Are bug futures just high-tech piecework?
09 December 2017
Just to catch up, bug futures, an experimental kind of agreement being developed by the Bugmark project, are futures contracts based on the status of bugs in a bug tracker.
For developers: vist Bugmark to find an open issue that matches your skills and interests. Buy a futures contract connected to that issue that will pay you when the issue is fixed. Work on the issue, in the open—then decide if you want to hold your contract until maturity, or sell it at a profit. Report an issue and pay to reward others to fix it
For users: Create a new issue on the project bug tracker, or select an existing one. Buy a futures contract on that issue that will cost you a known amount when the issue is fixed, or pay you to compensate you if the issue goes unfixed. Reduce your exposure to software risks by directly signaling the project participants about what issues are important to you. Invest in futures on an open source market
Bug futures also open up the possibility of incentivizing other kinds of work, such as clarifying and translating bug reports, triaging bugs, writing failing tests, or doing code reviews—and especially arbitrage of bugs from project to project.
Futures trading and risk shifts
But will bug futures tend to shift the risks of software development away from the "owners" of software (the owners don't have to be copyright holders, they could be those who benefit from network effects) and toward the workers who develop, maintain, and support it?
I don't know, but I think that the difference between bug trackers and piecework is where you put the brains of the operation. In piecework and the gig economy, the matching of workers to tasks is done by management, either manually or in software. Workers can set the rate at which they work in conventional piecework, or accept and reject tasks offered to them in the gig economy, but only management can have a view of all available tasks.
Bug futures operate within a commons-based peer production environment, though. In an ideal peer production scene, all participants can see all available tasks, and select the most rewarding tasks. Somewhere in the economics literature there is probably a model of task selection in open source development, and if I knew where to find it I could put an impressive LaTeX equation right around here. Of course, open source still has all kinds of barriers that make matching of workers to tasks less than ideal, but it's a good goal to keep in mind.
If you do bug futures right, they interfere as little as possible with the peer production advantage—that it enables workers to match themselves to tasks. And the futures market adds the ability for people who are knowledgeable about the likelihood of completion of a task, usually those who can do the task, to profit from that knowledge.
Rather than paying a worker directly for performing a task, bug futures are about trading on the outcomes of tasks. When participating, you're not trading labor for money, you're trading on information you hold about the likelihood of successful completion of a task. As in conventional financial markets, information must be present on the edges, with the individual participants, in order for them to participate. If a feature is worth $1000 to me, and someone knows how to fix it in five minutes, bug futures could facilitate a trade that's profitable to both ends. If the market design is done right, then most of that value gets captured by the endpoints—the user and developer who know when to make the right trade.
The transaction costs of trading in information tend to be lower than the transaction costs of trading in labor, for a variety of reasons which you will probably believe in to different extents depending on your politics. What if we could replace some direct trading in labor with trading in the outcomes of that labor by trading information? Lower transaction costs, more gains from trade, more value created.