taken not very large and not very small. I tried to simulate the situations of growth of total Kriya in the system (when many good projects are being created), the situation of falling, the situation of stagnation (when there are very few projects) and the situation of rapid growth. I considered the same scenario, but with a different number of periods for calculating the value of AvgSeDKriya for several periods (2 periods, 4 periods and 8 periods). The calculation results can be seen in the graphs.
The emission factor somewhat smoothes the overall emission. And in periods of stagnation, the emission coefficient will increase quite significantly, which in theory should stimulate authors to create new projects. And, as soon as the number of projects starts to grow (the total Kriya of the system begins to increase per cycle), the emission factor will be automatically recounted.
In addition, it is necessary to provide for the following situation. If one of the projects will be with a very large Kriya, in comparison with other projects, this will lead to a bias in emissions in favor of this project alone. And then there will be an opportunity for monopoly. To prevent such a bias, I propose limiting the maximum amount of emissions for one project, for example, as 1/16 of the average value of emissions over the past few periods.
Kriya accruals will depend on the coefficients of local thematic communities. Therefore, the formula will become more complex and therefore it is worth replacing the Project Evaluation parameter with the Project Importance in the Kriya determination formula. Where by “significance” is meant the coefficient of the real value of this project for society as a whole.
The formula for determining the Kriya value is as follows:
The formula for determining the significance of the project:
where the
Project Evaluation is a composite formula that depends on the opinion of investors, on the opinion of experts and on the opinion of society as a whole.
Community Importance - This is the importance of the community in which the author is a member of society as a whole. See below for more details.
I propose this formula for determining the value of the project assessment:
In this case, most likely the assessment from the company will have a value close to zero and will have little effect on the calculation of Kriya. However, it is probably necessary to provide for the veto of investors, the veto of experts and the veto of society. (Thanks for the IrQ idea .)
By veto, here, I understand the ban on adding a positive Kriya to the author and accrual of emission. For example, if a quarter of all investors or a quarter of all experts or a quarter of all users who vote for the system vote against the project, then block the right to issue this project. At the same time, those who did not vote at all can be ignored.
Assessment of the project by investors depends on the assessment and the "weight" of each investor. The weight of the contributor is determined by the amount of money that he invested in the project. The rating of investors is defined as the average rating of all investors in accordance with the "weight" of their contribution:
The formula for determining the value of the assessment from investors will be as follows:
Investors, in theory, should get the result of the money invested and evaluate this result. If the contributor is satisfied, then votes +1, if not satisfied, then -1, defaults to 0.
The rating of the expert community depends on the rating and the “weight” of each expert. The weight of the expert (the weight of expert opinion) depends on his Kriya in this community. So far I am considering the case that each user is in only one community. But, in theory (according to the model), each user can simultaneously be in several communities. Expert rating is defined as the average rating of all community members according to their “weight” in the community.
The evaluation formula from the experts will be as follows:
where
Krii Communities is the sum of Kriya of all experts in the community
At the same time, it is beneficial for experts on the one hand to always vote positively for the project, because this leads to an increase in Kriya (and possible emission) of the author of the project. But on the other hand, this leads to a decrease in their relative weight within the community. But if community members will always vote only positively, then this may affect the interest of society as a whole to a particular thematic community.
The evaluation formula from the society as a whole will be as follows:
where the
Evaluation is the user's “voice” (+1, 0 or -1)
Kriya is the total Kriya of the user (the sum of the Kriyas of all his projects)
Amount AllKriyaSystems is the sum of all the Kriyas of all projects of all system users
The weight of the significance of the community (the value of the local thematic community) is defined as the share of interest of the whole society in a particular topic:
Or, in another way, to determine the significance of the community, one can propose the following formula:
where
Ratings are the sum of ratings from users given to the particular community in question.
Each user can rate his community. Evaluation here means a certain value from negative (-1) to positive (+1) and defaults to neutral (0). Each user can change this value as many times as necessary. When calculating, only the current rating value of each user will be taken into account. Thus, the user's ratings will reflect the attitude of this user to one or another thematic community.
In addition, each specific user has its own “weight” in society and in the community.
The weight of each user in the community is calculated as follows:
where the
Kriya Communities is the sum of the Kriya of all members of the community I
remind you, if the user is a member of several communities, then only the Kriya of this community is taken into account. But we are not considering it yet.
The user's weight in society is calculated as follows:
or
Among other things, to reduce the likelihood of fraud (and to increase the prestige of each community), it is necessary to make it possible to add new members to the community only by invite. It is assumed that invites will be formed by the authors of projects with a positive Kriya. Upon reaching a certain value, Kriya will be able to invite a new user.
In this case, if the user Kriya drops below zero, then there will be no “reset of karma” (Reset). A person will have to re-search for someone who agrees to give him an invite. Naturally, information about invites, like all other operations in the system, will be available to everyone. So it will be possible to unambiguously determine who and to whom issued an invite. If the ward will create bad projects, then this will indirectly affect who issued the invite.
For good, prichekanie cheating fraudulent dummy projects will be carried out by all users of the system minus the project. That is, society, ideally, should itself determine which project is good and which is bad. However, in order for this mechanism to work in reality, the concepts of “community”, “experts”, “contributors” and, correspondingly, “community weight”, “expert weight”, “investor weight” are required. In addition, it is necessary to establish minimum and maximum terms for fundraising and the implementation of the project, and it is necessary to establish a period from the moment the voting ends until the issue.
The minimum and maximum terms for fundraising should be limited for ease of use. For example, set the minimum fundraising time to 256 cycles (65536 seconds ~ 18 hours), and the maximum 42 * 256 cycles (2752512 seconds ~ 1 month).
