Author Topic: Angel funds being given away by I3 - no transparency, input, or explanation?  (Read 22951 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
I never asked for anyone's time, money, or their especially their trust. My arguments stand on their own. Let's not use strawman arguments about accounting for "every dollar" that is spent. I never suggested that. I simply stated that (i) a clear disclosure of what is happening with the funds and (ii) ongoing accountability is necessary to prevent FUD. And yes, I am upset that I was asking nicely, privately and publicly, for the past couple of weeks and got no clear response. Then I saw it on the blockchain and here we are. In fact, we still don't know what the plan is for the funds (in aggregate, not dollar-for-dollar)...

I would prefer they keep it a secret. *I know, ME...the hater of ALL SECRETS! :P*

Why?  Because sometimes we have to trust these Brilliant guys to recognize moments in time when divulging their plans could potentially clue competitors in on strategies being used.  Let's remember in this space that there are many competitors who would gladly (and have gladly) taken it upon themselves to use the openness of this community and the dev team against us.  I personally have become a bit impatient with watching our investment capital be burned to enable innovations just to have a competitor listen to our hangouts or read some of Dan's posts...and then copy/claim the innovation as their own.  I understand your frustrations though....as at heart I am one of the people who this "secrecy" stuff seems to hit hardest--at least on most levels.  Let's say I've been largely forced by reality to start evolving those opinions.

Nailed it.  +5%

Yes, me too. Even once the delegates are the only institution left in BitShares, it won't be completely run by democracy and consensus. Sure, the voters can vote out anyone they choose at any point, so that is the ultimate control. But a gigantic town hall is a wasteful way to make every single decision. I want someone to make decisive choices, not check with me about when they should eat breakfast or use the potty. I strongly favor a representative model or even a trustee model. Ask for my vote, I'll trust you to handle the responsibility and do your job for a term, you make the decisions and communicate to me regularly, and when it comes time, I'll decide if you're doing the job I elected you to do. 

Offline hpenvy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
I never asked for anyone's time, money, or their especially their trust. My arguments stand on their own. Let's not use strawman arguments about accounting for "every dollar" that is spent. I never suggested that. I simply stated that (i) a clear disclosure of what is happening with the funds and (ii) ongoing accountability is necessary to prevent FUD. And yes, I am upset that I was asking nicely, privately and publicly, for the past couple of weeks and got no clear response. Then I saw it on the blockchain and here we are. In fact, we still don't know what the plan is for the funds (in aggregate, not dollar-for-dollar)...

I would prefer they keep it a secret. *I know, ME...the hater of ALL SECRETS! :P*

Why?  Because sometimes we have to trust these Brilliant guys to recognize moments in time when divulging their plans could potentially clue competitors in on strategies being used.  Let's remember in this space that there are many competitors who would gladly (and have gladly) taken it upon themselves to use the openness of this community and the dev team against us.  I personally have become a bit impatient with watching our investment capital be burned to enable innovations just to have a competitor listen to our hangouts or read some of Dan's posts...and then copy/claim the innovation as their own.  I understand your frustrations though....as at heart I am one of the people who this "secrecy" stuff seems to hit hardest--at least on most levels.  Let's say I've been largely forced by reality to start evolving those opinions.

Nailed it.  +5%
=============
btsx address: hpenvy
Tips appreciated for good work

Offline fuzzy

I never asked for anyone's time, money, or their especially their trust. My arguments stand on their own. Let's not use strawman arguments about accounting for "every dollar" that is spent. I never suggested that. I simply stated that (i) a clear disclosure of what is happening with the funds and (ii) ongoing accountability is necessary to prevent FUD. And yes, I am upset that I was asking nicely, privately and publicly, for the past couple of weeks and got no clear response. Then I saw it on the blockchain and here we are. In fact, we still don't know what the plan is for the funds (in aggregate, not dollar-for-dollar)...

I would prefer they keep it a secret. *I know, ME...the hater of ALL SECRETS! :P*

Why?  Because sometimes we have to trust these Brilliant guys to recognize moments in time when divulging their plans could potentially clue competitors in on strategies being used.  Let's remember in this space that there are many competitors who would gladly (and have gladly) taken it upon themselves to use the openness of this community and the dev team against us.  I personally have become a bit impatient with watching our investment capital be burned to enable innovations just to have a competitor listen to our hangouts or read some of Dan's posts...and then copy/claim the innovation as their own.  I understand your frustrations though....as at heart I am one of the people who this "secrecy" stuff seems to hit hardest--at least on most levels.  Let's say I've been largely forced by reality to start evolving those opinions.
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
I never asked for anyone's time, money, or their especially their trust. My arguments stand on their own. Let's not use strawman arguments about accounting for "every dollar" that is spent. I never suggested that. I simply stated that (i) a clear disclosure of what is happening with the funds and (ii) ongoing accountability is necessary to prevent FUD. And yes, I am upset that I was asking nicely, privately and publicly, for the past couple of weeks and got no clear response. Then I saw it on the blockchain and here we are. In fact, we still don't know what the plan is for the funds (in aggregate, not dollar-for-dollar)...

zerosum

  • Guest
The marketers have been off of payroll as well and their own conditional lump sums arranged by Dan. Before there would have been no way to responsibly pay for additional marketing because I don't trust dan to spend it well.

I think the real transparency problems come from the fact that I don't think you guys appreciate how quickly we would have to switch to dilution to pay in any case.

I haven't looked at the spreadsheets for a while - how much money do you think was in the AGS fund before and after this lastest expenditure?
I wish, you and I did not have to ask this question.
So how much?

