Angel funds being given away by I3 - no transparency, input, or explanation?

[天籁]

For what it's worth, I support the devs fully. From my time here, they have proven to be extremely dedicated and trustworthy. They are so clearly motivated by more than just money; their mission is to make a mark on human history.

+5%

[jae208]

HOWEVER ...

The fact that Toast believes this just shows how little I3 delivered on the idea of the "bitshares toolkit".  Since forking BTSX wallet is the toolkit and Toast thinks it is in such a state no one could take it over, then IMO it follows that they failed on the bitshares toolkit.  This is partially why I want to support Alphabar's attempt even when I am skeptical about other issues surrounding Alphabar-PTS.

Unless of course the goal was to set up the illusion of being an open source project when in reality there was no intention of making the toolkit easy to use for developers that want to fork.

[cn-members]

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'

[House]

I accept I'm not as smart as most of you guys and I am certainly no coder, but multi-sig from my vantage point goes a long way to forming a consensus at a critical juncture as well as securitizing securing development funds. IMHO. (apologies for postulating out of my depth) :-[

[taa]

good move for BTS

Ok, so you think reputation is enough. I disagree. But for the sake of argument explain to me how this entire system would not be radically improved by using multi-sigature oversight of one or more third parties?

And then we have countless debates on who this third party should be.  Using Toast as an example..  In CS I doubt you'd ever come across someone as accomplished academically in any normal developer circles.  (And this comes from someone who has a BSCS at a decent school but pretty much believes 'it just means I'm not a retard')  So I think his reputation is actually quite valuable, especially since crypto isn't going away.

Personally, I am just happy the guy is working for Bitshares.  I don't want some him reporting to some dipshit, I'd rather he just use his passion to move the project forward. 

If there is a problem with incentives being screwed up, I'd look elsewhere.  I wish I had their job for the utter-coolness of it all. 

So..  No. I don't think layering rules of multi-sig accounts and all this would really help anything along.  It might just as well do the opposite. Part of the reason I don't work full time is because I've never worked with developers/under managers that I felt were as smart or smarter than me. Which is all I ask. So if I was to take your system and apply it to me, I wouldn't be surprised if the consequences aren't negative.

Simple. Let the devs oversee themselves with multi-sig. If one guy tries to literally walk away with the money, the other devs lock him out of his unvested shares.

I'm ok with this. I see it as a risk that might be worth the positive PR. I'm interested in multisig for security reasons anyway.

Vesting pay is easy to block with a hard fork too.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[alphaBar]

Ok, so you think reputation is enough. I disagree. But for the sake of argument explain to me how this entire system would not be radically improved by using multi-sigature oversight of one or more third parties?

And then we have countless debates on who this third party should be.  Using Toast as an example..  In CS I doubt you'd ever come across someone as accomplished academically in any normal developer circles.  (And this comes from someone who has a BSCS at a decent school but pretty much believes 'it just means I'm not a retard')  So I think his reputation is actually quite valuable, especially since crypto isn't going away.

Personally, I am just happy the guy is working for Bitshares.  I don't want some him reporting to some dipshit, I'd rather he just use his passion to move the project forward. 

If there is a problem with incentives being screwed up, I'd look elsewhere.  I wish I had their job for the utter-coolness of it all. 

So..  No. I don't think layering rules of multi-sig accounts and all this would really help anything along.  It might just as well do the opposite. Part of the reason I don't work full time is because I've never worked with developers/under managers that I felt were as smart or smarter than me. Which is all I ask. So if I was to take your system and apply it to me, I wouldn't be surprised if the consequences aren't negative.

Simple. Let the devs oversee themselves with multi-sig. If one guy tries to literally walk away with the money, the other devs lock him out of his unvested shares.

I'm ok with this. I see it as a risk that might be worth the positive PR. I'm interested in multisig for security reasons anyway.

Vesting pay is easy to block with a hard fork too.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Thank you for considering this. Sometimes I lose my temper but believe me when I say I have a vested interest in your success. Better to vet this stuff with an irritable insider (me) than the general public...

[bitmarket]

I think of it like this.   The dev funds are still being spent on development exactly the same before as after the disbursement.  The upside is, the funds are not all held in a central location, by one person.   This improves safety of those funds, and makes BM less of a target and BTs less centralized.

[toast]

Ok, so you think reputation is enough. I disagree. But for the sake of argument explain to me how this entire system would not be radically improved by using multi-sigature oversight of one or more third parties?

And then we have countless debates on who this third party should be.  Using Toast as an example..  In CS I doubt you'd ever come across someone as accomplished academically in any normal developer circles.  (And this comes from someone who has a BSCS at a decent school but pretty much believes 'it just means I'm not a retard')  So I think his reputation is actually quite valuable, especially since crypto isn't going away.

Personally, I am just happy the guy is working for Bitshares.  I don't want some him reporting to some dipshit, I'd rather he just use his passion to move the project forward. 

If there is a problem with incentives being screwed up, I'd look elsewhere.  I wish I had their job for the utter-coolness of it all. 

So..  No. I don't think layering rules of multi-sig accounts and all this would really help anything along.  It might just as well do the opposite. Part of the reason I don't work full time is because I've never worked with developers/under managers that I felt were as smart or smarter than me. Which is all I ask. So if I was to take your system and apply it to me, I wouldn't be surprised if the consequences aren't negative.