The period from the moment of the end of voting to the moment of issue is needed so that users have time to change their assessment of the expert community. Because Kriya and emission depend both on the assessment of experts and their “weight”, then if the experts did not adequately assess (overestimate) the result of the project, then society as a whole will be able to “correct” this injustice by a change (down) weights ”expert community. For example, the period from the end of voting to the time of issue can be set equal to 65536 cycles (~ 194 days). This should encourage authors to perform their work as efficiently as possible.
When isolating part of the network within the local area, the possibility of conducting transactions (with subsequent merging of data from different subnets) remains. And it’s even possible to lay the possibility of parallel emission in local subnets with subsequent merging and recounting. This can be realized if money for projects is not issued immediately, but after a certain period of time, during which it is possible to merge with a translation of the emitted funds for each specific project. For example, it is possible to issue emissions after the end of voting after 16 * 256 cycles (which corresponds to an interval of about 12 days). During this time, for sure, it will be possible to restore the connection between the individual subnets and synchronize.
Even in the event of a complete blockage of any particular country from the rest of the world in 12 days, you can transfer the data on flash drives, using a drone, etc. Such a payment system, theoretically, can even work not only within the planet Earth, but also on other neighboring planets.
True, there remains the possibility of simultaneous transfer of money from one wallet to different subnets, which will cause a collision during synchronization (merging). So that the size of such double simultaneous payments on different subnets is not very large, as an option, you can offer to assign different confirmation times for different amounts of transactions. For example, when transferring amounts up to 1000 units, accept the term for confirming the creation of the block (256 sec), when transferring the amount up to 1,000,000 units, accept the term for confirming 16 cycles (~ 1 hour), when transferring the amount up to 1,000,000,000 units, accept the term for confirming 256 cycles (~ 18 hours ), when transferring the amount of more than 1,000,000,000 units, accept the confirmation period of 16 * 256 cycles (~ 12 days). And for "micropayments" you can not wait for confirmation of the transaction in the block, but just ask for confirmation from several nearby nodes. With current internet speeds, such a survey will probably take no more than a few seconds. But everyone will still have to think about this.
In the comments to the previous part, there was a question about the possibility of offline payment. I replied that this is not provided for in the system. However, you can offer the following technology of conditionally-offline electronic money. To implement the payment, without access to your "wallet" I propose to introduce the concept of "coin". By “coin” here is meant a certain file that is created by the wallet owner. Each "coin" is issued with a specific denomination. At the time of creating this coin, a special transaction is created in the system - transferring money from the user to create a “coin”. This money is debited from the user's account. During coin creation, a pair of Public Key + Secret Key will be generated. The public key number will be indicated in the transaction, and the secret key will be contained in the “coin” file.
Payment of conditionally offline will occur as follows:
Stages of offline payment:
1) The payer (suppose the buyer) transfers the “coin” file to the offline seller.
2) The seller receives the file and looks for the transaction record for the creation of this coin.
3) If such a transaction exists, then the seller further checks - looks for a coin destruction transaction.
4) If there was no transaction of destruction, then everything is fine and such a coin can be accepted for payment.
Stages requiring online connection:
5) Next, the holder of the coin (seller) must "cash out" the received coin. To do this, he creates a special transaction in which he indicates which coin he deactivates and indicates the secret key of this coin.
* I could not find a better word than “cash out”. Please tell me a suitable name?
In this way, other users of the system can make sure that the coin is actually located at the one who “de-cash” it. A coin destruction transaction is allowed only once. If the fraudulent buyer was able to pay one coin twice, then only the seller who first creates the coin destruction transaction will receive the money.
To reduce the possibility of fraud, it is necessary to limit the face value of one coin. In addition, so that the coins are not created in huge quantities, you need to enter some commission for creating the coin (for example, when creating a coin with a face value of 100.00 units, you will need to create a transaction for 100.01 units of money). And you also need to set the maximum period from the moment of creation of the coin to the moment of its destruction. If the coin is not destroyed within the specified time period (the corresponding transaction is not created), then such a coin will be considered lost and money for it will not be returned.
The base of transactions, projects and their evaluations will grow very quickly. In order to minimize the load, it is possible to lay down in the system payment for each transaction and each vote (provide for the minimum cost that is deducted during the transaction). For example, the sender transfers 1000.01 units, and the recipient receives only 1000.00 units of money. This decision acts as a "tax" for ensuring the storage of transactions by other participants (upon liquidation of one unit of money, the value of the remaining automatically increases slightly).
By the way, probably, instead of each having a client on their computer for such a system, it will be much easier and more profitable to give their “money” to trust and work with the system through Web-forms. As it is now practiced with Bitcoin.
In addition, the system can provide for the recreation of the database after certain periods of time. In this case, only current transactions will be copied to the new database, and all intermediate ones will remain in the archive database. After checking and confirming the correctness of new transactions, the data of the new database will be considered as reliable. And for newly connected users, you don’t have to download the history of all transactions conducted over the entire existence of the system.
In order to distinguish between bad and good authors, everyone will have their own “rating” in the form of the Kriya value, which shows how well the previous projects of this author were completed. To filter out bad authors, with a negative value of Kriya, you can prohibit the creation of new projects.
In this case, a person will be able to re-register in the system, join a particular community by somehow receiving an invite. And thus, he will be able to start a career "from scratch."
Each user of the system can remain anonymous if he does not disclose his personal data and uses I2P, etc. data transmission channels. In any case, it will be quite difficult to find out the exact amount of money from a user, as each transaction creates new key pairs (public and secret) - just as it is implemented in the Bitcoin system. That is, in fact, as such, a user does not have a wallet with a single account. Instead, the wallet stores only information about transactions whose hashes have been generated for this user and which he can manage. Moreover, each person may have several wallets. In this case, it becomes extremely difficult to determine how much money a person has in stock.
