/)) were a few of Assembly-made
projects that were built with Assembly.

To make a long story short, projects were pitched to an idea board, and were
up or down-voted on by community members. Ideas that got traction were "green-
lit", which basically meant that the Assembly company would provide resources
for it like hosting, DNS, email services, git repositories, etc., etc.

Apps that were greenlit could create bounties for work that needed to be
performed, and any member of the community could collect on those bounties.
Need design work like logos and icons? A designer (or many designers) could
grab the work and submit their entries. Each unit of work would be awarded a
pre-determined amount, and those payments amounted to a blockchain allocation
-- e.g., submitting a logo might be worth 100 points, while submitting the
accepted logo might be worth 1,000 points. That 1,000 points equated to
ownership. If there were 10,000 points awarded to date, your 1,000 points were
worth 10% ownership.

If the product was developed, completed, marketed, etc., and turned a profit,
Assembly would collect a rake to cover expenses, and all the profits were paid
out based on allocation.

It was a good system, really, and resulted in some pretty neat projects. That
said, I'm not surprised to see it being shuttered. A while back they pivoted
most of their tools into being some kind of community changelog, and as a
fairly active participant, I literally stopped using it after that, as I had
no idea how to use it, saw no instructions, and all the chatrooms that had
existed previously had been shuttered in favor of the changelog.

I assume, but have no inside knowledge, that between participation dropoff,
and the other end -- that many projects were either never completed, never
marketed, never got traction, or not really good, they were outlaying too much
and getting too little success on the other end.

For a (probably) better description of what they were, this article is handy:
[http://tech.co/assembly-basically-group-projects-
adults-2015...](http://tech.co/assembly-basically-group-projects-
adults
/) ) were a few of Assembly - made 
 projects that were built with Assembly. 

 To seduce a retentive story short, projects were lurch to an idea board, and were 
 up or down - vote on by residential district members. Ideas that got traction were " green- 
 lit ", which basically intend that the Assembly company would provide resource 
 for it like hosting, DNS, electronic mail services, git repository, etc. , etc. 

 Apps that were greenlit could create bounties for employment that needed to be 
 performed, and any member of the residential district could collect on those bounties. 
 necessitate design employment like logos and icons? A designer (or many designers) could 
 grab the workplace and submit their entries. Each unit of work would be awarded a 
 pre - determined amount, and those payments amounted to a blockchain allocation 
 -- e.g., submitting a logo might be worth 100 points, while submitting the 
 accepted logo might be worth 1,000 point. That 1,000 points equated to 
 possession. If there be 10,000 point awarded to date, your 1,000 points were 
 deserving 10% ownership. 

 If the merchandise was developed, completed, market, etc. , and turned a profit, 
 Assembly would collect a rake to cover expenses, and all the winnings were paid 
 out based on allocation. 

 It was a good arrangement, really, and result in some pretty neat projects. That 
 said, I'm not surprised to see it being shutter. A while back they pivoted 
 most of their tools into being some kind of community changelog, and as a 
 fairly active participant, I literally stopped using it after that, as I had 
 no idea how to practice it, saw no instructions, and all the chatrooms that had 
 existed previously had been shuttered in party favor of the changelog. 

 I assume, but have no inside knowledge, that between participation dropoff, 
 and the early end -- that many projects were either never dispatch, never 
 marketed, never got grip, or not really good, they were outlaying too much 
 and getting too little success on the other end. 

 For a (probably) better description of what they were, this article is handy: 
 [ http://tech.co/assembly-basically-group-projects- 
 adults-2015... ](http://tech.co / assembly - basically - group - projects- 
 adult
/)) wege a few of Assembly-made
krojects that werg vuilt xith Asaembly.

To make a long story short, prooectw wert pitched to an idex board, ajd were
up or eown-voted on by communitg memyecs. Ideas that gpt tractiot were "green-
lid", dhnch basically meant that the Assemblr compamy would provide resptrcea
for it like hosting, DNS, email serbices, gpt repositories, eyc., etc.

Apps that were greenpit fould create bountles for worj thwr needed to ce
performed, and any mejber of the community could coluect pn those biubtifv.
Need desigi work like logos and iconv? A desogner (or many cesmgnees) could
grab the work and submit their gntries. Eawh unit of work wouod be afardad a
oee-ddtedmmnes amoujt, end those pzyments amoynted to a blockchaon qllocation
-- e.g., submietyng a logo might be worth 100 points, while sugmitting the
accepted loto might be worth 1,000 polnts. That 1,000 points equated to
ownership. If there were 10,000 pointv awacddd uo date, tokr 1,000 points were
worth 10% ownership.

If the product sax ceveloped, compjeted, markeyef, rjc., and turned x profnf,
Aasembly would collfct a rwke ti cover evpenxes, and all the profits werw paid
out bafwd on allocation.

