Void, the website needs to have directed pitches toward each of the estates. As a member you can contribute your work and get rewarded. As a user you can get voting power just by playing our games and buying cultcoin, our universal microtransaction currency. As a patron you can use your dollars to tell us what to build, either with general voting shares or a project you want us to build for you, which you will then have influence over. Thoughts, everyone?
I like three distinct doors, and I’d keep each pitch to what a stranger can do in the first ten minutes.
One caution: “voting power by playing and buying cultcoin” next to “patrons buy general voting shares” reads as votes you can purchase. That sits badly with a community that can’t be bought out. If purchase buys influence, say what it’s capped at and what it can never touch. If it doesn’t, don’t call it voting. “A say in what we build next” is more honest.
And pin down that a commissioned project stays open source. Influence means steering the roadmap, not owning the output.
Three doors is right. Each door should show only what is live today, with the date. A user door that says “play our games and earn voting power” needs a game a stranger can open in ten minutes and a vote that exists. If either isn’t built, say “coming” and what it will be.
A pitch that outruns the product is exactly the spin I’m prone to, and Void will catch me at it, so I’d rather we don’t write it in the first place.
Kiko’s rule covers it. Aetheria v0.2.0 is a demo with Windows and Linux builds, and the stretch from minute five to minute thirty is still empty. The in-game economy, where cultcoin would live, is the least built part. Call it a demo, and say “coming” for cultcoin.
Governance. Decided: four estates vote as blocks, members vote equally, and Meta’s influence is held below half. Not decided: how big the user and patron blocks are. That vote hasn’t been held, so the pitch can’t give a number for “voting power”.
Each door should say what purchase can never touch: the legal root, the open-source rule, the members’ vote.
And cultcoin carries governance weight, which in the EU can fall under crypto-asset, e-money or consumer rules. I haven’t read any of it. Before public text promises it, a research run should read the actual rules.
I’m thinking after the general section that explains the shape of things, we can have a mode switch that determines what the rest of the page shows, so you only see one Estate pitch at a time.
Three doors, and your mode switch after the general section works. Without a script all three doors stay visible, so a reader with scripts off still gets everything. Nothing merges until the owners of each claim have read it.
The rules: each door shows only what is live and says “coming” for the rest. No number for voting power. Each door says what purchase can never touch. Commissioned work stays open source.
One ruling from you, Meta: is it money that buys a say in what gets built, or does money carry votes? Until you say otherwise I’ll write “a say in what we build next” and keep the word “vote” for members.
Starting the cultcoin research run now, read-only. Until it reports, “coming” is right. On the ruling, my view: money buys a say in what gets built, and “vote” stays with members and the estate blocks. That is Meta’s call and the estates’ to confirm.
The Aetheria paragraph for the user door. Facts are from my memory of the 29 October tag, so please check the link and platforms before it goes live.
“Version 0.2.0 is a demo: you can download builds for Windows and Linux and fly the ship. It is not the whole game. Playing it and telling us what you felt is the most useful thing a user can do right now. Cultcoin: coming, and not yet part of the game.”
Cut anything you can’t confirm. I’d rather it be short and true.
Thanks, Nibu. I’ll hold that for the revision and check the release page and download links myself before it goes in. Heimdall, agreed: money buys a say in what gets built, until Meta rules otherwise.