[phantom_oracle]

edit

I know we're all experiencing blockchain fatigue, but for once, I actually know what the tokens will be used for (beyond the usual snake-oil that other ICOs sell). For reference:

Some of the target usages for the token holders, will include:

- voting rights: influence the Red roadmap, vote for features and issue tickets.

- tipping: useful chat posts, code contributions, learning materials providers, etc.

- intra-community cryptoeconomics (or rather tokenomics): selling/buying services from other community members (coding tasks, consulting, learning help, bug fixing, decentralized gaming, etc.)

- paid Dapps, or in-app purchases.

In addition to that, the foundation will hold a significant amount of RCT, which will be used for rewarding:

- code contributions

- Red-related online learning or presenting materials (blog, documentations, etc.)

- promotional actions (presenting Red at a conference)

- any other actions that will help spread Red and make the community grow up.

I'm not sure I personally agree with turning the org into a "dapp", unless language-design remains with the core designers of the language and doesn't become influenced by decentralized decisions. edit: It looks like "voting rights" may actually impact this

There is always an issue with OSS projects struggling for funding. Regardless of how flawed the idea may be, at least they are trying to find a model to sustain themselves. It certainly trumps the model of depending on big-tech-company-X giving you handouts for your SSL library.

[jabgrabdthrow]

Rent-seeking and design by committee. Imagine they charged dollars instead of their own coin (it would be cheaper to do so).

[pwaai]

> but for once, I actually know what the tokens will be used for

Do you seriously believe that people will give you the benefit of the doubt when you are repeating the exact same hype and promise that almost all blockchain/ico projects have done in the past?

[wyager]

Literally everything except “voting rights” is better served by a more popular existing cryptocurrency, and program language design doesn’t need a fancy voting system.

[otoburb]

ICOs increase the emotional connection to a project by catering to the "in-group" tribal mentality no matter the original intent (i.e. greed). It can be debated how (or whether) this is fallacious, but the empirical evidence thus far indicates this model generally raising funds more quickly and in larger quantities than mere donations.

[sillysaurus3]

People who buy into the ICO can influence the roadmap?

Isn't that design by committee? (Generally considered a bad idea.)

[adamnemecek]

I imagine it will be useful only for prioritization.

[greggirwin]

Correct, though we can't predict the future. If somebody throws huge amounts of money at Red they could influence the language. Then it's up to the team and community to decide if it's worth including, or risking a fork. It's open source after all.

[adamnemecek]

I dont think that this is a real possibility. Like I cant imagine why they would. And like what's the potential damage here? A new keyword? Slightly better http support than there would be otherwise? What's the danger?

[greggirwin]

Very little danger, especially to the core language. One scenario is that someone wants to add support for all kinds of features by adding large, external dependencies, thinking it will make Red more marketable. But the language isn't the thing to sell. Really hard to do that anymore, sad but true. The thing to sell is tools that help people get their job done and make their lives easier. Red is just the thing we want to use to build those tools.