Author Topic: Angel funds being given away by I3 - no transparency, input, or explanation?  (Read 22961 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fuzzy

You are making this way more complicated than it really is:

OK, so Dan has just found a stack of green paper while shredding the Invictus paperwork before the inevitable SEC letter arrives:

Dan has only a few options (remember, those SEC letters (IRS audit) will be arriving soon, and he will have to answer it or he will wind up like Peter Schiff’s dad). 

Very aware of this, but none of it precludes having some accountability with the funds or at least letting us know in advance. As for the bickering, this is not a political debate and I have no interest in playing politics. If I see something happening that is not in the best interest of the community I will voice my concern, which is what I've done publicly and privately over the past couple of weeks, and to no avail.

Though I understand your concern and think it is not a bad idea to voice it, there comes a point when the community gives its opinion and one must walk away understanding they are in the short fork so-to-speak.  The case would be far different if Invictus had intentionally an provably done something with funds in the past that potentially hurt bitshares holders.  But honestly every decision Invictus has made seems like the best possible one given the range of options given at the time that decision was made...well unless this Marketing Push doesn't pan out, in which case I might have to withdraw this comment in the future.

Nothing is perfect and though I am certain people appreciate your concern (I am an AGS holder btw), Invictus has provided me with a great deal of value in return for my trust already.  Like I said to you before, however...and will say it again.  We can continue holding Mumble hangouts to log this piece of history to help give context to shareholders over time.  If you are interested I am always down. 

You are making this way more complicated than it really is:

OK, so Dan has just found a stack of green paper while shredding the Invictus paperwork before the inevitable SEC letter arrives:

Dan has only a few options (remember, those SEC letters (IRS audit) will be arriving soon, and he will have to answer it or he will wind up like Peter Schiff’s dad). 

Now this decision would be easy if BitShares Vote was finished, but it is not yet, therefore, he has only 4 different options:

1.   Shred the green paper like counterparty did
2.   Keep the money
3.   Give the money back to AGS/PTS/BTS holders
4.   Give the money to some devs so that he can stay in Vegas while they build Voltron

There are no other options here that will not resemble one of those 4 to the IRS.

What would you do if you were Dan?

And please be honest.

You are either going to keep the money and fight the government, or give it away, along with all the legal liability that it is burdened with.

And since you don’t feel like going to jail and playing shake-weight, who then, would you give it to?

If you can't think of a better answer than Toast and the devs who brought us here, then please sink this thread, and lets please move on to some real issues like the major security flaw that cost our fellow freedom fighter over a million BTS:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10877.0

or how will we be introducing ourselves to the community who is knocking at our door:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=848182.0;all

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11017.0



« Last Edit: November 06, 2014, 10:31:22 am by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline jae208

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
    • View Profile
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.

It is very customary in some open projects to have full income transparency. Gotta shift away from the "corporate" mentality.

If I remember correctly in Mozilla peers vote on who gets what % of the bonus and people know each other's compensation. (I've only heard that I haven't actually verified it, so I could be wrong, but I like the idea regardless)

 +5%

Weren't they trying to trademark the Bitshares name?
I thought the same, about shifting away from corporate mentality and in all fairness that seems to be exactly what is happening. Instead of working for I3 they will be working for Bitshares DAC where delegates whether they are developers, marketers, or simply block signers could get fired by the masses.

Might be easier said than done as a massive coordination of the masses would have to take place.
http://bitsharestutorials.com A work in progress
Subscribe to the Youtube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/BitsharesTutorials

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
You are making this way more complicated than it really is:

OK, so Dan has just found a stack of green paper while shredding the Invictus paperwork before the inevitable SEC letter arrives:

Dan has only a few options (remember, those SEC letters (IRS audit) will be arriving soon, and he will have to answer it or he will wind up like Peter Schiff’s dad). 

Very aware of this, but none of it precludes having some accountability with the funds or at least letting us know in advance. As for the bickering, this is not a political debate and I have no interest in playing politics. If I see something happening that is not in the best interest of the community I will voice my concern, which is what I've done publicly and privately over the past couple of weeks, and to no avail.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
I find it ridiculous that any time someone asks a critical question they get the feeling as if they just stirred a hornet's nest. I think the questions alpha Bar is asking are healthy let's not alienate critical thinking.

Yes, but this is misconstruing the criticisms.  Please reread the specific quotes people were referencing when we accused him of FUDing.  It had nothing to do with his points which are perfectly valid to have.  I can assure you that Alphabar is smart enough to know how to type in a more precise manner if he desires.  For some reason he appears not to do so. 

I also think that for a guy who is the new public face of PTS, we need a real identity. Transparency and all that.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Come on guys. There are some good points here. Yes some sounded like FUD, but I don't think there were any ill intentions.
I also do think BTS is making a step in the right direction.

Let's be constructive here - these points are actually very important going forward. What was was. No need to split hairs over what was.
Now the question is how will this be handled in the future. Let's not name call anyone who brings constructive criticism to the table a FUDder.

