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: Hey,BM,do we really need dilution to pay for developers ? Let's calculate !  (Read 731 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline newtree


Translated from:https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10902.msg143596#msg143596
I think one thing need to be stressed at this point is that as a DAC , delegates are essentially company employees , the coder and other contributors are also considered as company employees ,The company pays their employee from profit , and then give dividend to the shareholders , there is nothing wrong with that . We need to calculate if without dilution , can the employees still get paid ?

According to the current model , 10 seconds per block , a delegate will have 6*60*24*30/101=2566 blocks.
Now the average transaction fee per block is 2 BTSX , assuming the trading volumes will be multiple by 5 times , and the price reaches 0.0819 USD , the transaction fee limits to 0.2 BTSX  , then the monthly income for a delegate would be 2566*2*5*2*0.0819 USD = 4203 USD .One delegate is enough to support a developer , and the whole system can at least supports 50 developers (the rest of the incomes goes to the regular delegate).

This task can be easily accomplished by :

1. Do not simply merge into one simple BTSX , but merge DNS VOTE PTS etc. as assets .
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10303.msg135260#msg135260

2. Simplify the short rules of the inner-market , in the meantime optimize the GUI of the wallet and make it comfortable , so there will be a substantial amount of trading volume going into the inner-market , for it's lower cost and more safety .

3.Set up a changer ,at the very least we should connect the inner-market with the outside exchanges , that can be done by a user issue asset . I heard some exchanges are trying to do that ,that would be awesome  .

It will be ok if the transaction fee rise up to 0.2 BTSX , the cost is still very low comparing to the other exchanges .

If the two key point mentioned before can be accomplished , plus if Bytemaster can release less crazy ideas , or at least all the new ideas should be related to new technologies and business models instead of interest reapportion ,it would not be difficult for the price rise up to 0.0819 USD . Honor the rules of the market , never try to violate it .



About the rules of the market , I want to stress three points :
1. Trust is hard to built and easy to destroy . From my personal experience , I though the way 3I operates were consistently fair , they have ultimate control over the BTS system , and yet they've never let us down on interest allocation before , even exceeded our expectations . We know that comes with a high price----All the BTSX are allocated and the interest of the developers can not be guaranteed .  After all these hard work , 3I finally gained trust ,and yet still got a negative image for a merger plan . The reason for this would be : Anything that tries to adjust the status quo is gonna effect someone's interest , and the ones who's interest were effected can not fight back . The issue with dilution fits my case even better , we mentioned before BTSX is a profiting system , and the advantage of deflation was even advertise majorly . Do not violate the rules of the market , do not calculate the lost and gain of the system , the most important thing should be gaining the trust . Trust is a complicated evaluating process , and the conclusion is simple --- Do you worth our trust or not ?  Most of the outside participants do not have the patience to do the evaluation , you have to make this process as simple as possible , do not violate your promises .
2. Do not feel it's ok because my particular interest hasn't been violated , personal interest can only be satisfied by the maximum interest for the whole .
3. Never take away someone's private property , regardless how he got it in the first place .

ps:Im a very early investor,i paid 500btsx for this translation,please consider carefully.im really seriously.
BTS ID:newtree/baicai 
微信公众号:hellobts
网站:www.hellobts.com

Offline mint chocolate chip

2566*2*5*2*0.0819 USD = 4203 USD... This is great, except we are not at 5x trade volume or at 0.0819 USD yet, not even close. This works when we get there, but can you be assured that we will 5x without the infusion into the system?

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
At this point there is no reason to continue this discussion. If you can't understand the competitive advantages that decentralized fundraising gives us, then I think you would be better off just selling, because it is not changing back in the short or medium term. It's unfair and almost tyrannical, yes, but it is for the best, and if you've trusted bytemaster before then you should also trust him this last time.

On the bright side, this will most definitely be the very last time a centralized choice about the future of the DAC is ever made. From now on, there will be no authority but stakeholders. Should a majority decide to remove dilution in the future when the market cap is huge, it will happen as soon as they say the word (however by then the massive advantages of dilution will be obvious to everyone).

