From e6e19e7c13ef48f746371562ccc21e2d9d381eb6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ben Stull Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 06:03:56 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?docs:=20drop=20MVP-scope/roadmap=20&=20data-mod?= =?UTF-8?q?el=20from=20backlog=20=E2=80=94=20strategic=20memo,=20not=20rol?= =?UTF-8?q?lout=20doc?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Remove §12 #3 (concrete MVP scope / build roadmap) and #4 (data-model sketch): these are implementation/rollout concerns that belong in the implementation plan the strategy feeds, not in the strategy memo itself. Renumber the backlog to four items (demand, sustainability/metrics, governance, hybrid-makers standard), record the scope exclusion in the §12 intro, and re-point cross-refs (§12 #5 → #3 governance appeal; §12 #6 → #4 making/reselling standard). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) --- docs/maker-platform-strategy.md | 14 +++++--------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/maker-platform-strategy.md b/docs/maker-platform-strategy.md index 0e1f489..3ba4903 100644 --- a/docs/maker-platform-strategy.md +++ b/docs/maker-platform-strategy.md @@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ Two rules ride on the classification: - **Buyer transparency is the point.** Every item shows its provenance badge — the consumer-facing expression of the moat: not merely "this maker is verified," but "this *item* is original / partly original / a resale / not original (and contains these makers' work)." It is the precise anti-Etsy signal — you always know what you're buying — and it *appreciates* as AI-generated and drop-shipped fakes proliferate. - **Trust-surface eligibility keys off it, per item.** Only **original** and **original-+-(in-network)-components** items are surfaced as the maker's original work in Curated-By / buyer feed / agent feed. A **fellow-Maker resale** may surface *attributed to the true maker* (that *is* Curated-By). **Third-party resale never enters a trust surface** — surfacing it would launder non-original goods through a trusted face (the Etsy-pollution failure mode, from the inside). A composite that contains any non-original component is flagged as such wherever it appears. -The hard, still-open part is the **line between making and reselling** — finishing, assembling, and kitting sit in between (the standard to write, §12 #6): purchased supplies don't taint "original," but assembling mostly-third-party parts isn't original either. Misclassifying a resale as "original" is a provenance lie → a verification-revocation trigger (trust & safety, §10). Self-attestation makes classifying cheap; the sampling audit plus buyer reporting make gaming it risky. +The hard, still-open part is the **line between making and reselling** — finishing, assembling, and kitting sit in between (the standard to write, §12 #4): purchased supplies don't taint "original," but assembling mostly-third-party parts isn't original either. Misclassifying a resale as "original" is a provenance lie → a verification-revocation trigger (trust & safety, §10). Self-attestation makes classifying cheap; the sampling audit plus buyer reporting make gaming it risky. ### Non-maker referrers: the verified taste-maker tier (Phase 2) @@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ The **shape** below is settled; the **reputation engine itself is explicitly OHM ### Authority & appeal -- **The inviter holds primary suspend/expel authority** over their own sub-graph — the person who vouched is the person best placed, and most motivated (their standing is on the line), to act. Layered on top: a **platform floor for active buyer harm** (the platform can act directly when buyers are being harmed, regardless of what an inviter does), and a **governance appeal path** (§12 #5) for the maker who believes a consequence was unjust. **Expulsion is the rare extreme**, reserved for active harm — the default consequence is loss of standing, above. +- **The inviter holds primary suspend/expel authority** over their own sub-graph — the person who vouched is the person best placed, and most motivated (their standing is on the line), to act. Layered on top: a **platform floor for active buyer harm** (the platform can act directly when buyers are being harmed, regardless of what an inviter does), and a **governance appeal path** (§12 #3) for the maker who believes a consequence was unjust. **Expulsion is the rare extreme**, reserved for active harm — the default consequence is loss of standing, above. - **Provenance lies are trust violations.** Misclassifying a resale as "original" (§7 per-item provenance) is not a clerical error — it is a deception that pollutes the trust surfaces, and so it is a verification-revocation trigger handled by this machinery. - **The legal spine of the ghosting case is in §11.