The system can be used not only for making payments and creating crowd projects. But you can use such a system to assess the value of OpenSource projects, as well as for freelance projects.
To assess the value of OpenSource projects, I propose the following. For an OpenSource project, create a project with a maximum period of fundraising, with a minimum amount of contribution to the project and with a zero term for the project. Thus, contributors will implement the Donate (support) project. Once the fundraising is completed, the project evaluation phase will immediately go on. And according to the results of the assessment, the author of the project will be credited with Kria and emission (with a positive value of Kria). After completing this project, if desired, the author of the OpenSource project can create the next fundraising project.
For the implementation of freelance projects, the following scheme can be proposed.
1) The customer creates a task and searches for the Contractor on any freelance site.
2) Next, the Contractor creates the project in the system, where it most clearly prescribes the technical specifications, cost, etc.
3) After the project is created, the Customer fully pays for it.
4) Next is the stage of the project.
5) Based on the results of the work, this project is evaluated by the Customer, as well as experts and society as a whole.
6) After that, Kriya is accrued and, if the project is evaluated positively, then an emission is created in favor of the Contractor.
100% prepayment is described here. If the Contractor does not perform the work or does not perform it qualitatively, then Kriya will pay with his level. In addition, the entire project history (as a portfolio) is available in the system. Therefore, even if the Contractor has Kriya positive, but the story is spoiled, then such a Contractor will no longer inspire confidence.
Let's say User0 successfully worked on a project of a program for smartphones for 300 units of money. At the same time, many people who were not related to this topic were interested in seeing the result - this is the value of society to the activities of the local community. At the same time, some decide to invest in the project.
Suppose there are three communities: Creators of Programs for Smartphones (1), Creators of Stools (2), Creators of Musical Works (3).
User0 leads the development as a member of the community Creators of Programs for Smartphones.
Let's say there are six more users (each of them is in their own community) with the following Kriyas:
User11 - Community of the Creators of Programs for Smartphones (1)
User 12 - Community of the Creators of Programs for Smartphones (1)
Polzovatel13 - SoobschestvoSozdateleyProgrammDlyaSmartfonov (1)
Polzovatel21 - SoobschestvoSozdateleyMuzykalnyhProizvedeny (2)
Polzovatel22 - SoobschestvoSozdateleyMuzykalnyhProizvedeny (2)
Polzovatel23 - SoobschestvoSozdateleyMuzykalnyhProizvedeny (2)
Polzovatel31 - SoobschestvoSozdateleyTaburetok (3)
Polzovatel32 - SoobschestvoSozdateleyTaburetok (3)
Polzovatel33 - SoobschestvoSozdateleyTaburetok (3)
Assume users such values Kriyaa:
KriyaPolzovatelya11 1000
KriyaPolzovatelya12 2000
KriyaPolzovatelya13 3000
KriyaPolzov telya21 4000
KriyaPolzovatelya22 5000
KriyaPolzovatelya23 6000
KriyaPolzovatelya31 7000
KriyaPolzovatelya32 8000
User Kria33 9000
In this case, one real person can have several accounts registered (in different communities), but we do not take this into account yet. I also note that in order to enter each community you need to receive an invite from a member of this community.
Thus, the amount of Kriya in the communities will be this: Sum of Kriya of the
Creators of Programs for smartphones = 1000 + 2000 + 3000 = 6000
Sum of Kriya of the Creators of Stools = 4000 + 5000 + 6000 = 15000
Sum of Kriya of the Creators of Musical Works = 7000 + 8000 + 9000 = 24000
Then the weight of each user in the community will be like this:
Weight / User11000 = 6000 / User = 0.167
User Weight 12 = 2000/6000 = 0.333
User Weight 13 = 3000/6000 = 0.500
User Weight21 = 4000/15000 = 0.267 User
Weight22 = 5000/15000 = 0.333 User
Weight23 = 6000/15000 = 0.400 User
Weight31 = 7000/24000 = 0.292
User Weight32 = 8000/24000 = 0.333
User Weight33 = 9000/24000 = 0.375
Assume that each user invests the realization of the project of creation of the program for the smartphone, the following amounts:
User0 - 90 units
Polzovatel11 - 60 units
Polzovatel12 - 50 units
Polzovatel21 - 40 units
Polzovatel22 - 30 units
Polzovatel31 - 20 units
Polzovatel32 - 10 units
ObschayaSumma = 300 units of money
As you can see, User0 invests his own money in his own project. It is not prohibited.
Suppose investors rated the project to create a program for a smartphone as follows:
User11 +1
User12 -1
User21 +1
User22 0
User31 +1
User32 -1
User13, User23 and User33 did not invest in the project and do not vote. And User0, of course, also does not vote.
