Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Have we passed a centralization tipping point?  (Read 1420 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fluxer555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 717
    • View Profile
Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« on: October 26, 2014, 01:27:03 PM »

For transparency reasons, I think this is important for shareholders to know how much BTS I3 will own after November 5th. It is possible that we may have passed a tipping point of shareholder centralization.

Consider this:

- I3 were some of the first to mine PTS, and also did not dump despite massive gains.
- I3 gained massive PTS during the AngelShares donation period
- Members of I3 undoubtedly donated their own "personal" funds (aka mined + purchased PTS) to the AngelShares address
- There is no distinction between 'I3 funds' and 'personal funds of I3 members' as far as voting is concerned.

In other words, every PTS that I3 donated to the AngelShares address gave them extra voting power, at absolutely no cost.

On top of all this, I3 has been purchasing BTSX with AGS BTC, giving them even more voting power.

If the direction of the BTS SuperDac is to be determined by vote, then we may as well all sit back, grab some popcorn, and let I3 run the show. (Many of you want this, maybe?)

To seal the deal, decisions for wealth redistribution (aka inflation via delegates) are determined by vote, and now all of I3 want to be hired as inflationary delegates. Can you see where this is going?

I propose that I3 should not be able to vote with BTS derived from AGS and PTS donated to the Angel address, and BTSX/BTS purchased from AGS BTC. While I'm still not sure if this saves us from passing a centralization tipping point, this at least makes the situation far more reasonable.

I also propose that we don't hire I3 immediately and redistribute wealth to them. In fact, the vesting plan they have set out is effectively going to act as a paced redistribution toward I3, as they have the most BTS to be released over the next two years. After the snapshot, we will be able to determine the effective inflation rate that I3 will have without even being hired.

I3, what percentage of BTS will you have control over after Nov 5th?
« Last Edit: October 26, 2014, 01:35:55 PM by fluxer555 »

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12241
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2014, 01:39:43 PM »
I3 also has the expenses in terms of paying developers ... toast, nathan, vikram, Stan, and some others on the team .. such that the funds of I3 are spread among the people that are working (hard) for the BitShares ecosystem..

Also, I3 will be dismantled as soon as the funds from AGS and others are depleted (read: "spread/pay towards the developers")
Once, the developers work for the blockchain and get payed by "capital infusion" there will be no more I3 .. and all funds that are owned by I3 will be gone

the only thing left will be the individual funds that developers hold in there private pocket .. and to be honest .. they deserve any penny/larimer ..

However, for transparency Stan should consider upgrading the google docs to reflect all AGS funds:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqTwk-e7yzJydDFnQmlkTVlkbWpubnJBbzR2UG5ucnc&usp=sharing#gid=0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqTwk-e7yzJydFZ3bVVWT0o1OUwzXzdESHFBY0FkUWc&usp=sharing#gid=0
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline fluxer555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 717
    • View Profile
Re: Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2014, 02:07:47 PM »
Once, the developers work for the blockchain and get payed by "capital infusion" there will be no more I3 .. and all funds that are owned by I3 will be gone

Firstly, inflation is not "capital infusion". It's a redistribution of wealth. No new money is entering the system, and the market cap does not increase as a result.

Secondly, when I say 'I3', I'm not talking about the company. I'm talking about the stake that make up I3, because this is what matters for voting. If I3 is made up of developers, and the AGS fund is used to pay those developers, then that does not help diversify the voting power.

I just want to be clear that I have no doubt that the dev team are doing an amazing job, and it is in my opinion that they have good intentions. But this isn't about opinion, this is about centralization and game theory.

Offline sudo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2219
    • View Profile
  • BTS: ags
Re: Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2014, 02:12:30 PM »
AGS fund belongs to who?
& who have the rights to use?

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BTS: methodx
Re: Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2014, 02:12:42 PM »
I've had these same concerns myself. Invictus already has the power to vote in and out delegates at will. While I believe they have every right to "own" the first unmanned company, I know it will be a massive criticism levied against them. The community only has the illusion of influence.

Offline bytemaster

Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2014, 02:35:22 PM »
Once, the developers work for the blockchain and get payed by "capital infusion" there will be no more I3 .. and all funds that are owned by I3 will be gone

Firstly, inflation is not "capital infusion". It's a redistribution of wealth. No new money is entering the system, and the market cap does not increase as a result.

I suppose you value developers time a 0 then?    Are they supposed to transfer value of their time and opportunity cost to everyone else for free. 