Is there a term for anti-FUDders? :) I find it ridiculous that any time someone asks a critical question they get the feeling as if they just stirred a hornet's nest. I think the questions alpha Bar is asking are healthy let's not alienate critical thinking.

Offline fuzzy

I don't trust at all this "alphaBar" guy and I don't think I'm the only one here, everyone should be extra careful when dealing with those "new" PTS of his. Unwillingness to identity himself says it all, I can bet that he is just trying to  pump the price of PTS after the snapshot so he can dump them at a good price. Also I can see some similarities in his "thinking" with another guy he had here in the forum, it might be just coincidence but I'm just saying...

These things are always possible.  I cannot say either way.  In the mumble he seemed like a legit guy, but sometimes he definitely comes off as a bit too accusatory to the guys at invictus on these forums.  Of course i'm not really one to speak because sometimes I come off that way too. 

With that said, I honestly think that whoever keeps PTS alive should be voted in by the stakeholders as this isn't something that our community wants to let go...and I think the means by which someone chooses to control it should not be dictated by their simple willingness to do so.

PTS, like it or not, is an attack vector that has now been opened up against Invictus and BTS ecosystem. I'm not altogether saying that competition is bad, just saying that whoever resurrects it should be AT LEAST as transparent as Invictus has been.
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
There is nothing in this discussion worth talking over on Mumble.  We've stated our sides.  Arguing on mumble is pointless.  We don't even particularly disagree about much that is relevant to Bitshares.
I speak for myself and only myself.

chryspano

  • Guest
I don't trust at all this "alphaBar" guy and I don't think I'm the only one here, everyone should be extra careful when dealing with those "new" PTS of his. Unwillingness to identity himself says it all, I can bet that he is just trying to  pump the price of PTS after the snapshot so he can dump them at a good price. Also I can see some similarities in his "thinking" with another guy he had here in the forum, it might be just coincidence but I'm just saying...

Offline fuzzy

We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely.
Quote from: alphaBar

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 ...

Read the above quote.  The whole dilution system is not "completely abandoning" "performance based compensation".  When I talked with you on mumble that one night, you were a lot more select in your wording and came across as quite reasonable.  On these forums though, you use every post you can to phrase things in a misleading manner.  I mean even Toast said he agreed with you, yet you're still going at it.

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

It is almost like you wanted us on your side in Mumble, so you sweet talked about your desires and wishes etc.  Then on here it is just constantly trying to imply I3 is out to screw us. 

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

* Toast agreed with me, but you accused me of spreading FUD. The response was directed to you, not him.
* I'm not implying anything, just making a factual statement that there was no clear public disclosure, the money was moved, and the sparse details that were provided implied that there would be no accountability.
* I am not leading the PTS effort at all. Lots of people smarter than me and whom I have no association with are doing the real work. I'm just a user with an opinion.

*Toast agreed with one of your ideas but that is not relevant to my accusation of you  FUDing with your wording.  Go re-read the thread and people pointed out other things you said.  Now you go into obtuse mode and purposefully conflate crap.

*Again, you did imply things.  I can go back and quote them.  This is what you did in the other thread.  We all get angry, but there seems to be more at play here.

*You aren't leading the PTS effort ?  You went off setup a new forum.  Put up your own money for marketing materials.  You come around here making demands of I3 for your version of PTS. 

There is another thread on here where we got into it, because you practically demanded that every delegate give everyone their real id. So I think it would be completely reasonable for you to give us your identity given the position you've put yourself in in regards to being the new leader of PTS.

If not then I just sit back and think WTF is going on!?

God this is going to be an amazing mumble session. 

You guys are both online...and have access to mumble.  Let's join up, rock this and try our best to iron it out.  We can post it for openness and for the historical record.  Alphabar brings up valid points, but I tend to trust invictus' a little more (i think).  They have gotten us this far!
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline fuzzy

* I am not leading the PTS effort at all. Lots of people smarter than me and whom I have no association with are doing the real work. I'm just a user with an opinion.

I was not aware of this^

With that said, there is some good reason to uphold some level of privacy for the entire bitshares development team.  I mean they are in number 4 on coinmarketcap and have proven their abilities to produce some amazing stuff. 

* Toast agreed with me, but you accused me of spreading FUD. The response was directed to you, not him.
I didn't read him accusing you...just pointing to a couple irregularities between your conduct on Mumble as opposed to here on the forums.  I can agree with that and in fact you even agreed with it in Mumble!  Or...err..rather you agreed that Mumble helped you state your case without sounding so accusatory yourself! ;)


* I'm not implying anything, just making a factual statement that there was no clear public disclosure, the money was moved, and the sparse details that were provided implied that there would be no accountability.
What are competing projects doing in this regard?  Is payment being disclosed openly for projects like Ethereum, for instance?  Truly the only place I am potentially frustrated is with marketing...and I am as patient with this team and fanboyish as they come!