Also it's a mistake to think that a DAC needs to be deflationary before it can be profitable. Buy low, then sell high due to mass adoption is infinitely more profitable than tiny, utterly insignificant transaction fees burned by the system in a tiny userbase of true believers that have misunderstood austrian economics. Adoption and thus profit comes from innovation and marketing, not circlejerking about deflation.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2014, 04:36:02 PM by Rune »

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
At this point there is no reason to continue this discussion. If you can't understand the competitive advantages that decentralized fundraising gives us, then you should just sell, because it is not changing back in the short or medium term. It's unfair and almost tyrannical, yes, but it is for the best, and if you've trusted bytemaster before then you should also trust him this last time.

On the bright side, this will most definitely be the very last time a centralized choice about the future of the DAC is ever made. From now on, there will be no authority but stakeholders. Should a majority decide to remove dilution in the future when the market cap is huge, it will happen as soon as they say the word (however by then the massive advantages of dilution will be obvious to everyone).

Also I'm tired of the BS argument that a DAC supposedly needs to be deflationary before it can be profitable. That's just complete BS. Buy low sell high due to mass adoption is infinitely more profitable than tiny, utterly insignificant transaction fees burned by the system in a tiny userbase of true believers that have misunderstood austrian economics. Adoption and thus profit comes from innovation and marketing, not circlejerking about deflation.

Please don't tell people there is no point continuing discussions. These are people going to a lot of effort to try think of ways to improve BTS. He is also a loyal early adopter. He also paid 500 BTSX for this translation. I value what he has to say.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
At this point there is no reason to continue this discussion. If you can't understand the competitive advantages that decentralized fundraising gives us, then you should just sell, because it is not changing back in the short or medium term. It's unfair and almost tyrannical, yes, but it is for the best, and if you've trusted bytemaster before then you should also trust him this last time.

On the bright side, this will most definitely be the very last time a centralized choice about the future of the DAC is ever made. From now on, there will be no authority but stakeholders. Should a majority decide to remove dilution in the future when the market cap is huge, it will happen as soon as they say the word (however by then the massive advantages of dilution will be obvious to everyone).

Also I'm tired of the BS argument that a DAC supposedly needs to be deflationary before it can be profitable. That's just complete BS. Buy low sell high due to mass adoption is infinitely more profitable than tiny, utterly insignificant transaction fees burned by the system in a tiny userbase of true believers that have misunderstood austrian economics. Adoption and thus profit comes from innovation and marketing, not circlejerking about deflation.

Please don't tell people there is no point continuing discussions. These are people going to a lot of effort to try think of ways to improve BTS. He is also a loyal early adopter. He also paid 500 BTSX for this translation. I value what he has to say.

I'm just giving my honest advice. There is no way it will change and for their own sake they should rather sell than cling on and try to change it at this point.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
At this point there is no reason to continue this discussion. If you can't understand the competitive advantages that decentralized fundraising gives us, then you should just sell, because it is not changing back in the short or medium term. It's unfair and almost tyrannical, yes, but it is for the best, and if you've trusted bytemaster before then you should also trust him this last time.

On the bright side, this will most definitely be the very last time a centralized choice about the future of the DAC is ever made. From now on, there will be no authority but stakeholders. Should a majority decide to remove dilution in the future when the market cap is huge, it will happen as soon as they say the word (however by then the massive advantages of dilution will be obvious to everyone).

Also I'm tired of the BS argument that a DAC supposedly needs to be deflationary before it can be profitable. That's just complete BS. Buy low sell high due to mass adoption is infinitely more profitable than tiny, utterly insignificant transaction fees burned by the system in a tiny userbase of true believers that have misunderstood austrian economics. Adoption and thus profit comes from innovation and marketing, not circlejerking about deflation.

Please don't tell people there is no point continuing discussions. These are people going to a lot of effort to try think of ways to improve BTS. He is also a loyal early adopter. He also paid 500 BTSX for this translation. I value what he has to say.

I'm just giving my honest advice. There is no way it will change and for their own sake they should rather sell than cling on and try to change it at this point.

Nothing is inevitable.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x5m1A7zoIcc

Even if it doesn't change, if it doesn't work, I find in general developing talent tends to be weak on behavioural analysis so these kind of discussions help people understand where they might have gone wrong in retrospect and make better decisions for the future.