Suppose developers went on strike you would want to hire new devs right?  Who should pay for it?  Doesn't the market cap grow as a result of developer effort?
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline James212

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2014, 02:42:37 PM »
 
Quote
author=fluxer555 link=topic=10583.msg139218#msg139218 date=1414332467]

Quote
Firstly, inflation is not "capital infusion". It's a redistribution of wealth. No new money is entering the system, and the market cap does not increase as a result.

The "inflation" is not just given away. It is traded for performance of the devs which adds value to the DAC,  which ,yes, should/will result in increase market cap. 


« Last Edit: October 26, 2014, 02:48:56 PM by James212 »
BTS: theangelwaveproject

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Re: Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2014, 02:44:03 PM »
As I have argued elsewhere, I think it's time to let go of the bitcoin era mentality of trustlessness. Bitshares is trust-abundant. I3 are publicly known humans with deep personal relationships to many stakeholders, and to each of their employees and coworkers, and especially to the community who has supported them through good and bad. Arguing that I3's large control over bitshares is a risk to the company, is like saying mark zuckerburgs control over Facebook is a risk to Facebook. Be honest, do you think there is ANY chance mark zuckerburg would short Facebook stock and then wipe their servers, even if he could profit from it?

Unless you think it is a realistic possibility that zuckerburg would do that with his 30% stake and centralized managerial control over Facebook, then it makes no sense to think that Dan would or even could do that with his 5-10% stake in BTS and no effective control beyond his stake. I don't even think I3's combined stake is that high.

It's time to realize that everyone involved in this project are just human beings. We're so used to the old mentality of bitcoin where anonymous competitors are locked in a constant battle for artificial scarcity to keep them honest, but it's over. Bitshares' organizational structure is public, it is transparent, and it is ultimately very personal.

Of all the people I've interacted with in this community, I have amazingly enough not met a single person so far, who has given me the vibe that they're in this for the money. Every single person I have spoken with has, through their actions and opinions, convinced me that they're doing this primarily because they believe that we, and the blockchain, have a purpose beyond making money - that we're in this to do good.

When the forums cry out in rage at, say, bad allocations of DNS sharedrop it's not even out of greed, it is simply human beings reacting in anger to what they perceived as a huge injustice and insult to them and their contributions. At the time I derided them for being greedy and devolving this thing into a fight for the pie, but in hindsight I realize that they acted also because they simply abhor the idea of injustice, whether it is done against themselves or others. Also, as the whole debacle proved, justice and generosity came out on top, as I3 simply chose to donate money to the unfortunate to make up for their losses. I think this proves the inherent trust-abundance of the system.

That being said, I think it would be a great gesture of goodwill and faith for every member of I3 to come forward and announce the amount of their personal stake in BTS,and I think it would significantly increase community trust and the confidence of future investors.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2014, 02:46:28 PM by Rune »

Offline fluxer555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 717
    • View Profile
Re: Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2014, 02:52:43 PM »
I suppose you value developers time a 0 then?    Are they supposed to transfer value of their time and opportunity cost to everyone else for free. 

Suppose developers went on strike you would want to hire new devs right?  Who should pay for it?  Doesn't the market cap grow as a result of developer effort?

It's complex. Do you consider time spent as "capital"? Also, if the developer owns shares already, then he can be compensated through profit/appreciation. If you went on strike it would not be in your benefit, as a shareholder. I'm all for compensating the work, however I think it may be unnecessary to throw loads more cash at the devs, at least at this point in the game. I think I3 has plenty of cash, and if they start spending it as if they had more funds, then all the shareholders could see that they're capable of results, and will give them more.

It would make sense for you to stop working only if you sold all your shares, or you felt that the amount of shares you own are not enough, both of which I think are not true.


Offline CryptoPrometheus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Re: Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2014, 02:54:32 PM »
Once, the developers work for the blockchain and get payed by "capital infusion" there will be no more I3 .. and all funds that are owned by I3 will be gone

Firstly, inflation is not "capital infusion". It's a redistribution of wealth. No new money is entering the system, and the market cap does not increase as a result.

If Bitshares were a currency with hard established rules and little room for improvement by developers, then I would largely agree. However, Bitshares is a flexible and rapidly evolving company, so "inflation equals redistribution of wealth" is not the appropriate rule of thumb for this situation. Perhaps part of the confusion, I have noticed, is that there are many in this community who have accumulated knowledge of conventional economic theory, but have not yet put together how these concepts will apply in this situation.
"Power and law are not synonymous. In fact, they are often in opposition and irreconcilable."
- Cicero

Offline bytemaster

Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2014, 02:58:24 PM »
You seem to struggle putting yourself in the devs shoes.   You own a stake but sit back and do nothing, a dev likely owns a smaller stake than you that they bought with their own money just like you. 

