# Rewarding Innovation in The Innovation Game

## Introduction

The rewards for innovation in The Innovation Game (the "**Game**") are
designed to be **sufficient** to incentivise innovators to submit their
innovation ("**Contributions**") to the Game on the understanding that
the Contributions will be made available to others as the basis for
**open innovation** under the *TIG Open Data License*, and for further
innovation by participants in the Game under the terms of the *TIG
Innovator Outbound Game License*.

By **sufficiency** we mean that the reward must be at least enough to
cause commercially valuable innovation (by implication, what is
commercially valuable should, at least, be novel over the state of the
art, innovative and free from encumbrances) to be submitted to the Game.
What is sufficient reward may not necessarily be equitable in terms of
fully compensating an innovator for their contribution of value (that is
almost impossible to determine at the point of submission of the
Contribution), at least not immediately, it just needs to be enough to
cause the innovator to submit their Contribution.

In an ideal world the rewards to innovators would be exactly
commensurate with the value added by an innovator's Contribution.
Because the Game seeks to reward Contributors for improved algorithm
performance, it is intuitively attractive to look for a method of
quantitatively measuring algorithmic performance but this would add
significant (and what we consider unnecessary) complexity and also fail
to recognise a number of realities including, the difficulties of
objectively measuring and verifying the quantum of immediate commercial
value of a particular Contribution, its spill over value and any latent
value realised only later in time after the rewards have been assessed.
Accordingly, we have decided, for now, to keep it as simple as possible.
We will seek only what is **sufficient** in terms of reward to an
innovator to compensate them for their effort and ingenuity to
incentivise them to submit their innovation to the Game. This assessment
of reward may not necessarily look objectively fair in relative terms
(when comparing one algorithm to another), particularly in hindsight,
but any apparent inequity is mitigated by the fact that the value of the
TIG token will represent **all** off the accrued value of all
Contributions over time and so each innovator will have the chance to
benefit (if they hold some or all of their tokens) from the value
created not just by their Contribution but also that from the
Contributions of everyone else throughout the life of the Game.

One of the most obvious rewards offered by the Innovation Game for
Contributions is the TIG token. Whether the token rewards are sufficient
to incentivise the submission of Contributions will depend on the token
price prevailing at the time of submission, the number of challenges to
which rewards are allocated and, also to some extent, on the expected
future value of the token. Some submissions will also be motivated by
other forms of reward such as academic impact.

Because the token price will vary from time to time, we will only know
if, as the basis of reward it is sufficient, by gathering empirical
evidence provided by the quality of submissions in practice, and by
feedback from potential innovators. For this reason, the Team will
always be on alert to adjusting the rewards for the Game to make them
sufficient. Whilst the protocol is still in development innovator
rewards will be under constant review.

If an innovator decides to withhold their innovation from the Game
because they assess that the reward is not sufficient incentive, they
will be exposed to the jeopardy that, whilst they wait, someone else may
submit an equivalent or better Contribution and resultingly then be
deprived of the rewards that they may have earned themselves by
submitting their algorithm.

A fundamental cornerstone of the Game is the synthetic market that is
created by incentivising benchmarkers to create demand for the most
performant algorithm implementations. The value of a Contribution is
measured in that market by benchmarkers; the more a Contribution is
adopted, the more reward is allocated to it. If a change of a single
line of code in an existing code implementation (whether it relates to a
change to the algorithmic method or to a code optimisation) makes
sufficient difference that benchmarkers, acting rationally to improve
their performance in the Game, adopt it instead of other available
alternatives, then the market is designed to reward that change.

In the context of the Game, with the exception below related to the TIG
Game Rules\*, it is crooked thinking to simply assess the quantum of
lines of code present or changed for determining the appropriateness for
reward or what the quantum of that reward should be. If the synthetic
market is functioning properly the best algorithm implementation will
prevail and an enquiry into "why" it is prevailing is not relevant. It
is the job of the Team to ensure that the synthetic market is the
closest proxy that it can be for rewarding the algorithmic performance
and utility most valued by commercial enterprise.

\**The TIG Game Rules do mandate that a Contribution must make a
"meaningful difference" over existing implementations in the Game. This
will stop straightforward plagiarism where no or insignificant
additional value is added by a Contributor and this aspect of the Game
Rules will be policed.*

## Defining and Classifying Innovation

Generally, improvements in algorithmic methods tend to yield exponential
or order-of-magnitude efficiency gains by changing the problem-solving
approach, while the way in which algorithmic methods are implemented in
code tend to provide incremental improvements. It is important
therefore, that TIG places emphasis on incentivising the submission of
innovative algorithmic methods. TIG intends to do that by introducing a
process for identifying innovative algorithmic methods that will then be
eligible for additional rewards.

We propose to distinguish two different types of Contribution in the
context of the Game and rewarding them differently: (1) **Algorithm
Implementations** (code); and (2) **Breakthrough Algorithms**
(methods).