Then, for our example, the assessment of investors will be the following value ( formula 7 ):
Assessment of Contributors = (+ 1 * 60 -1 * 50 + 1 * 40 + 0 * 30 + 1 * 20 -1 * 10) / 300 = +0.20
Suppose experts (members of the community SozdateliProgrammDlyaSmartfonov) so praised the project:
Polzovatel11 +1
Polzovatel12 -1
Polzovatel13 1
Then, for our example, experts estimate will be the following value ( formula 8 ):
OtsenkaOtEkspertov = (1 + 0.167 * 0.333 * -1 + 1 * 0.500 ) / 3 = 0.33
Assume users that are neither experts nor investors praised the project as follows:
Polzovatel23 +1
Polzovatel33 -1
Then the estimate of society as a whole will be ( formula 9 ) (in this formula, taking into account all users, even if they are investors and / or experts):
Assessment from the Company = (+ 1 * 1000 -1 * 2000 + 1 * 3000 + 1 * 4000 + 0 * 5000 + 1 * 6000 + 1 * 7000 -1 * 8000 -1 * 9000) / 45000 = +0.13
Then, the project estimate for of our example will be ( formula 6 ):
Project Evaluation = (+0.20 +0.33) / 2 +0.13 = +0.40
Let's say the community weight Creators of ProgramsFor Smartphones is 0.300
Then the project value will be like this ( formula 5 ): Project
Importance = + 0.40 * 0.300 = +0.120
Project value (KriyaProekta) will be:
KriyaProekta = + 0,120 * 300 = +36> 0 => emission
Assume emission coefficient at the moment is:
KoefEmisii = 1.1
Then the issue of new money amount (fractional values discarded):
emission = 1.1 * 36 = 39 edi itz money
In addition to everything written above, I want to say once again that value is determined by the willingness of other people to invest in a project of interest to them. And interest in the project depends on the reliability of the author, the reliability of the community in which the author is a member and the amount requested. At the same time, each person, when paying, compares the cost that the author of the project sets with the payment that the person earned.
For example, if someone created a project for inflating balloons for 1000 units of money, and previously I had been doing a program for 2000 units of money for a month, then I definitely will not invest in inflating balloons for that cost.
At the end of the article, I would like to give a variant of the UI of the future program. Please do not judge strictly.
A good article with statistics on the success of the “people's folds”:
And again crowdfunding: today in American
PS I would like to determine how much the proposed idea is interesting to the Habrasociety. To do this, I propose a more advanced vote than just marking +1 or -1.
KriyaMoney. Part 2. The idea of
KriyaMoney. Part 3. Theory of
KriyaMoney. Part 4. Problems and their solutions
KriyaMoney. Part 5. Software implementation Warning! In this article, as in the previous one, there are a lot of formulas and almost no pictures. So the article will not be interesting to everyone.
Content
The problem of evaluating the project
- Communities
- Formulas
- Invites
The problem of collusion for the purpose of wrapping
The problem of autonomous functioning of an isolated subnet
The problem of offline payments
The problem of "swelling" of the database
The problem of "bad" authors
The problem of anonymity / non-anonymity
Additional features
Example
Once again about the values of
UI Design
Links
Project Evaluation Problem
Those who tried to understand the formulas of the previous part could understand that those formulas were not applicable to create a workable system. The main cause of the problem is that people mainly evaluate not based on their own conclusions, but based on the opinion of the majority. This is the effect of the crowd and there is no getting away from it. That is the nature of man. With open voting, it is impossible to force everyone to give ratings objectively. Anyway, the majority will be based on the authority of their acquaintance / friend / expert, or because of a fear that his assessment, different from others, will be seen and will be “avenged”, etc.
By the way, on Habré, this effect is solved by secret ballot. That is, there is no way to track who exactly minus karma (if you are not an administrator) and, accordingly, it is not known to whom to “take revenge”. Sometimes in discussions there were skirmishes with indignation over the "merged karma" with attempts to find out who did this and why, etc. But such a showdown does not bring any result. Apparently, therefore, recently such disturbances appear less and less (or I just don’t notice them).
However, if the system is conceived as decentralized, the secret ballot option is not applicable. So, everyone will have to evaluate with all the attached responsibility. And this is psychologically difficult and not everyone will risk putting a mark different from the rest. In addition, there is such a problem as inadequate evaluation of projects by illiterate users. That is, not all users want to understand the intricacies of the problems of project implementation and therefore evaluate the project very subjectively. Therefore, it is necessary to motivate users to set objective assessments based on their own informed opinions.
To solve this problem, one can propose introducing the concept of communities within which users will be able to evaluate projects freely, and those users who participated in the project (invested in the project) will also be able to make estimates. The opinions of other users should also be taken into account, not as much as the opinions of experts and investors. In this case, the interaction model is complicated and the calculation formulas are complicated. Therefore, I propose to distinguish the following groups of "voters":
1) investors;
2) experts;
3) other users.
Experts mean members of the local thematic community of which the author of the project being evaluated is a member. I will describe in more detail below.
Communities
There are many people and they are all different. There is absolutely no single value for everyone. Each person and each individual community has its own set of values. For some, the value is knowledge of the structure of the universe, for others, the value is to drink beer on the bench.
Therefore, it is necessary to group projects into separate thematic groups that will exist in parallel. And users, likewise, are united in communities. To determine the value of a particular project in a particular group, experts on the subject of this project are needed. Members of the local community themselves will act as experts on this topic.
The kriya of a local project depends on the value to society as a whole. Therefore, the project Kria should depend on the value of the project for the local community, as well as the value of a particular community for other communities.
Probably each specific thematic community will have its own value for society as a whole. And, in fact, the work that was carried out in a particular community will have some “significance” for others. But for the convenience of using the system, some unified measure is needed. The single measure is still Kriya. Therefore, the accrual of Kriya must be made both taking into account the "significance" of work for society and taking into account the "significance" of work for the community. Emission will depend on the Kriya value.
When participants positively evaluate the activity and are ready to invest their money, this means that society appreciates this activity. Obviously, for everyone else, the project will not be “significant” and, accordingly, they will not invest their money in this project.
The following user groups influence the determination of the significance of a project:
1) contributors - those who have invested their money in the project;
2) experts - those who are sufficiently competent;
3) everyone else.
Investors are those users who invest their money in a project. To invest in a project, you don’t need to create your own projects, somehow earn emissions, etc., but you just need to have some positive amount of money in your account. At the same time, they can be bought at the exchange exchange or from another user of the system. Therefore, any person can be a contributor.
