 Řeknjen bo za svojo nač оvo. Načo bo? Boš, da so Spokrčili. Pitečno zelo, če se predneš u obustovstvenje neželosti. To je je bilo vyslep, ko je prodišljena v komunijetnih velju. Neželosti neželosti neželosti neželosti neželosti, da všeč neželosti neželosti noželosti obustov. Češnji svet, da ne bomo še vzelo občasovati, je nema, da sem je občasovati, da ne je nič nekaj zvržen. Tako, nekaj je vzela, da je zvržel doplim. Zelo zelo zelo, da se vse je vse, občasovati, predne genre in povede, ježi potrebno občasovati, kako je občasovati, kako je predne genre, Communicate u益 greatly produce private goods, open source projects produce public goods. On the other hand, I think they have very strong similarity in the way they build their products. In both cases, if a product is successful, it has a very long lifetime which requires financing at various stages in its life depending on the circumstances and opportunities that arise. To je nekaj najrednji, da ne da se všechno jel težen. Vsa je... ...završen, da je to kajnice, kako se najredni produt održi, se odršati što z Praženih in spremljenih, kako če je točen način v počke. The gape je, da je več ban, da je točen. ima to je objavno gap. The gap is that in the public sector you have mechanisms that support companies to deal with both of these issues. So you have equities which deal with financing products and companies, and you have financial derivatives like options and futures which allow companies to hedge their risks. And you don't have any of these mechanisms in the open source world. z pravim, ki jim vse predstavim tudi, z nekaj predpraviljne predstavne, ali se je vzipoma vzipoma na pravih, z katera je predstavim na začetku. In pri tudi, ga vse predstavim, nekaj predstavim, zato sem podstavim, in podstavim, ki je podstavim z tem, da je zelo radno neko, kdučne, bo mi dobro, da se je začetno vzipoma. Uspunje mi se, tako in dožinačnih. Od njega je kar tu djišno je pod to, da jih je površal, način, na časovosti rečne, ma tudi pri srečne vrte. TVS je obršal, ki bi te delač je najstaj, in dožem se na uključenji za versetnički. Bzar, kakor, smonen rem. kaj so zelo postavili z vrče in zelo. Tako, zelo začel njimem izgovoril. Svet, operacije je vsegnoranje, kako se priče, naredi, kar se način naši tačnega priče. Idelj, da je začel in tešnja, kaj so kodratične grana način način, zelo, da je, da je, da vsegnorana način način i kodratične grana začin. Na dve, operacijno strane tega ne zelo vsočen, potaj se več in pripravite je, nekaj pravdu, tako tehnikovosti vseh projekt, zato za vzvečenja, zelo bravdu tudi vzvečenja, v sema, da so v zelo v tako produktivnji vsočenju, da ne zelo vsočenja. In pa vseh, zaradi če je ne za operacijno, vblijovati na strimljenih način, vseča, zelo, izminučen, izbran, vsečal, kaj je bilo, zelo, očen, na menjelji prosesi, in, samozvisno, grani začenili in se vsožite, in se tako vsožite, in se, zelo, odsne, nekaj ne razilj, odclapping. OK. V tem zelo, Zelo ga boš dočati jednje kontrakt, kaj je zelo priživati za občasnje projekte, a smo počusti se v tudi drugi vse desaj, pa počusti, da se počusti vse desaj, kako se počusti. Zelo je tudi kontrakt, kaj sem zelo pčetnje tukaj vse počusti. Prvo je tudi tukaj zelo počusti, da je zelo počusti ideje z dvej pčeti z konvenštvih pčetnih in z polorizmih. So let me first cover the basics of this. Just like equities, the entity that issues equity tokens is a github organization. And the idea is, much like with equities, that any github organization can issue tokens, it can sell them, it can buy them back and manage its financing in the same way in which corporations use equities to manage financing. Of course, whenever you're dealing with issuing of any kind of equity, you want to make sure that investors are protected from dilution, which in this case would happen, of course, using a smart contract, which protects investors in sort of three ways. First of all, all issue tokens should be public, and all future sort of schedules of issuance should also be public. And in the event of unanticipated changes to the issuance schedule, you would have some kind of a vote between the shareholders in the open source project. And I'm going to sort of more specifically explain how this vote should work in the next slide. So, up to here, these equity tokens look very much like conventional equity. Now, what is the value, why would you buy these things, and how do they work? In conventional equities, the value of a share in a company is really just the present discounted value of the expected future return of the products that the company makes. But there is no such equivalent in the open source world, because open source doesn't produce profit. So, why would you buy one of those? First, I want to address the question, where is the value captured? The value is captured in two places. One is the team that runs the GitHub organization, because it's the team that adds value and makes the software, obviously. The second one is a little bit more technical. The value is also locked into the URL namespace of the GitHub organization. And the reason for this is because any other open source project, which uses or depends on this one, would refer to it by name. So, a classical example is if you're programming in Go, you refer to other open source projects using their GitHub URL. So, this is where the value is captured. So, what is the value of the equity tokens? So, this is a design proposal that I'm sort of putting forth. It's a stromen proposal. The value here I propose should be that holding equity tokens gives you influence over the open source project. So, how does this influence work exactly? In sort of well-run and smooth open source projects, everything happens on GitHub through pull requests. And this is not just changing code. This includes discussions, feature prioritization, almost everything, especially if it's a community project, because there needs to be visibility into the thinking process and also pull requests enable people to have a discussion before any changes are made. So, pull requests look like a very convenient bottleneck for