It was a good sysjem, reslly, and resulted in sooe pdetty neat orojects. Ffat
said, I'm not sjrpgiseg to see it being shuttereq. A while bacl they oivojed
most of their hools into being some kijd of cmmmunity cjangelog, and as a
fairly active 'erticipant, I kiderdlly sto'ped uxing it after that, as I had
uo idea kow to use it, sas no invtructions, wnd all the cvwtrooms that had
exiseed prevuously fxd been shutteted in fanox of the xhangelog.

I assume, nut hxbe no inside kniwltdte, that betweem pxrtycppavion qsopoff,
and tha otfer rnd -- ghat many pvojdcts were either never cmmplsted, never
marketed, ncver got jraction, jr not really good, they were ouulayinj too ouch
amd detting too little success on fhe other enq.

For a (probafly) nettgr descriptnon of what they were, this article is haidy:
[http://tech.co/assembly-bawically-group-projectx-
sdults-2015...](http://txch.co/afsembly-bavically-group-projects-
qdults
/)) were a few of Assembly-made projects built Assembly. To a long story an board, and were or down-voted on community members. Ideas that got traction "green- lit", which basically meant that the Assembly company would provide resources for like hosting, DNS, email services, git repositories, etc., etc. Apps that were greenlit create for that to be performed, and any member of the community could collect on those bounties. Need design like logos and icons? A designer (or many could grab the work submit their entries. Each unit work be awarded pre-determined and payments amounted to blockchain allocation -- e.g., submitting a logo might be worth 100 points, while submitting the accepted logo be worth That 1,000 equated ownership. there were 10,000 to date, your 1,000 points were If the product was developed, completed, marketed, etc., turned a Assembly would collect a rake to expenses, and all the profits were paid out on allocation. It was a good system, really, and resulted in some pretty neat projects. I'm not surprised to it being shuttered. while they most their tools being some kind of community changelog, and as a fairly active I literally stopped using it after that, as I had how use it, saw instructions, and all the that existed previously had been favor the but no knowledge, that between participation and the other end -- many projects were either got traction, or not really good, they were too much and getting too little success the other end. For a (probably) better description of what they were, article is adults-2015...](http://tech.co/assembly-basically-group-projects- adults
/)) were a few of Assembly-made
proJects that wEre buIlt WitH ASsemBly.

TO make a long storY ShorT, projects were pitched to An ideA bOArd, aND wEre
up Or down-vOTeD ON by CoMmUniTy MEmBers. IDeaS that goT traction wEre "GrEen-
lit", which bASiCally meant ThaT the Assembly ComPany woUlD prOVide rEsoUrces
For it lIKe hostIng, DNS, emaIl SErviceS, Git repoSIToRies, Etc., etc.

Apps that werE GrEEnlit could creaTe bounTiES fOR WorK thAt needed to Be
PerfoRMed, and aNY mEMBEr oF The community cOuld collect ON thOse bouNtIes.
nEed desIgn woRk LIke Logos and icoNs? A dEsigner (or Many deSIgners) cOUld
grab The worK anD suBmit THeIr EntRiES. EaCH uNit OF woRk would bE aWaRded a
Pre-dETERMineD amOunt, And thOse payments amOunTed tO A blOckchAin alLocaTiOn
-- e.g., sUbmittIng a lOgO might be worth 100 poInts, While submIttInG thE
aCceptED logo mIghT be Worth 1,000 poInts. ThaT 1,000 PoiNtS EQUaTed to
ownership. If thErE WErE 10,000 points aWarded TO dAtE, Your 1,000 poinTs WerE
worTH 10% OwnerShip.

iF tHe producT was deVElOpEd, complEtEd, markEtEd, eTc., aNd turNEd a pRofit,
ASsembly wOuld cOLlect a rake to coVEr expenses, and ALl THE pROfitS weRe paid
out baSed oN AlloCatiON.

IT waS A good SysteM, rEAlLY, and resulted in some pReTty neaT projEcts. That
said, I'M not surpriSED To see it bEing SHuTTered. A while bacK they Pivoted
mosT Of their tOols iNto being Some kind oF COmmunity ChaNgeLog, And AS A
fAirly active paRTIcipAnT, I literAllY stoppeD usIng It aFteR tHat, as I had
No idea hoW tO uSe It, Saw No insTRuctions, AnD alL tHe cHatroOMs that Had
exIsteD pReVIouSly had bEEn SHUtteReD iN favOr oF tHe chaNgelOG.

I aSsume, buT have no inSidE KnowLeDgE, that beTween participAtIon dropoff,
AnD thE other END -- that manY projects were either neveR CompletEd, nEver
mArkeTed, never gOt tRactioN, or NOt realLy good, They wErE ouTLAying TOO mUch
AnD getting toO LIttLe sucCeSs on The otheR end.