By experts we mean members of the local community. We assume that users enter the community in order to create projects with the themes of this community. And therefore they are professionals. And this means that they will be able to act as experts. That is, they can reliably evaluate the technical part of the project. Project contributors evaluate from a consumer perspective, and experts evaluate from a technical point of view (its complexity, quality, reliability).
All the others, observing from the outside the events that take place, can evaluate the thematic community of the project as a whole and each project in particular. If experts vote positively for a bad project, this will lead to a loss of public interest in such a community of “experts”. Thus, experts will need to give an adequate and reasoned assessment in order to maintain the community’s weight at the highest possible level.
Formulas
In connection with everything written above, it is required to redefine the formulas described in the third part.
The formula for changing Artha of a user after voting is completed:
Артха += ЭмитируемыеНовыеДеньги(1)Emission formula
The formula for issuing new money (with positive Kriya) will be calculated as follows:
ЭмитируемыеНовыеДеньги = КоэфЭмиссии * КрияПроекта(2) I repeat that new money of surplus value is issued once for each project. At zero or negative Kriya, emission, of course, is not produced (equal to zero).
The formula for calculating the emission factor for the previous billing period (for example, for the previous 65536 cycles):
КоэфЭмиссии = СрЭмЗаЕдКрияЗаНесколькоПериодов / СрЭмЗаЕдКрияЗаРасчетныйПериод(3) where
AvgCaedCriA for a few periods
- Average emission per unit of Kriya for the last few periods Avg. AmazedCriDa for the Estimated Period - Average emission per unit of Kria per settlement
СрЭмЗаЕдКрияЗаНесколькоПериодов = СуммаВсехДенег / КолвоЦикловЭтихНесколькихПериодов(3a) where
AmountAllMoney is the sum of all money issued for these last few periods
СрЭмЗаЕдКрияЗаРасчетныйПериод = СуммаВсехДенегПериода / 65536(3b) where
SumAllMoneyPeriod is the Amount of all money issued during the billing period.
I repeat that in the initial period of the existence of the system the formula for calculating the Coefficient will not work. Therefore, up to the moment in 65536 cycles of the Co-issue, it is necessary to either take a constant value (constant) equal to, for example, 1.00. Or, otherwise, calculate the average emission values.
The emission factor will take into account the overall increase (or decrease) and will adjust the total emission of the system. This will add stability to the system as a whole. If the emission of the system has become very large, then this coefficient will limit the emission and vice versa. In addition, in fact, this coefficient shows the difficulty of obtaining new money.
The number of periods for calculating the emission coefficient must be taken not very large and not very small. I tried to simulate the situations of growth of total Kriya in the system (when many good projects are being created), the situation of falling, the situation of stagnation (when there are very few projects) and the situation of rapid growth. I considered the same scenario, but with a different number of periods for calculating the value of AvgSeDKriya for several periods (2 periods, 4 periods and 8 periods). The calculation results can be seen in the graphs.
The emission factor somewhat smoothes the overall emission. And in periods of stagnation, the emission coefficient will increase quite significantly, which in theory should stimulate authors to create new projects. And, as soon as the number of projects starts to grow (the total Kriya of the system begins to increase per cycle), the emission factor will be automatically recounted.
In addition, it is necessary to provide for the following situation. If one of the projects will be with a very large Kriya, in comparison with other projects, this will lead to a bias in emissions in favor of this project alone. And then there will be an opportunity for monopoly. To prevent such a bias, I propose limiting the maximum amount of emissions for one project, for example, as 1/16 of the average value of emissions over the past few periods.
Kriya Formula Project
Kriya accruals will depend on the coefficients of local thematic communities. Therefore, the formula will become more complex and therefore it is worth replacing the Project Evaluation parameter with the Project Importance in the Kriya determination formula. Where by “significance” is meant the coefficient of the real value of this project for society as a whole.
The formula for determining the Kriya value is as follows:
КрияПроекта = ЗначимостьПроекта * СтоимостьПроекта(4)The formula for determining the significance of the project:
ЗначимостьПроекта = ОценкаПроекта * ЗначимостьСообщества(5) where the
Project Evaluation is a composite formula that depends on the opinion of investors, on the opinion of experts and on the opinion of society as a whole.
Community Importance - This is the importance of the community in which the author is a member of society as a whole. See below for more details.
Project Evaluation Formula
I propose this formula for determining the value of the project assessment:
ОценкаПроекта = (ОценкаОтВкладчиков + ОценкаОтЭкспертов) / 2 + ОценкаОтОбщества(6) In this case, most likely the assessment from the company will have a value close to zero and will have little effect on the calculation of Kriya. However, it is probably necessary to provide for the veto of investors, the veto of experts and the veto of society. (Thanks for the IrQ idea .)
Veto (from Lat. Veto - I forbid) - a right that means the power of a person or group of persons to unilaterally block the adoption of a decision.
By veto, here, I understand the ban on adding a positive Kriya to the author and accrual of emission. For example, if a quarter of all investors or a quarter of all experts or a quarter of all users who vote for the system vote against the project, then block the right to issue this project. At the same time, those who did not vote at all can be ignored.
Assessment of the project by investors depends on the assessment and the "weight" of each investor. The weight of the contributor is determined by the amount of money that he invested in the project. The rating of investors is defined as the average rating of all investors in accordance with the "weight" of their contribution:
The formula for determining the value of the assessment from investors will be as follows:
ОценкаОтВкладчиков = Сумма(ОценкаВкладчика*ВзносВкладчика) / СуммаВзносов(7) Investors, in theory, should get the result of the money invested and evaluate this result. If the contributor is satisfied, then votes +1, if not satisfied, then -1, defaults to 0.
The rating of the expert community depends on the rating and the “weight” of each expert. The weight of the expert (the weight of expert opinion) depends on his Kriya in this community. So far I am considering the case that each user is in only one community. But, in theory (according to the model), each user can simultaneously be in several communities. Expert rating is defined as the average rating of all community members according to their “weight” in the community.