373,063 PTS  Before 120,000 PTS paid to the 4 core developers.  253,063 PTS after that.
3,775 BTC   Actual BTC + BTSX bought, BTSX included by their bases (purchase price + fees)

The above are only received originally (some converted to BTSX in market operations) and unspent.
To this we must add BTSX, DNS and VOTE received by the fund for being a PTS holder (I will appreciate if somebody provides me with a link to that doc. if it exists of course)
« Last Edit: November 06, 2014, 07:35:21 pm by tonyk2 »

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
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...
  +5%
You are not the only one not trusting alphaBar.

I don't trust him either. Doubting and questioning are healthy. But those can be done in a friendly, civil way. If he's got reasonable arguments, then why does he need to lead every freaking thread with a sensationalized headline attacking BitShares? For someone who has a 'vested interest' in BitShares' success, he's succeeding in wasting a lot of peoples' time that could better be spent elsewhere. Doing more harm than good.

zerosum

  • Guest
The marketers have been off of payroll as well and their own conditional lump sums arranged by Dan. Before there would have been no way to responsibly pay for additional marketing because I don't trust dan to spend it well.

I think the real transparency problems come from the fact that I don't think you guys appreciate how quickly we would have to switch to dilution to pay in any case.

I haven't looked at the spreadsheets for a while - how much money do you think was in the AGS fund before and after this lastest expenditure?
I wish, you and I did not have to ask this question.
So how much?

« Last Edit: November 06, 2014, 07:04:58 pm by tonyk2 »

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
The marketers have been off of payroll as well and their own conditional lump sums arranged by Dan. Before there would have been no way to responsibly pay for additional marketing because I don't trust dan to spend it well.

I think the real transparency problems come from the fact that I don't think you guys appreciate how quickly we would have to switch to dilution to pay in any case.

I haven't looked at the spreadsheets for a while - how much money do you think was in the AGS fund before and after this lastest expenditure?
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • 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 ...

FTFY
It's quite clear those funds will not be used for Marketing as they are now putting the onus on income/cash strapped delegates to do the leg work that was supposed to be done by I3. There are multiple "marketing delegates" that would love to do something but just can't because they didn't have 30k PTS each or 5k BTC and to expect otherwise is ridiculous and laughable. The intention of the donations were all encompassing to the project. Now those funds have been locked into the pockets of a few Devs who some most likely won't be around in 2 years unless market share and participation  skyrocket. As Toast said, he could make $150k at google, but out of the goodness of his heart, he choose to work on Bitshares. Without adoption and appreciation the opportunity cost Toast and the others so carefully weighed will begin to teeter the other way and then they will be gone. With out marketing and adoption this will be for not. BTC has the market share and invested innovators spending money to keep it going strong. Stronger than Bitshares and the minimal amounts of cash delegates will be able to spend on marketing. As of the end of the month a marketing delegate will be able to max out at 50 BTS per block. At current dollar prices, that is equal to $2k per month gross if ALL BTS is converted to the dollar. Then they will have to set aside taxes, rent, food, and wait, there is nothing left and no time to do anything because they still have to work a regular job just to support their family.
What should have happened is, get rid of the vesting period for PTS and dole out the BTS from those PTS to marketing delegates on a monthly basis. This way you could see the work being done and continue to pay them if they keep doing their job. Then you could also pay the Devs a monthly stipend too. As BTS rises, you are paying out a smaller number of BTS shares, stretching the amount of funds you have to actually pay out over future times. As of now, you put all the appreciation into those who have already been paid for what they have done all in the form of a blank check for services not yet rendered.

I am with Alphabar. You need transparency and safety nets.

Offline testz

Accountability yes, but the I3 team doesn't have to post on the forum every time they want to spend a dollar.  That would annoy the shit out of everyone.   You donated the money because you trusted that they would competently manage it.  Those were the terms you agreed to.

Exactly  +5%

Offline Chuckone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
    • View Profile
I remember clearly the "no strings attached" wording used by I3 regarding the funds that were donated for AGS. It wasn't a contract, nobody who donated was entitled to anything other than the good faith of the DAC developpers who would apply the social concensus, and thus the shares from the DACs were "gifts". Anybody who gave to the AGS fund knew that from the beginning. It wasn't a pre-sale in all the future DACs. When you do a donation, you trust the entity that receives the funds to spend them wisely and efficiently. From the information bytemaster and toast provided us, the spirit of the AGS fund has been applied properly.

Total accountability and transparency for each dollar given to each developer is not something that was guaranteed from the beginning. That's why I believe hitting the same nail again and again regarding this issue is worthless.

For these reasons based on FACTS, I believe this is a non-issue.

Disclaimer: I'm an AGS donator. For what it's worth, I believe the funds are properly managed.

Offline sschechter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
    • View Profile
Accountability yes, but the I3 team doesn't have to post on the forum every time they want to spend a dollar.  That would annoy the shit out of everyone.   You donated the money because you trusted that they would competently manage it.  Those were the terms you agreed to.  Get over it.  Please tell me alphaBar that you donated to AGS right?
BTSX: sschechter
PTS: PvBUyPrDRkJLVXZfvWjdudRtQgv1Fcy5Qe

Offline jamesc

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.

Congrats on the delegate positions .. I'm happy to know that Nathan, Vikram, and Valentine are more secure in their positions to help the bitshares grow!  Funny, no one has brought up you Dan.  You need a salary too!  We don't expect you to work for free do we?

Offline joele

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
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...

Obviously +5%

Offline vegolino

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Reality is Information
    • View Profile
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...
  +5%
You are not the only one not trusting alphaBar.