I'm not arguing against transparency or accountability.  I'm just pointing out that you constantly phrase things in a misleading manner.

BTW, being the new leader of PTS, when do you plan on giving us your real-life identity ?

Quote from: alphaBar on November 06, 2014, 04:52:56 am

Quote from: gamey on November 06, 2014, 04:39:16 am

Quote from: alphaBar on November 06, 2014, 04:05:05 am

Quote from: NewMine on November 06, 2014, 03:39:10 am

I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.

We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely. Not only that, but we are arguing against using our very own product to make it happen. No rational person could argue that this is unfair. If you're a developer, you get Dan or 2 other devs to sign off on your vest every month. Simple, effective, and completely obvious. Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.

Outside of your issues with Dan giving grants to developers, "performance-based compensation" has not been "abandoned completely". 

I'm really starting to question your motives.  You say so many things that it almost seems you're more about the FUD than the truth.

How can this be FUD? These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...

Have it your way.  If choosing to view it as a year-end bonus for their roles in implementing the Crypto Product of the Year makes it acceptable in your sight, then having it done in such a way that also incentivizes continued support of the product ought to make you ecstatic.  On top of it all there are tax planning aspects and transition to the new developer funding model and the associated renegotiation of their original hiring packages that must be considered.  It is not customary to make any such compensation package negotiations public, beyond a simple transparent declaration of what is being done.

Quote from: alphaBar on November 06, 2014, 04:52:56 am

Quote from: gamey on November 06, 2014, 04:39:16 am

Quote from: alphaBar on November 06, 2014, 04:05:05 am

Quote from: NewMine on November 06, 2014, 03:39:10 am

I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.

We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely. Not only that, but we are arguing against using our very own product to make it happen. No rational person could argue that this is unfair. If you're a developer, you get Dan or 2 other devs to sign off on your vest every month. Simple, effective, and completely obvious. Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.

Outside of your issues with Dan giving grants to developers, "performance-based compensation" has not been "abandoned completely". 

I'm really starting to question your motives.  You say so many things that it almost seems you're more about the FUD than the truth.

How can this be FUD? These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...

Have it your way.  If choosing to view it as a year-end bonus for their roles in implementing the Crypto Product of the Year makes it acceptable in your sight, then having it done in such a way that also incentivizes continued support of the product ought to make you ecstatic.  On top of it all there are tax planning aspects and transition to the new developer funding model and the associated renegotiation of their original hiring packages that must be considered.  It is not customary to make any such compensation package negotiations public, beyond a simple transparent declaration of what is being done.

Quote from: alphaBar on November 06, 2014, 04:05:05 am

Quote from: NewMine on November 06, 2014, 03:39:10 am

I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.

We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely. Not only that, but we are arguing against using our very own product to make it happen. No rational person could argue that this is unfair. If you're a developer, you get Dan or 2 other devs to sign off on your vest every month. Simple, effective, and completely obvious. Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.

Outside of your issues with Dan giving grants to developers, "performance-based compensation" has not been "abandoned completely". 

I'm really starting to question your motives.  You say so many things that it almost seems you're more about the FUD than the truth.

Quote from: NewMine on November 06, 2014, 03:39:10 am

I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.

We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely. Not only that, but we are arguing against using our very own product to make it happen. No rational person could argue that this is unfair. If you're a developer, you get Dan or 2 other devs to sign off on your vest every month. Simple, effective, and completely obvious. Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.

I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.

Quote from: bytemaster on November 05, 2014, 10:59:41 pm

I have given Valentine, Nathan, Vikram, and Toast each 30K PTS so they have a vested (literally) interest in seeing BTS grow.

We are very much into "no contracts" and "trust based" allocation of resources.   Each of these guys has proven their loyalty to the project and the greater cause and their passion is undeniable. 

You want independent developers making decisions and I have selected these guys as an independent team that I want to have financial independence.

They will be taking paid delegate positions, but I am limiting it to one delegate each which at 30K/year is only 20% of what they could be making and takes nothing into consideration for the extra risks in this industry.   

In other words, giving them the funds makes things more secure and further decentralizes the process.

but 30K PTS not only means the right to have a vested interest in BTS, but also means the right to obtain shares of 3rd party DACs. The chinese community have noticed this point and thought this would confuse the message to the market. Because anyone can spread words like 'the core devs would have incentives to support 3rd party DAC, rather than BTS'