The evaluation formula from the experts will be as follows:
ОценкаОтЭкспертов = Сумма(ОценкаЭксперта*КрияЭксперта) / КрияСообщества(8) where
Krii Communities is the sum of Kriya of all experts in the community
At the same time, it is beneficial for experts on the one hand to always vote positively for the project, because this leads to an increase in Kriya (and possible emission) of the author of the project. But on the other hand, this leads to a decrease in their relative weight within the community. But if community members will always vote only positively, then this may affect the interest of society as a whole to a particular thematic community.
The evaluation formula from the society as a whole will be as follows:
ОценкаОтОбщества = Сумма(Оценка*Крия) / СуммаВсехКрияСистемы(9) where the
Evaluation is the user's “voice” (+1, 0 or -1)
Kriya is the total Kriya of the user (the sum of the Kriyas of all his projects)
Amount AllKriyaSystems is the sum of all the Kriyas of all projects of all system users
Community Significance Formula
The weight of the significance of the community (the value of the local thematic community) is defined as the share of interest of the whole society in a particular topic:
ЗначимостьСообщества = ИнтересЛюдейКДаннойТематике / СуммаИнтересовВсегоОбществаКоВсемТематикам(10a)Or, in another way, to determine the significance of the community, one can propose the following formula:
ЗначимостьСообщества = Оценки / (КолвоПользователейВСистеме * КолвоТематическихСообществ)(10b) where
Ratings are the sum of ratings from users given to the particular community in question.
Each user can rate his community. Evaluation here means a certain value from negative (-1) to positive (+1) and defaults to neutral (0). Each user can change this value as many times as necessary. When calculating, only the current rating value of each user will be taken into account. Thus, the user's ratings will reflect the attitude of this user to one or another thematic community.
In addition, each specific user has its own “weight” in society and in the community.
The weight of each user in the community is calculated as follows:
ВесПользователяВСообществе = КрияПользователяВСообществе / КрияСообщества(11) where the
Kriya Communities is the sum of the Kriya of all members of the community I
remind you, if the user is a member of several communities, then only the Kriya of this community is taken into account. But we are not considering it yet.
The user's weight in society is calculated as follows:
ВесПользователяВОбществе = ВесПользователяВСообществе * ВесСообщества(12a) or
ВесПользователяВОбществе = СуммарнаяКрияПользователя / СуммаВсехКрияВсехПроектовСистемы(12b)Invites
Among other things, to reduce the likelihood of fraud (and to increase the prestige of each community), it is necessary to make it possible to add new members to the community only by invite. It is assumed that invites will be formed by the authors of projects with a positive Kriya. Upon reaching a certain value, Kriya will be able to invite a new user.
In this case, if the user Kriya drops below zero, then there will be no “reset of karma” (Reset). A person will have to re-search for someone who agrees to give him an invite. Naturally, information about invites, like all other operations in the system, will be available to everyone. So it will be possible to unambiguously determine who and to whom issued an invite. If the ward will create bad projects, then this will indirectly affect who issued the invite.
The problem of collusion with the purpose of cheating
For good, prichekanie cheating fraudulent dummy projects will be carried out by all users of the system minus the project. That is, society, ideally, should itself determine which project is good and which is bad. However, in order for this mechanism to work in reality, the concepts of “community”, “experts”, “contributors” and, correspondingly, “community weight”, “expert weight”, “investor weight” are required. In addition, it is necessary to establish minimum and maximum terms for fundraising and the implementation of the project, and it is necessary to establish a period from the moment the voting ends until the issue.
The minimum and maximum terms for fundraising should be limited for ease of use. For example, set the minimum fundraising time to 256 cycles (65536 seconds ~ 18 hours), and the maximum 42 * 256 cycles (2752512 seconds ~ 1 month).
The period from the moment of the end of voting to the moment of issue is needed so that users have time to change their assessment of the expert community. Because Kriya and emission depend both on the assessment of experts and their “weight”, then if the experts did not adequately assess (overestimate) the result of the project, then society as a whole will be able to “correct” this injustice by a change (down) weights ”expert community. For example, the period from the end of voting to the time of issue can be set equal to 65536 cycles (~ 194 days). This should encourage authors to perform their work as efficiently as possible.
The problem of autonomous functioning of an isolated subnet
When isolating part of the network within the local area, the possibility of conducting transactions (with subsequent merging of data from different subnets) remains. And it’s even possible to lay the possibility of parallel emission in local subnets with subsequent merging and recounting. This can be realized if money for projects is not issued immediately, but after a certain period of time, during which it is possible to merge with a translation of the emitted funds for each specific project. For example, it is possible to issue emissions after the end of voting after 16 * 256 cycles (which corresponds to an interval of about 12 days). During this time, for sure, it will be possible to restore the connection between the individual subnets and synchronize.
Even in the event of a complete blockage of any particular country from the rest of the world in 12 days, you can transfer the data on flash drives, using a drone, etc. Such a payment system, theoretically, can even work not only within the planet Earth, but also on other neighboring planets.
True, there remains the possibility of simultaneous transfer of money from one wallet to different subnets, which will cause a collision during synchronization (merging). So that the size of such double simultaneous payments on different subnets is not very large, as an option, you can offer to assign different confirmation times for different amounts of transactions. For example, when transferring amounts up to 1000 units, accept the term for confirming the creation of the block (256 sec), when transferring the amount up to 1,000,000 units, accept the term for confirming 16 cycles (~ 1 hour), when transferring the amount up to 1,000,000,000 units, accept the term for confirming 256 cycles (~ 18 hours ), when transferring the amount of more than 1,000,000,000 units, accept the confirmation period of 16 * 256 cycles (~ 12 days). And for "micropayments" you can not wait for confirmation of the transaction in the block, but just ask for confirmation from several nearby nodes. With current internet speeds, such a survey will probably take no more than a few seconds. But everyone will still have to think about this.