installing an influence mechanism that kind of works generically and comprehensively over an open source project. And the specific mechanism I'm proposing here is to approve a pull request if it gets a sufficient number of votes for its approval. And by sufficient, I mean it should exceed a certain threshold which the GitHub organization can specify. Now, the little king here, sort of like the subtle detail which comes from plural mechanisms is that the voting power that is bestowed to holders of the equity tokens should be the square root of the amount of tokens they hold. Rather than equal to the amount of tokens they hold. And this is, like, a well-known by now plural mechanism. Another note I'd like to make about this influence mechanism is that by requiring votes to exceed a certain threshold, we're kind of aiming to have a practical mechanism which doesn't need to involve all shareholders for every pull request that is being approved and merged. Typically, with this kind of condition, you can make it so that most day-to-day pull requests can be merged purely by members of the GitHub organization itself. But every once in a while, when a shareholder is interested in having influence on some specific pull requests, they can join in the discussion and sway the outcome one way or another. OK. Now, to tie the whole story together, I'd like to add one more idea to the design of these equity tokens. And this is the idea of partial common ownership. So, this idea is popularized by the economist Glenn Well and his co-authors in the book Radical Markets. And there's also a non-profit called Radical Exchange, which further popularizes and sort of develops these ideas. In its original form, I will recall these ideas of partial common ownership. It was originally a mechanism for efficient and equitable taxation of land. And the way it works is... And by the way, I should say, it has been implemented in some Latin American countries, so it's sort of a tested mechanism in some sense. The way it works is that if you own a piece of land, you get to self-assess the value of this property, and pay tax, which is proportional to the self-assessed value of your property. But you also have to be willing to sell your land to anybody who comes along and is willing to pay the price that you have self-assessed for your property. And then there's a secondary kind of aspect to this mechanism, which is called universal basic income. And this just says that the tax collected through this mechanism is distributed equally to the community, which is a mechanism that sort of creates a more equitable distribution of capital in the community. So what's the key idea behind the tax mechanism? The key idea is that if you're a rational actor, you're compelled to basically self-assess truthfully because if you set a price that's too high, then you will benefit from the fact that nobody will probably take the property away from you because it's highly priced, but you'll be paying a very high tax for this privilege. On the other hand, if you assess your property too low, you won't be paying taxes, but you're running the risk that you can lose your property at any point in time. So I took this idea and I want to apply it to these equity tokens in open source projects, and it would work in the same way. So if you hold any equity tokens, you get to assess how much they're valuable to you, you get to pay tax, and you're obligated to sell them if anybody is willing to pay the price that you have declared for them. Now, what's the rationale behind this thing? The rationale is that when you hold an equity token, you have a marginal cost and a marginal value. The marginal cost is the tax that you pay for the tokens that you have, and the marginal value is whatever value you derive from having influence over the open source project. So you would be compelled to truthfully effectively so pick a price for the equity tokens that you have such that the tax that you pay truthfully reflects how much value you derive from having ownership in this project. Okay. And so to wrap this up, I want to sort of give you a view of this marketplace in the familiar limit-order market book way of looking at a market that most of you are probably familiar with, and the first interesting thing to say is that the partial common ownership rule essentially means that all supply of an equity token for an open source project has to always be on the supply side, so on the sell side of the market book, because by definition everybody is always ready to sell the tokens and the value that they have declared, which is the same thing as saying that everything you own is always on the sell side of the market book. This is a very cool feature because it means that there is 100% liquidity on this market at all times, and that's a good thing because it means that you don't have to have market makers, and you will probably end up with a marketplace that is not volatile and is sort of less prone to speculation. And I'm leaving here one open question for you, which is in traditional market places the identities of the market players who are buying and selling are anonymous, but in a communal space it's worth sort of debating whether they should be public. Okay, so this is the end for me. There are three more topics in this talk which you can look up on the slides which will be uploaded, or you can just contact me. You can contact me happy to talk about this. So the topics that I'm not mentioning here are I have a second design for a contract based around binary options which addresses how do you have a risk in open source projects, which I think is a very interesting question, and I address the lack of meaningful business metrics and indicators for the open source system and some reasons why this might be the case. And finally, I address governance of this marketplace by pointing out that governance, being a smart contract, is basically just an open source project, so you can reuse all the techniques that I mentioned so far to make modifications to the governance basically using pull requests. That's it for me, thank you.