I too have some concerns about block signing delegates and employees being one and the same thing. Perhaps I need to take more time to understand the proposal.
But as it stands it seems that we are proposing to have only 101 employees or employee representatives and this seems arbitrary and limiting. I get that it is probably a high enough number if we're just talking about block signing delegates securing the network. But for employees?
If BitShares hits the market cap of Bitcoin what would be the maximum that each delegate could earn? My guess based on the $2,500 month that is being bandied about on the current BitShares valuation is that we'd be looking at something like $325,000 per month. Can anyone confirm?
Presumably when we get to this stage there's going to need to be more than one person working for each delegate/employee position otherwise things will starts to look very top heavy in terms of who is being recompensed for work. What does that look like? Can we move towards something that will allow for transparency and is built in to the codebase? Don't we think this is important? Perhaps not - perhaps it's fine that we just have 101 delegates who effectively become 'Directors/Managers' of various employee divisions within the BitShares ecosystem. We then just trust them with our votes to employ the right people. But this just doesn't seem granular enough to me and means that the codebase will unnecessarily require the promotion of teams/fiefdoms for every bit of work that is done to build BitShares up going forwar. It means there's no room for the little guy to work alone and be paid directly by the network.
Why don't we just separate out employees and allow for more granularity? Otherwise people not inside the 101 delegate positions who do not want to join an existing team may have to rely on handouts or bounties. Sounds like a precarious position to put yourself in even if you're a dyed in the wool supporter and want to grow the ecosystem. Rockstar employees/leaders such as BM will of course end up leading teams that consist of more than one person, but for others is the requirement strictly necessary?
If we're going to stick with the creation of this chimera of the two things then the only way I can see it working is to have some form of transparent nesting. So I can join one of the 101 'Teams', but everyone can see what what slice of the teams budget I am being allocated for my role within that team. There is some merit in this in that it provides an incentive for smaller guys to get on board with a 'Team' in order to be under the protective wing of one of the 101 trusted delegates/team managers.
It does make me ponder whether this all relies too much on individuals. When whole networks of people come to rely on their income from the 101 delegate positions and the figure-heads who represent those 101 positions can we be sure that everyone will be voting or campaigning for the good of the network or is it more likely to act through self interest. If the two were separate I'd have no problem with them acting in their own self interest, but when it starts to interfere with block signing then it becomes a different matter. Perhaps I'm wrong and that the self interest part is a recognized necessity and this is why the current proposal is what is being suggested.
Am I missing something obvious here? Please feel free to explain if I've missed something fundamental.