The smart think for a dev to do is work somewhere else, earn money and buy more stake. 

You are asking devs to give up $100,000 per year they could be earning at google to grow their $25,000 stake in BTS that they bought with their own money.

Then you realize that they have to sell their stake to put food on the table while you get to keep your stake and do nothing.

End result you get a share in the growth they produced, but they pay 100% of the cost.   Wealth transfer from dev to you. 
« Last Edit: October 26, 2014, 03:00:09 PM by bytemaster »
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline CryptoPrometheus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Re: Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2014, 03:04:45 PM »
I suppose you value developers time a 0 then?    Are they supposed to transfer value of their time and opportunity cost to everyone else for free. 

Suppose developers went on strike you would want to hire new devs right?  Who should pay for it?  Doesn't the market cap grow as a result of developer effort?

It's complex. Do you consider time spent as "capital"? Also, if the developer owns shares already, then he can be compensated through profit/appreciation. If you went on strike it would not be in your benefit, as a shareholder. I'm all for compensating the work, however I think it may be unnecessary to throw loads more cash at the devs, at least at this point in the game. I think I3 has plenty of cash, and if they start spending it as if they had more funds, then all the shareholders could see that they're capable of results, and will give them more.

It would make sense for you to stop working only if you sold all your shares, or you felt that the amount of shares you own are not enough, both of which I think are not true.

Please correct me if I am misinterpreting what you are suggesting.....
Is it your argument that the developers spend their time and effort to improve the bitshares ecosystem simply because it is in their interest as shareholders? That they should work for free because their efforts would result in an increase in price of the shares they already own?

Edit: And of course increase in the price in the shares you own as well.....?
« Last Edit: October 26, 2014, 03:07:00 PM by crypto_prometheus_81 »
"Power and law are not synonymous. In fact, they are often in opposition and irreconcilable."
- Cicero

Offline fluxer555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 717
    • View Profile
Re: Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2014, 03:07:12 PM »
Please correct me if I am misinterpreting what you are suggesting.....
Is it your argument that the developers spend their time and effort to improve the bitshares ecosystem simply because it is in their interest as shareholders? That they should work for free because their efforts would result in an increase in price of the shares they already own? Sorry, not accusing,  just trying to clarify

I'm not saying they 'should' do anything, I'm just talking about incentives.

You seem to struggle putting yourself in the devs shoes.   You own a stake but sit back and do nothing, a dev likely owns a smaller stake than you that they bought with their own money just like you. 

Someone made an estimate that I3 owns 10% of BTS. That's 4.5 million dollars at the current market cap... isn't that enough to pay developers for a few years? If by then you've proven results, we will have incentive to throw more money in your direction.

Instead of us guessing, I ask again: how much BTS will I3 own collectively after November 5th?

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Re: Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2014, 03:07:50 PM »
You seem to struggle putting yourself in the devs shoes.   You own a stake but sit back and do nothing, a dev likely owns a smaller stake than you that they bought with their own money just like you. 

The smart think for a dev to do is work somewhere else, earn money and buy more stake. 

You are asking devs to give up $100,000 per year they could be earning at google to grow their $25,000 stake in BTS that they bought with their own money.

Then you realize that they have to sell their stake to put food on the table while you get to keep your stake and do nothing.

I think Amir Taaki is the best example of what a massive injustice the  "expectations of free work" that bitcoin stakeholders have to their developers, is. He's a guy who has refused to give up on his core principles and work for what he considers the betterment of bitcoin users ONLY, with no special interests. And in return he is given nothing.

He has to beg for scraps, squat on random peoples couches and be known as a fringey lunatic by the community. This is the guy who was behind libbitcoin, the first independent implementation of the bitcoin client that is now used at the core of dark wallet, openbazaar and some other big wallet projects. No wonder he's being weird, he's had to eat shit while idiots (like me) were able to buy in before the big bubbles and just sit back and rake in tonnes of money for doing nothing.

Man I'm so looking forward to when we can hire Amir and pay him a rock star salary, because he really deserves that.

Offline bytemaster

Re: Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2014, 03:19:18 PM »
The bts owned by i3 is less than 100m.   
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

 

Google+