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Some parts I don't understand, like how would VOTE being a bitasset effect the BTS price if they got a deal in the Californian elections?  Say if they secured a multi-million dollar deal, federal funding to develop the open source software, if merged with BTS then getting that deal would be massive for BTS, if they are a bitasset it might greatly lessen the effect?  I don't know.  User issued assets (as opposed to market-pegged bitassets) don't raise the BTS price do they apart from by fees?  They could take off and hardly have any impact on BTS price.  Much more effective to have them merged and using a market-pegged bitasset, which does raise the BTS price by requiring BTS to be used as collateral. 

I don't understand either other parts either about PTS + AGS continuing to expect 10% from all future DACs.  As far as I understand it the AGS funds needed to be acquired by an airdrop so 3I could continue to work on BTS.  So that's necessary to survive, in which case the airdrop is necessary, in which case AGS + PTS continuing to expect 10% when they've already been necessarily airdropped BTS is over-rewarding them.  If the airdrop is cancelled BTS has no funding, which certainly does't help raise the price to 0.0819 USD.  Maybe I've mis-understood about that...

"New Dacs" will either be entirely independent and snapshotting whoever they choose, or will be propose to be delegates of BTS.  That's the model that seems to be the current one.

I do respect this idea though.  The fees may soon day be enough for no more dilution to be required.

« Last Edit: November 02, 2014, 05:09:35 PM by matt608 »

Offline joele

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
    • Regarding Bitcoin
At this point there is no reason to continue this discussion. If you can't understand the competitive advantages that decentralized fundraising gives us, then I think you would be better off just selling, because it is not changing back in the short or medium term. It's unfair and almost tyrannical, yes, but it is for the best, and if you've trusted bytemaster before then you should also trust him this last time.

On the bright side, this will most definitely be the very last time a centralized choice about the future of the DAC is ever made. From now on, there will be no authority but stakeholders. Should a majority decide to remove dilution in the future when the market cap is huge, it will happen as soon as they say the word (however by then the massive advantages of dilution will be obvious to everyone).

Also it's a mistake to think that a DAC needs to be deflationary before it can be profitable. Buy low, then sell high due to mass adoption is infinitely more profitable than tiny, utterly insignificant transaction fees burned by the system in a tiny userbase of true believers that have misunderstood austrian economics. Adoption and thus profit comes from innovation and marketing, not circlejerking about deflation.
+5%

Offline Pheonike

If vote is selected, I think it would be an independent project/chain. There will need to be some kind of legal entity set up to receive the funding.  Not sure after that.

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
    • View Profile
The Devs might be able to get by on $4k per month but the other ~90 delegates would need more than that. If they are to be true marketing delegates, or app builders etc. they will need expenses. That is if you expect them to put a "full time" effort into their projects.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Re: Hey,BM,do we really need dilution to pay for developers ? Let's calculate !
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2014, 05:48:02 PM »
 +5% +5% +5% I could not agree more with the OP. I know of people who are ready to divest very large amounts (~*XXXX) over two main issues, dilution being one of them.

*Edit: removed amounts to avoid being accused of spreading FUD

Offline svk

Re: Hey,BM,do we really need dilution to pay for developers ? Let's calculate !
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2014, 08:45:05 PM »
.... then the monthly income for a delegate would be 2566*2*5*2*0.0819 USD = 4203 USD .One delegate is enough to support a developer , and the whole system can at least supports 50 developers (the rest of the incomes goes to the regular delegate).

....

Am I the only one that feels like there's a *2 too many in there?

Your price and volume assumptions are also way too optimistic, the monthly pay rate currently looks like this:

2566 blocks/month * 2 BTSX/block * 0.016 $/BTSX = 82.112 $/month.

Without inflation to provide adjustable and predictable delegate salaries we have a loooooong way to go before delegate pay can be high enough to attract more talent.

Bottom line: capital infusion for delegates is a great tool that will help us move forward more quickly.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: Hey,BM,do we really need dilution to pay for developers ? Let's calculate !
« Reply #12 on: November 04, 2014, 04:49:18 AM »
Differences of opinion are good. I think, though, that once BTS quintuples and tentuples in value, these dissents will be a distant memory. And quite possibly, we may have some forum members using new identities at that point.

Offline luckybit

Re: Hey,BM,do we really need dilution to pay for developers ? Let's calculate !
« Reply #13 on: November 04, 2014, 04:59:07 AM »
Translated from:https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10902.msg143596#msg143596
I think one thing need to be stressed at this point is that as a DAC , delegates are essentially company employees , the coder and other contributors are also considered as company employees ,The company pays their employee from profit , and then give dividend to the shareholders , there is nothing wrong with that . We need to calculate if without dilution , can the employees still get paid ?