Simple. Let the devs oversee themselves with multi-sig. If one guy tries to literally walk away with the money, the other devs lock him out of his unvested shares.

I'm ok with this. I see it as a risk that might be worth the positive PR. I'm interested in multisig for security reasons anyway.

Vesting pay is easy to block with a hard fork too.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[zerosum]

I just do not get why?

The guy first obviously did not donated anything to AGS, which is just fine. It is his choice.

Then started arguing that he must get more for keeping his PTS in his pocket as the people who actually gave their money in the form of a donations.
Now comes and says he has to set the rules for the funds that  not only do not belong to him now, but were never ever his, even before donating them.

Utter nonsense and arrogance.

I would expect nothing different from you, Tony. Literally everything I've seen from you on this forum has been either illogical or utterly biased.

Like what?

[alphaBar]

Hmmmm.....

I can sympathize with alphabar. he has a point in terms of accountability and transparency. I also support his right to question any move that  the dev team makes on behalf of this community even if I don't necessarily agree.

That said, I fully support funding our Devs as much as we can to keep their livelihoods intact and reward them commensurate with their skills. I want our devs and delegates to be paid well in excess of anything they could achieve in the corporate world. As I have stated previously... You pay peanuts, you'll get monkeys.

I agree with House on this. To build a quality product, you need motivated, properly paid, quality devs and I trust BM to make to correct decisions when choosing and then paying them. Communication always seems to be the issue though. Many think there is too little, but I think there are enough of us that are content with what we are told right now.

I actually agree with every point you've made regarding quality devs. Anyone with the slightest experience in the software industry, management, and equity grants would tell you that some level of oversight and accountability is needed to get a good work product. Why not let these guys oversee themselves or let Dan have signature control of their vest? For all his genius in technology, Dan is horribly inexperienced and naive in business, marketing, and management. And I still love the guy but the truth must be said.

[Troglodactyl]

Hmmmm.....

I can sympathize with alphabar. he has a point in terms of accountability and transparency. I also support his right to question any move that  the dev team makes on behalf of this community even if I don't necessarily agree.

That said, I fully support funding our Devs as much as we can to keep their livelihoods intact and reward them commensurate with their skills. I want our devs and delegates to be paid well in excess of anything they could achieve in the corporate world. As I have stated previously... You pay peanuts, you'll get monkeys.

Of course I support his right to question whatever he wants to question.  And yes, the donations are handled less transparently than delegate pay, but that seems reasonable to me given that one is an employment agreement (even if the employer is a blockchain) and the other is a gift...

[JWF]

Hmmmm.....

I can sympathize with alphabar. he has a point in terms of accountability and transparency. I also support his right to question any move that  the dev team makes on behalf of this community even if I don't necessarily agree.

That said, I fully support funding our Devs as much as we can to keep their livelihoods intact and reward them commensurate with their skills. I want our devs and delegates to be paid well in excess of anything they could achieve in the corporate world. As I have stated previously... You pay peanuts, you'll get monkeys.

I agree with House on this. To build a quality product, you need motivated, properly paid, quality devs and I trust BM to make to correct decisions when choosing and then paying them. Communication always seems to be the issue though. Many think there is too little, but I think there are enough of us that are content with what we are told right now.

[alphaBar]

I just do not get why?

The guy first obviously did not donated anything to AGS, which is just fine. It is his choice.

Then started arguing that he must get more for keeping his PTS in his pocket as the people who actually gave their money in the form of a donations.
Now comes and says he has to set the rules for the funds that  not only do not belong to him now, but were never ever his, even before donating them.

Utter nonsense and arrogance.

I would expect nothing different from you, Tony. Literally everything I've seen from you on this forum has been either illogical or utterly biased.

[House]

Hmmmm.....

I can sympathize with alphabar. he has a point in terms of accountability and transparency. I also support his right to question any move that  the dev team makes on behalf of this community even if I don't necessarily agree.

That said, I fully support funding our Devs as much as we can to keep their livelihoods intact and reward them commensurate with their skills. I want our devs and delegates to be paid well in excess of anything they could achieve in the corporate world. As I have stated previously... You pay peanuts, you'll get monkeys.

[alphaBar]

The funds were donated to BM. Technically it might have been I3 or whatever, but in the end people gave their money to BM as gifts to do whatever he wanted with - because he indicated he wanted to use it for realizing his grand DAC vision. As far as I've seen they were literally gifts to him and he could pocket it all and there'd be no legal recourse. Now he is giving these funds on in ways he thinks are the most beneficial for realizing his DAC vision etc. We BTS owners do not have a say in how they're used, because the money was never an investment. They were given based on trust (blind trust, in fact), and since theres been no indication of a breach of trust so far, I don't see a reason to complain - or at least feel like there's been a breach of trust.

Personally I still think the rational thing to do would be to buy BTS for all the funds and then burn them, and then just have core developers make 4 delegates to pay their salary. And no, temporarily having 80 delegates would not be insecure. If 81 is insecure then 101 is insecure. In fact, we could have only 25 people all running 4 delegates and our system would still be vastly more decentralized than bitcoin, with the added bonus that we are a 100x smaller target.

Anyway, splitting up and handing out the remaining funds seem like a fair way to handle decentralizing development, if temporary multi-delegates really are such taboo.

Yours is a better solution. At least there is some recourse if one of the devs disappears or decides to move on to something else...