I am submitting this for general discussion since I’m a holder of Aada. In real life I own and manage 2 businesses for over 25 years now. I’ve seen the difficulties as well as experiencened the joys of running them. It’s not easy and I applaud the team for what they have accomplished. With that being said. I firmly belive that it is time as we the holders of Aada have a serious discussion about whether or not the code be open source, closed or licensed.
My proposal is that we license the code that is being created. We should not allow the code to be open source and for other projects to profit off of our knowledge of coding. By allowing the code to be open source you are devaluing and in essence working for free only for others to profit off your expertise. My proposal is we go after a proprietary license. We license the code for other projects to use. This helps increase the value of Aada as well as helps to fund the project in the future as well as to possibly give back to holders part of the license fee. I recommend the fee be setup so that it is a transaction fee based on the number of transactions another project completes.
I would like to open this up to discussion and see what the community feels about this.
1 Like
Fully open sourced. No licensing pls.
3 Likes
Why do you wish for it to remain open source?
1 Like
Ability to verify protocol security/integrity vs relying on a “trust me bro”
3 Likes
I understand your concern, what makes open source any better than closed source? I know open source allows people to inspect the code. Auditors can do that for closed source code. All coding will have security issues open or closed source.
For example using a bank is open source and people use it without hesitation because it’s perceived to be safe. Yet it can still be robbed. Everything has vulnerabilities. I believe that if a project communicates with its users and community honestly and openly that the coding will be safe as well. I guess what I’m trying to say is trust me bro works both ways.
I believe the intellectual property / coding for a project in the early stages is vital for the success of a project not just from a security standpoint but also from a financial one as well. Maintaining financial security early on is important as well and by licensing your code your able to hire the best people for security and growth.
2 Likes
Lol. Did you just call a bank open source? 
Open source like you say means people can inspect the code. Auditors are just A set of eyes. Opensource is infinite eyes.
I agree IP is important but none the less new participants in the protocol deserve more openness than a “we and our auditors didnt find a problem”
Transparency is king. And if other projects want to try make living mooching off aada code and being nothing more than a derivative then good luck to them. The community would be able to see all forks if its opensource vs backroom deals between the core devs and these other projects (which is what licensing could look like)
4 Likes
I agree with youwe need to license our code that protocols has to pay for our code if they wish to use it
So how do you recommend that we are able to benefits from the open sourcing the code?? If we are not getting nothing from it even if it’s not licensed?? So that we can gain som financial reward?
Do you expect to have unlimited money for development? others to just come and and change the interface ??
Personally Im thinking about the whole situation.