According to the current model , 10 seconds per block , a delegate will have 6*60*24*30/101=2566 blocks.
Now the average transaction fee per block is 2 BTSX , assuming the trading volumes will be multiple by 5 times , and the price reaches 0.0819 USD , the transaction fee limits to 0.2 BTSX  , then the monthly income for a delegate would be 2566*2*5*2*0.0819 USD = 4203 USD .One delegate is enough to support a developer , and the whole system can at least supports 50 developers (the rest of the incomes goes to the regular delegate).

This task can be easily accomplished by :

1. Do not simply merge into one simple BTSX , but merge DNS VOTE PTS etc. as assets .
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10303.msg135260#msg135260

2. Simplify the short rules of the inner-market , in the meantime optimize the GUI of the wallet and make it comfortable , so there will be a substantial amount of trading volume going into the inner-market , for it's lower cost and more safety .

3.Set up a changer ,at the very least we should connect the inner-market with the outside exchanges , that can be done by a user issue asset . I heard some exchanges are trying to do that ,that would be awesome  .

It will be ok if the transaction fee rise up to 0.2 BTSX , the cost is still very low comparing to the other exchanges .

If the two key point mentioned before can be accomplished , plus if Bytemaster can release less crazy ideas , or at least all the new ideas should be related to new technologies and business models instead of interest reapportion ,it would not be difficult for the price rise up to 0.0819 USD . Honor the rules of the market , never try to violate it .



About the rules of the market , I want to stress three points :
1. Trust is hard to built and easy to destroy . From my personal experience , I though the way 3I operates were consistently fair , they have ultimate control over the BTS system , and yet they've never let us down on interest allocation before , even exceeded our expectations . We know that comes with a high price----All the BTSX are allocated and the interest of the developers can not be guaranteed .  After all these hard work , 3I finally gained trust ,and yet still got a negative image for a merger plan . The reason for this would be : Anything that tries to adjust the status quo is gonna effect someone's interest , and the ones who's interest were effected can not fight back . The issue with dilution fits my case even better , we mentioned before BTSX is a profiting system , and the advantage of deflation was even advertise majorly . Do not violate the rules of the market , do not calculate the lost and gain of the system , the most important thing should be gaining the trust . Trust is a complicated evaluating process , and the conclusion is simple --- Do you worth our trust or not ?  Most of the outside participants do not have the patience to do the evaluation , you have to make this process as simple as possible , do not violate your promises .
2. Do not feel it's ok because my particular interest hasn't been violated , personal interest can only be satisfied by the maximum interest for the whole .
3. Never take away someone's private property , regardless how he got it in the first place .

ps:Im a very early investor,i paid 500btsx for this translation,please consider carefully.im really seriously.

It's probably not a good idea to challenge BM to a calculation contest. He seems pretty good at calculations.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline BTSdac

Re: Hey,BM,do we really need dilution to pay for developers ? Let's calculate !
« Reply #14 on: November 04, 2014, 08:59:25 AM »
why many people in the world praise BTC, I think  one reason  is that it is a low cost payment system. because of this reason partly, BTC become popular with people. actually the translation fee of BTC is expensive ,every block pay 25 btc to block producer (miner). the average of translation per block of btc is about 500 now. so you can calculate  translation fee . now price of BTC is 323 usd. 323*25/500=16 usd, it is not cheap, but why we think it cheap ,I think the reason is translation fee is pay by dilution. if we change the rule of btc, there is no dilution of btc, all 25 btc is collected from translation fee, I think only few people think translation fee of btc is cheap and few people use it .
so we should create a system  encourage people to translation . because of fee is cheap even close to zero. because  DPOS does`'t need to find lucky no. so we are much better than btc.
in the future, why people like pay using bitusd,  translation fee is cheap. stable value , etc. so if we set high translation fee, it will reduce attraction to end user. but more people use bitusd and more value of BTS.
So I think we should set translation fee close to zero to attract more end-user using bitusd . and gentle dilute BTS to pay delegate and developing
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 09:01:27 AM by BTSdac »
github.com :pureland
BTS2.0 API :ws://139.196.37.179:8091
BTS2.0 API 数据源ws://139.196.37.179:8091

 

Google+