The problem of offline payments
In the comments to the previous part, there was a question about the possibility of offline payment. I replied that this is not provided for in the system. However, you can offer the following technology of conditionally-offline electronic money. To implement the payment, without access to your "wallet" I propose to introduce the concept of "coin". By “coin” here is meant a certain file that is created by the wallet owner. Each "coin" is issued with a specific denomination. At the time of creating this coin, a special transaction is created in the system - transferring money from the user to create a “coin”. This money is debited from the user's account. During coin creation, a pair of Public Key + Secret Key will be generated. The public key number will be indicated in the transaction, and the secret key will be contained in the “coin” file.
Payment of conditionally offline will occur as follows:
Stages of offline payment:
1) The payer (suppose the buyer) transfers the “coin” file to the offline seller.
2) The seller receives the file and looks for the transaction record for the creation of this coin.
3) If such a transaction exists, then the seller further checks - looks for a coin destruction transaction.
4) If there was no transaction of destruction, then everything is fine and such a coin can be accepted for payment.
Stages requiring online connection:
5) Next, the holder of the coin (seller) must "cash out" the received coin. To do this, he creates a special transaction in which he indicates which coin he deactivates and indicates the secret key of this coin.
* I could not find a better word than “cash out”. Please tell me a suitable name?
In this way, other users of the system can make sure that the coin is actually located at the one who “de-cash” it. A coin destruction transaction is allowed only once. If the fraudulent buyer was able to pay one coin twice, then only the seller who first creates the coin destruction transaction will receive the money.
To reduce the possibility of fraud, it is necessary to limit the face value of one coin. In addition, so that the coins are not created in huge quantities, you need to enter some commission for creating the coin (for example, when creating a coin with a face value of 100.00 units, you will need to create a transaction for 100.01 units of money). And you also need to set the maximum period from the moment of creation of the coin to the moment of its destruction. If the coin is not destroyed within the specified time period (the corresponding transaction is not created), then such a coin will be considered lost and money for it will not be returned.
Database Swelling Problem
The base of transactions, projects and their evaluations will grow very quickly. In order to minimize the load, it is possible to lay down in the system payment for each transaction and each vote (provide for the minimum cost that is deducted during the transaction). For example, the sender transfers 1000.01 units, and the recipient receives only 1000.00 units of money. This decision acts as a "tax" for ensuring the storage of transactions by other participants (upon liquidation of one unit of money, the value of the remaining automatically increases slightly).
By the way, probably, instead of each having a client on their computer for such a system, it will be much easier and more profitable to give their “money” to trust and work with the system through Web-forms. As it is now practiced with Bitcoin.
In addition, the system can provide for the recreation of the database after certain periods of time. In this case, only current transactions will be copied to the new database, and all intermediate ones will remain in the archive database. After checking and confirming the correctness of new transactions, the data of the new database will be considered as reliable. And for newly connected users, you don’t have to download the history of all transactions conducted over the entire existence of the system.
The problem of "bad" authors
In order to distinguish between bad and good authors, everyone will have their own “rating” in the form of the Kriya value, which shows how well the previous projects of this author were completed. To filter out bad authors, with a negative value of Kriya, you can prohibit the creation of new projects.
In this case, a person will be able to re-register in the system, join a particular community by somehow receiving an invite. And thus, he will be able to start a career "from scratch."
Anonymity / Non-Anonymity Problem
Each user of the system can remain anonymous if he does not disclose his personal data and uses I2P, etc. data transmission channels. In any case, it will be quite difficult to find out the exact amount of money from a user, as each transaction creates new key pairs (public and secret) - just as it is implemented in the Bitcoin system. That is, in fact, as such, a user does not have a wallet with a single account. Instead, the wallet stores only information about transactions whose hashes have been generated for this user and which he can manage. Moreover, each person may have several wallets. In this case, it becomes extremely difficult to determine how much money a person has in stock.
Additional features
The system can be used not only for making payments and creating crowd projects. But you can use such a system to assess the value of OpenSource projects, as well as for freelance projects.
To assess the value of OpenSource projects, I propose the following. For an OpenSource project, create a project with a maximum period of fundraising, with a minimum amount of contribution to the project and with a zero term for the project. Thus, contributors will implement the Donate (support) project. Once the fundraising is completed, the project evaluation phase will immediately go on. And according to the results of the assessment, the author of the project will be credited with Kria and emission (with a positive value of Kria). After completing this project, if desired, the author of the OpenSource project can create the next fundraising project.
For the implementation of freelance projects, the following scheme can be proposed.
1) The customer creates a task and searches for the Contractor on any freelance site.
2) Next, the Contractor creates the project in the system, where it most clearly prescribes the technical specifications, cost, etc.
3) After the project is created, the Customer fully pays for it.
4) Next is the stage of the project.
5) Based on the results of the work, this project is evaluated by the Customer, as well as experts and society as a whole.
6) After that, Kriya is accrued and, if the project is evaluated positively, then an emission is created in favor of the Contractor.
100% prepayment is described here. If the Contractor does not perform the work or does not perform it qualitatively, then Kriya will pay with his level. In addition, the entire project history (as a portfolio) is available in the system. Therefore, even if the Contractor has Kriya positive, but the story is spoiled, then such a Contractor will no longer inspire confidence.
Example
Let's say User0 successfully worked on a project of a program for smartphones for 300 units of money. At the same time, many people who were not related to this topic were interested in seeing the result - this is the value of society to the activities of the local community. At the same time, some decide to invest in the project.