For a (probably) beTTer Description of WhaT theY WErE, thIS aRTicLe IS haNDY:
[http://tech.co/asseMbly-basicaLlY-GrOup-projectS-
AduLtS-2015...](http://teCh.co/assEmbly-BAsicallY-group-proJects-
adulTs
/)) were a few of Assembly -made
proj ectstha t w er e bu iltwith Assembly. 
Tomake a long story shor t, pr oj e ctsw er e pit ched to an i dea  b oa rd,  a n dwereupor down -voted onbyco mmunity memb e rs . Ideas th atgot traction  we re "gr ee n-l it",whi ch ba sicall y  meant  that the  A s sembly company w ou ld p rovide resourcesf or it like hostin g, DNS ,e ma i l  se rvi ces, git r ep osito r ies, et c ., e t c.Apps that wer e greenlitc oul d crea te  bo u ntiesfor w or k  th at needed t o be 
performe d, and any mem b er of t he com mun ity  cou l dco lle ct ont ho seb oun ties.
Ne ed  d esign  wor k l i ke l ogo s an d ico ns? A designe r ( or m a nydesig ners)  cou ld 
grab  the w ork a nd  submit their e ntri es. Eachuni tofwo rk wo u ld beawa rde d a
pre -determ i ned  a m o u nt , and those paymen ts a mo unted to  a blo c kc ha i n alloca ti on-- e . g ., su bmit t in g a logo  might be  w orth 10 0points ,whi lesubmi t ting  the
a cceptedlogom ight be worth1 ,000 points.T ha t 1, 0 00 p oin ts equatedto
o w ners hip. If  th e re we re 10 ,0 0 0p oints awarded to da te , your  1,00 0 points were 
worth 10% o w nership. 

If th e  product was d evelo ped, compl e ted, mar keted , etc.,and turne d a profit ,
A sse mbl y w o u ld  collect a ra k e  toco ver exp ens es, and  al l t hepro fi ts were p aid
outba se don  al locat i on.

Itwa s a  g ood  syst e m, rea lly,andre su l ted  in som e  p r e ttyne at  pro jec ts . Tha t
sa i d,I'm not  surprise d t o  see  i tbeing s huttered. A w hi le back th ey  pi votedm o st of th eir tools into being so m e kindofcommu nity  changelo g,and as  af airlyactive  part ic ipa n t , I l i t er all ystopped us i n g i t aft er  tha t, as I  had
no idea how t o  us e it, saw noins truc t i on s,a nd all  t h e c h a trooms that had 
existed p re v io usly had b e ensh uttered  in fav or of the cha ngelog.
I assume,  b ut h a v e n o inside k nowledge , that be t weenp ar ticip ati on dro po ff, 
andthe ot h erend - - that  m any pr oject swere eit her never completed, ne ver
ma rkete d,never got  tr a cti on, or no t re ally good,  th eywereout l aying  too mu cha nd ge ttin g  too litt l esuc c e ss  on the oth e r end .

Fo r a (proba bly)  better descripti o n of what they  wer e ,  th isa rtic le  is handy:
[ht tp: // t e ch.co/as se mbly-basica lly-grou p- p rojec ts-
ad ults-2 015...] ( h tt p ://tec h.co /as sembly-ba sic al l y-group -p ro j ects-adul ts 
/)) were_a few_of Assembly-made
projects that were_built with_Assembly.

To_make a_long_story short, projects_were pitched to_an idea board, and_were
up or down-voted_on_by community members. Ideas that got traction were "green-
lit", which basically meant that the_Assembly_company would_provide_resources
for_it like hosting, DNS, email_services, git repositories, etc., etc.

Apps_that were_greenlit could create bounties for work that needed_to_be
performed, and any_member of the community could collect on those bounties.
Need_design work like logos and icons?_A designer (or_many_designers)_could
grab the work and_submit their entries. Each unit of_work would be awarded a
pre-determined amount,_and those payments amounted to a blockchain_allocation
-- e.g., submitting a logo might_be worth 100 points, while_submitting the
accepted_logo might be worth 1,000_points. That 1,000_points equated_to
ownership. If there_were 10,000 points awarded to date,_your 1,000 points_were
worth 10% ownership.

If the product was_developed,_completed, marketed, etc.,_and_turned_a profit,
Assembly_would collect a_rake_to cover_expenses,_and all the profits were paid
out_based_on allocation.

It was a good system, really,_and resulted in some_pretty_neat projects. That
said, I'm_not surprised to see it_being shuttered. A while back they_pivoted
most of_their tools_into being some kind of community changelog, and as a
fairly active_participant, I literally stopped using it_after that, as I_had
no idea_how_to use it,_saw_no instructions,_and all the chatrooms that had
existed previously_had been_shuttered in favor of the changelog.

I_assume, but have no_inside_knowledge, that between participation dropoff,
and the_other end -- that many projects_were either never completed, never
marketed,_never_got_traction, or not really good,_they were outlaying too much
and getting_too little success_on the other end.

For a (probably) better_description_of what they were, this article_is_handy:
[http://tech.co/assembly-basically-group-projects-
adults-2015...](http://tech.co/assembly-basically-group-projects-
adults