Implementations of algorithms comprise two elements; **(i)** an
algorithmic method (the fundamental approach or strategy for solving a
problem, independent of specific code or language); and **(ii)** an
expression of the algorithmic method in code.

In the Game the algorithmic method element may be a Breakthrough
Algorithm or an algorithmic method that is not a Breakthrough Algorithm.

### Breakthrough Algorithms

TIG believes that the determination of whether an algorithmic method is
a Breakthrough Algorithm should be done by a combination of; **(i)** a
token weighted vote assessing novelty and inventiveness\*; and **(ii)**
an assessment of the performance of the algorithmic method determined
solely by the extent of its adoption by benchmarkers in the "TIG
synthetic market" (see: *Accessing Breakthrough Rewards* below).

\* *For a discussion and explanation of novelty and inventiveness in the
context of the Game see [Breakthrough Rewards Guide for
Token Holders](./voting.md).*

### Algorithm Implementations

Algorithm Implementations are expressions of algorithmic methods in code
and in the context of the Game they may be an expression of an
algorithmic method which is a Breakthrough Algorithm or an expression of
an algorithmic method that is not a Breakthrough Algorithm.

## Token Rewards for Innovation

To reflect the patentability and significant impact on performance that
innovative algorithmic methods can have compared with algorithm
implementations, TIG will offer additional rewards for Breakthrough
Algorithms. These additional rewards (so called "**Breakthrough
Rewards")**, are brought about through the design of the protocol
enabling the rewards for Breakthrough Algorithms to persist for multiple
Rounds where they continue to provide the basis of algorithm
implementations adopted by benchmarkers.

An Algorithm Implementation which does not embody an algorithmic method
which is eligible for potential Breakthrough Rewards, only rewards the
innovator that submitted the Algorithm Implementation with Standard
Rewards (subject to satisfaction of adoption thresholds). Because of the
absence of a Breakthrough Algorithm, Breakthrough Rewards notionally
allocated for Breakthrough Algorithms will, instead, be allocated to the
TIG treasury and used to bootstrap Breakthrough Algorithm development
(these are referred to in the Game as "**Bootstrap Rewards**").

For Algorithm Implementations that embody an algorithmic method which is
eligible for potential Breakthrough Rewards, two types of reward are
potentially available (subject to satisfaction of adoption thresholds):

- **Standard Rewards** will be available for the innovator that
  submitted the adopted implementation of the Breakthrough Algorithm.

- **Breakthrough Rewards** will be available for the innovator that
  submitted the Breakthrough Algorithm embodied in the implementation.

The innovator(s) earning Standard Rewards and Breakthrough Rewards in
respect of an Algorithm Implementation may be the same or different
entities. An innovator can earn both Standard Rewards and Breakthrough
Rewards simultaneously or at different times.

### Standard Rewards for Algorithm Implementations

> **15%** of the total rewards available in a Round will be allocated to
> Standard Rewards for Algorithm Implementations.

### Breakthrough Rewards for Breakthrough Algorithms

> **15%** of the total rewards available in a Round will be allocated to
> Breakthrough Rewards for Breakthrough Algorithms.

The most significant difference between Standard Rewards and
Breakthrough Rewards is that the Breakthrough Rewards will continue to
be earned where the Breakthrough Algorithm is inherited by an
implementation, meaning that Breakthrough Rewards can persist for longer
because they will be earned in connection with any, and all adopted
implementations of that Breakthrough Algorithm. Standard Rewards will be
earned only for as long as the respective implementation is adopted by
benchmarkers. Notwithstanding that the allocations of rewards are prima
facie equal for both Breakthrough Rewards and Standard Rewards (at 15%
each), because of the factor of persistence of adoption in calculating
aggregate rewards over time, Breakthrough Rewards in respect of
significant algorithmic breakthroughs are likely to far exceed Standard
Rewards.

Breakthrough Rewards are expected to be greater than Standard Rewards to
reflect four attributes of Breakthrough Algorithms;

(i) they are potentially patentable (bringing greater commercial value
    to the TIG ecosystem);

(ii) they are novel (there is no novelty test in the Game for Code
     Optimisations which means they may have lower commercial value than
     Breakthrough Algorithms);

(iii) they generally have greater potential to make significant
      performance improvements over the state of the art (bringing
      greater value to the TIG ecosystem); and

(iv) they are more certain to have value extrinsic to the Game.

It is the Team's belief that sufficiency of reward can be achieved in
respect of Standard Rewards by appropriately setting the period during
which a Code Optimisation will be guaranteed not to be used as the basis
for a subsequent Code Optimisation contributed by a third party. At
present this period is two Rounds. Only the behaviour of innovators can
ultimately signal to us whether, at a minimum, this "protected" period
for a Code Optimisation is sufficient to incentivise its submission to
the game and we will be monitoring this as the protocol develops.