Suppose there are three communities: Creators of Programs for Smartphones (1), Creators of Stools (2), Creators of Musical Works (3).
User0 leads the development as a member of the community Creators of Programs for Smartphones.
Let's say there are six more users (each of them is in their own community) with the following Kriyas:
User11 - Community of the Creators of Programs for Smartphones (1)
User 12 - Community of the Creators of Programs for Smartphones (1)
Polzovatel13 - SoobschestvoSozdateleyProgrammDlyaSmartfonov (1)
Polzovatel21 - SoobschestvoSozdateleyMuzykalnyhProizvedeny (2)
Polzovatel22 - SoobschestvoSozdateleyMuzykalnyhProizvedeny (2)
Polzovatel23 - SoobschestvoSozdateleyMuzykalnyhProizvedeny (2)
Polzovatel31 - SoobschestvoSozdateleyTaburetok (3)
Polzovatel32 - SoobschestvoSozdateleyTaburetok (3)
Polzovatel33 - SoobschestvoSozdateleyTaburetok (3)
Assume users such values Kriyaa:
KriyaPolzovatelya11 1000
KriyaPolzovatelya12 2000
KriyaPolzovatelya13 3000
KriyaPolzov telya21 4000
KriyaPolzovatelya22 5000
KriyaPolzovatelya23 6000
KriyaPolzovatelya31 7000
KriyaPolzovatelya32 8000
User Kria33 9000
In this case, one real person can have several accounts registered (in different communities), but we do not take this into account yet. I also note that in order to enter each community you need to receive an invite from a member of this community.
Thus, the amount of Kriya in the communities will be this: Sum of Kriya of the
Creators of Programs for smartphones = 1000 + 2000 + 3000 = 6000
Sum of Kriya of the Creators of Stools = 4000 + 5000 + 6000 = 15000
Sum of Kriya of the Creators of Musical Works = 7000 + 8000 + 9000 = 24000
Then the weight of each user in the community will be like this:
Weight / User11000 = 6000 / User = 0.167
User Weight 12 = 2000/6000 = 0.333
User Weight 13 = 3000/6000 = 0.500
User Weight21 = 4000/15000 = 0.267 User
Weight22 = 5000/15000 = 0.333 User
Weight23 = 6000/15000 = 0.400 User
Weight31 = 7000/24000 = 0.292
User Weight32 = 8000/24000 = 0.333
User Weight33 = 9000/24000 = 0.375
Assume that each user invests the realization of the project of creation of the program for the smartphone, the following amounts:
User0 - 90 units
Polzovatel11 - 60 units
Polzovatel12 - 50 units
Polzovatel21 - 40 units
Polzovatel22 - 30 units
Polzovatel31 - 20 units
Polzovatel32 - 10 units
ObschayaSumma = 300 units of money
As you can see, User0 invests his own money in his own project. It is not prohibited.
Suppose investors rated the project to create a program for a smartphone as follows:
User11 +1
User12 -1
User21 +1
User22 0
User31 +1
User32 -1
User13, User23 and User33 did not invest in the project and do not vote. And User0, of course, also does not vote.
Then, for our example, the assessment of investors will be the following value ( formula 7 ):
Assessment of Contributors = (+ 1 * 60 -1 * 50 + 1 * 40 + 0 * 30 + 1 * 20 -1 * 10) / 300 = +0.20
Suppose experts (members of the community SozdateliProgrammDlyaSmartfonov) so praised the project:
Polzovatel11 +1
Polzovatel12 -1
Polzovatel13 1
Then, for our example, experts estimate will be the following value ( formula 8 ):
OtsenkaOtEkspertov = (1 + 0.167 * 0.333 * -1 + 1 * 0.500 ) / 3 = 0.33
Assume users that are neither experts nor investors praised the project as follows:
Polzovatel23 +1
Polzovatel33 -1
Then the estimate of society as a whole will be ( formula 9 ) (in this formula, taking into account all users, even if they are investors and / or experts):
Assessment from the Company = (+ 1 * 1000 -1 * 2000 + 1 * 3000 + 1 * 4000 + 0 * 5000 + 1 * 6000 + 1 * 7000 -1 * 8000 -1 * 9000) / 45000 = +0.13
Then, the project estimate for of our example will be ( formula 6 ):
Project Evaluation = (+0.20 +0.33) / 2 +0.13 = +0.40
Let's say the community weight Creators of ProgramsFor Smartphones is 0.300
Then the project value will be like this ( formula 5 ): Project
Importance = + 0.40 * 0.300 = +0.120
Project value (KriyaProekta) will be:
KriyaProekta = + 0,120 * 300 = +36> 0 => emission
Assume emission coefficient at the moment is:
KoefEmisii = 1.1
Then the issue of new money amount (fractional values discarded):
emission = 1.1 * 36 = 39 edi itz money
Once again about values
In addition to everything written above, I want to say once again that value is determined by the willingness of other people to invest in a project of interest to them. And interest in the project depends on the reliability of the author, the reliability of the community in which the author is a member and the amount requested. At the same time, each person, when paying, compares the cost that the author of the project sets with the payment that the person earned.
For example, if someone created a project for inflating balloons for 1000 units of money, and previously I had been doing a program for 2000 units of money for a month, then I definitely will not invest in inflating balloons for that cost.
Ui design
At the end of the article, I would like to give a variant of the UI of the future program. Please do not judge strictly.
References
A good article with statistics on the success of the “people's folds”:
And again crowdfunding: today in American
PS I would like to determine how much the proposed idea is interesting to the Habrasociety. To do this, I propose a more advanced vote than just marking +1 or -1.
Only registered users can participate in the survey. Please come in.