None yet, but Russ Nelson left a comment on a Slashdot article about using Fundable for open source software saying that he has plans to modify the Public Software Fund so it allows for dominant assurance contracts.
Just in case the people behind Fundable were not aware of the concept I just suggested that they also offer dominant assurance contracts.
Separately, see Kragen Sitaker’s explanation of assurance contracts as put options inspired by Anton Sherwood’s description of using call options rather than eminent domain to acquire land for a road or pipeline.
This arrangement also needs a better name… ‘Dominant assurance contracts’ is a mouthful only an economist engaged in dry analysis could like; promoters of cooperative actions need something more plain and meaningful. The title of your Fundable suggestiong, ‘failure payoff’, is a step in the right direction, but still more negative than ideal. Perhaps ‘refund bonus’?
Reverse bounties improved
Gordon Mohr suggested in a comment that as a name Dominant Assurance Contract is no good and perhaps “refund bonus” would be better. That may be right, though “refund bonus” seems to only describe part of the arrangement.
I co…