** Non-delivery isn't only a reputation event: the FTC 30-Day Rule (§11, "Consumer protection / FTC") is what a ghosting maker is *violating*, and the platform's compliance-by-design notice/refund UX is the buyer's first recourse *before* a chargeback against the maker's processor. Reputation consequence and legal recourse are two responses to the same act. @@ -460,19 +460,15 @@ Recap the §7 consent architecture, now read as the privacy-law posture. ## 12. Open sections to develop (backlog) -This memo is deep on the architectural/strategic axes (money flow, network mechanics, moat theory, consent) and thin on several operational ones that matter as much or more. The gaps cluster on the un-fun, operational side — which is usually where ventures actually die. Each below is a separate future session. (Trust & safety and legal & compliance were written up this session — now §10 and §11 — and have left the backlog.) Rough priority order; the **recommended next session** is finishing §10's open reputation-engine work (gathered in that section's last subsection), then #1 below. +This memo is deep on the architectural/strategic axes (money flow, network mechanics, moat theory, consent) and thin on several operational ones that matter as much or more. The gaps cluster on the un-fun, operational side — which is usually where ventures actually die. Each below is a separate future session. (Trust & safety and legal & compliance were written up this session — now §10 and §11 — and have left the backlog. Concrete MVP scope, the build roadmap, and the data-model sketch are intentionally *not* tracked here: this is a **strategic memo, not a roadmap/rollout doc** — those belong in the implementation plan the strategy feeds, not in the strategy itself.) Rough priority order; the **recommended next session** is the sustainability economics & health metrics below (#2), with §10's open reputation-engine work (gathered in that section's last subsection) the other live thread. 1. **Demand strategy / buyer-side go-to-market — the keystone, currently only *admitted* as a risk.** The doc names "demand is the unvalidated keystone" repeatedly but never attempts a plan; everything concrete is supply-side. Needs: a crisp *buyer-side* value proposition (why a buyer shows up and comes back, stated as its own thing); a first-100 / first-1,000-buyers plan; a content/community/SEO posture for the buyer side; and a §8 extension that tests buyer demand, not just supply. Naming the risk ≠ grappling with it. 2. **Sustainability economics & health metrics — there are no numbers anywhere.** "Non-profit" doesn't mean "needn't cover its costs." Needs: a back-of-envelope unit-economics model (does referral take + network subscription cover the network service + verification labor + hosting at N makers / X GMV?); and a North Star + network-health/liquidity metrics (% of GMV that's cross-maker-referred, follower growth, drop sell-through, repeat-buyer rate). The §9 gates are all qualitative. -3. **Concrete MVP scope / build roadmap.** The phasing is *conceptual* (Phase 1/2/2+/3); there's no literal "v1 ships these features, in this order." Given volunteer capacity is the stated single point of failure, scope discipline is existential — define the minimum lovable build. +3. **Governance, concretely.** The non-profit's trust rests on governance that's been floated ("open governance / maker council") but never specified: who sets and changes verification standards, board/maker representation, and how disputes about *the network itself* resolve. -4. **The data model (sketch the entities).** Named as the load-bearing portable asset ("cheap now, expensive to retrofit") and referenced everywhere (canonical catalog index, variant/kit BOM, referral ledger, consent records, verification graph, follow graph) but never drawn. Deserves at least an entity diagram. (May already exist in prior schema work — if so, this is a pointer, not net-new.) - -5. **Governance, concretely.** The non-profit's trust rests on governance that's been floated ("open governance / maker council") but never specified: who sets and changes verification standards, board/maker representation, and how disputes about *the network itself* resolve. - -6. **Hybrid makers — the making-vs-reselling line (standard).** *Direction set:* provenance attaches **per-item, not per-maker**, via a self-attested, buyer-facing catalog classification (Original / Original + components / Resale – fellow Maker / Resale – third-party), with trust-surface eligibility keyed to it — see §7 "Per-item provenance: the catalog's originality layer." *Still open:* the precise, **auditable line between making and reselling** — purchased supplies don't taint "original," but where exactly do finishing, assembling, and kitting fall? — plus the enforcement/audit hook (ties to §10 accountability) and the exact buyer-facing label wording. Interacts with the consignment/resale "avoid" fork (§7) and the no-walled-garden value rule (Appendix D). +4. **Hybrid makers — the making-vs-reselling line (standard).** *Direction set:* provenance attaches **per-item, not per-maker**, via a self-attested, buyer-facing catalog classification (Original / Original + components / Resale – fellow Maker / Resale – third-party), with trust-surface eligibility keyed to it — see §7 "Per-item provenance: the catalog's originality layer." *Still open:* the precise, **auditable line between making and reselling** — purchased supplies don't taint "original," but where exactly do finishing, assembling, and kitting fall? — plus the enforcement/audit hook (ties to §10 accountability) and the exact buyer-facing label wording. Interacts with the consignment/resale "avoid" fork (§7) and the no-walled-garden value rule (Appendix D). --- -- 2.52.0