## Accessing Breakthrough Rewards

If an Innovator believes that their Contribution is or embodies a
potential Breakthrough Algorithm, then they may request that their
Contribution is considered for approval as a Breakthrough Algorithm. For
a Contribution to be a Breakthrough Algorithm, the following must
**ALL** be satisfied with respect to the Contribution:

(i) It must be declared, by Token Holder Vote that the Algorithm
    implementation subject to review embodies an algorithmic method that
    is eligible for potential Breakthrough Rewards;

(ii) The intellectual property rights embodied in the Contribution must
     be irrevocably assigned to TIG in accordance with the TIG IP
     Policy;

(iii) The Contributor must burn two hundred and fifty (250) TIG tokens
      for each requested Token Holder Vote; and

(iv) In a rolling 1 week window the sum of all algorithm implementations
     which embody the algorithmic method subject to review must achieve
     a sufficient degree of adoption by Benchmarkers (where for Standard
     rewards the adoption threshold by benchmarkers is presently 25%
     before the algorithm implementation is merged to obtain Standard
     Rewards, the corresponding adoption threshold by benchmarkers for
     potential Breakthrough Algorithms will be 50%). The reason why the
     threshold of adoption is higher for potential Breakthrough
     Algorithms is that TIG wishes to reserve Breakthrough Rewards for
     algorithmic improvements that offer a significant universal
     improvement in performance (which will be valued more highly by
     commercial licensees).

Essentially the **Token Holder Vote** is assessing the novelty and
inventiveness of a contributed algorithmic method. To maximise the
likelihood that a Breakthrough Algorithm will be ratified by Token
Holder Vote, an innovator seeking Breakthrough Rewards is advised to
disclose the following information so that it may be assessed by token
holders:

- **Novelty:** Provide results of a prior art search to identify any
  existing disclosures that might affect the novelty of your algorithmic
  method.

- **Inventiveness:** Clearly document how the algorithmic method differs
  from existing solutions (i.e. is non-obvious) and any new technical
  effect it achieves.

- **Technical Effect:** Document of how the algorithmic method offers
  the potential to provide the basis for significant technical
  advancements. Document how the algorithmic method might have **real
  world application** e.g. in fields such as computer security, medical
  imaging, autonomous systems. or data compression.

## Encumbrances

The value of Contributions to TIG will be compromised if the
Contributions are encumbered by third party intellectual property rights
and terms of the TIG Inbound Game License seeks to deal with this.

The terms of the TIG Inbound Game License state:

"Submitter represents that Submitter is legally entitled to grant the
above licenses and that, to the best of Submitter's knowledge, the Work
does not infringe any rights of a third party."

## Attribution of Copyright Owner

The header file for each algorithm implementation submitted to the Game
must comply with the terms of the TIG Inbound Game License. This
establishes the identity of the copyright owner (which may or may not be
the original author of the code) of the implementation of the
algorithmic method in source code.

## Unique Algorithmic Method Identifier (UAI)

With the introduction of Breakthrough Rewards, the significance of the
correct identification of the original creator of the algorithmic method
embodied in an algorithm implementation has even greater significance.

It is important that the identification is not only correct, but that it
appears in all algorithm implementations which embody the relevant
algorithmic method.

The copyright notice does not necessarily identify the original creator
of the algorithmic method embodied in the implementation (because the
creator of the algorithmic method and the author of the code
implementing the algorithmic method may be different). For this reason,
the header file must also include information which identifies the
creator of the algorithmic method. To do this TIG will issue a Unique
Algorithmic Method Identifier (UAI) for any algorithmic method submitted
to TIG. This UAI will be included in the header file of the algorithm
implementation embodying the algorithmic method before it is published
by TIG. The UAI will enable TIG to identify which algorithmic methods
are eligible for Breakthrough Rewards and which ones are not.

The Game Rules will mandate that where an Algorithm Implementation
(Algorithm B) is a modified implementation of an existing Algorithm
Implementation (Algorithm A) and continues to embody an algorithmic
method substantially similar to that embodied in Algorithm A, if
Algorithm A has an associated UAI then that UAI must be entered into the
header file of Algorithm B. This should create a correct indication of
the heritage of the code back to the original creator of the relevant
embodied algorithmic method.

There will be a very strong incentive for innovators that benefit from
Breakthrough Rewards to ensure that they protect the persistence of the
Breakthrough Rewards associated with their Breakthrough Algorithm, by
carefully scrutinising the novelty of any challenger algorithmic methods
submitted to TIG.

## Attribution of Contributor

The header file must also include an attribution of the name of the
Contributor (referred to as "Submitter" in the TIG Inbound Game License)
of the Contribution and the Game Rules will be amended such that any
code based on the work submitted by that Contributor is required to
attribute the Contributor thus creating an indication of the heritage of
the code back to the original Contributor.