There IS a case for keeping these things private...to ensure the competition doesn't simply walk in and buy the Invictus crew out (not that I am questioning loyalties)...
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely.
Quote from: alphaBar

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 ...

Read the above quote.  The whole dilution system is not "completely abandoning" "performance based compensation".  When I talked with you on mumble that one night, you were a lot more select in your wording and came across as quite reasonable.  On these forums though, you use every post you can to phrase things in a misleading manner.  I mean even Toast said he agreed with you, yet you're still going at it.

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

It is almost like you wanted us on your side in Mumble, so you sweet talked about your desires and wishes etc.  Then on here it is just constantly trying to imply I3 is out to screw us. 

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

* Toast agreed with me, but you accused me of spreading FUD. The response was directed to you, not him.
* I'm not implying anything, just making a factual statement that there was no clear public disclosure, the money was moved, and the sparse details that were provided implied that there would be no accountability.
* I am not leading the PTS effort at all. Lots of people smarter than me and whom I have no association with are doing the real work. I'm just a user with an opinion.

*Toast agreed with one of your ideas but that is not relevant to my accusation of you  FUDing with your wording.  Go re-read the thread and people pointed out other things you said.  Now you go into obtuse mode and purposefully conflate crap.

*Again, you did imply things.  I can go back and quote them.  This is what you did in the other thread.  We all get angry, but there seems to be more at play here.

*You aren't leading the PTS effort ?  You went off setup a new forum.  Put up your own money for marketing materials.  You come around here making demands of I3 for your version of PTS. 

There is another thread on here where we got into it, because you practically demanded that every delegate give everyone their real id. So I think it would be completely reasonable for you to give us your identity given the position you've put yourself in in regards to being the new leader of PTS.

If not then I just sit back and think WTF is going on!?
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely.
Quote from: alphaBar

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 ...

Read the above quote.  The whole dilution system is not "completely abandoning" "performance based compensation".  When I talked with you on mumble that one night, you were a lot more select in your wording and came across as quite reasonable.  On these forums though, you use every post you can to phrase things in a misleading manner.  I mean even Toast said he agreed with you, yet you're still going at it.

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

It is almost like you wanted us on your side in Mumble, so you sweet talked about your desires and wishes etc.  Then on here it is just constantly trying to imply I3 is out to screw us. 

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

* Toast agreed with me, but you accused me of spreading FUD. The response was directed to you, not him.
* I'm not implying anything, just making a factual statement that there was no clear public disclosure, the money was moved, and the sparse details that were provided implied that there would be no accountability.
* I am not leading the PTS effort at all. Lots of people smarter than me and whom I have no association with are doing the real work. I'm just a user with an opinion.

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
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 ...

Angel funds are donation and I3 clearly stated many many times that they could use it as they see fit, for some reason you always completely ignore that part in every accusation you make ... talking about biassed
However
Out of all your post in this tread this is something that I agree with and should be pointed out, even though no strings attached to angel funds, clearly communicating  how they will be spend I think it is important.Given that they were and are very open to every decision they made ( perhaps too open),  I firmly  believe they probably were planning to announce it eventually.

Isn't this entirely clear?  To recognize outstanding performance and reinforce the status of four of the industry's most accomplished developers as independent agents, furthering our goals of complete decentralization at the developer level, and strengthening their ability and motivation to live off a single delegate's salary until such time as the market cap quadruples raising those salaries back to their current modest levels?

In the end, we promised to use our best judgement.  This is our best judgement.

This is very clear and I very much agree.
The only problem is we learn it only after Alphabar started up this tread,witch, as we can see could lead to confusion and false accusations.

Offline fuzzy

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.

I asked the question many, many times and received no straight answer. What I do know I pieced together based on the blockchain and our private conversations, so there was definitely no "transparent declaration". I still do not know for sure whether the whole fund is going to be divided up, and for what purpose (X% for buying out the original packages, Y% for future dev). I still believe firmly that funds paid for future work should be tied to compensation, and I've proposed a simple method of doing so.

Can we talk about this this Friday?  I am starting to think maybe Mumble is the best place to discuss these things rationally.  Forums tend to leave us with a serious lack of tact and are not best suited for efficient, rational communication. 

WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
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 ...

Angel funds are donation and I3 clearly stated many many times that they could use it as they see fit, for some reason you always completely ignore that part in every accusation you make ... talking about biassed
However
Out of all your post in this tread this is something that I agree with and should be pointed out, even though no strings attached to angel funds, clearly communicating  how they will be spend I think it is important.Given that they were and are very open to every decision they made ( perhaps too open),  I firmly  believe they probably were planning to announce it eventually.

Isn't this entirely clear?  To recognize outstanding performance and reinforce the status of four of the industry's most accomplished developers as independent agents, furthering our goals of complete decentralization at the developer level, and strengthening their ability and motivation to live off a single delegate's salary until such time as the market cap quadruples raising those salaries back to their current modest levels?

In the end, we promised to use our best judgement.  This is our best judgement.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2014, 05:55:00 am by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.