Delegate Sponsorships

[fuzzy]

Maybe Vato_ (kettenblog) can team up with you
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11238.0
for a sponsorship

Not trying to sound like a dick, but I'm failing to see how this is any different than the original issue.  Of course, I see very little difference between having a slate of delegates offering a small % and 1 delegate offering a large % too (other than a larger risk profile for something I have grown to care deeply for protecting)...so I guess it is a moot point.  The people have spoken. 

I am thinking I'm just going to sit it out and continue doing my thing.  Maybe I'll just ask for tips/donations--maybe not. Honestly not sure.  On a brighter note, looks metalallen sent me 768 CNY now that the wallet is completely updated. 

Thanks metal.  It will be distributed equally between Gamey, JoeyD, emailtoaj and myself.  Any future tips are appreciated by anyone and will be equally split by all those volunteering to work to record the evolution of the ecosystem and it's people's struggles to reach greatness!

[fuzzy]

Update:  I just looked in my wallet with all blocks synced and it seems someone (ASK-1a2518f8 and ASK-2979b60b) sent me 28,500 BTS. 

Thank you whoever you are.

Really ？ ASK.... means it's a market order ....
Did you do anything on the market ?

oh...damn shows you how much I use the market

I think I may have added something awhile back...like a low priced buy-in for bitUSD.  apparently it never got filled  

I see.  This must be the 30 day reset where the funds are given back. 

[xeroc]

Maybe Vato_ (kettenblog) can team up with you
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11238.0
for a sponsorship

[btswildpig]

Update:  I just looked in my wallet with all blocks synced and it seems someone (ASK-1a2518f8 and ASK-2979b60b) sent me 28,500 BTS. 

Thank you whoever you are.

Really ？ ASK.... means it's a market order ....
Did you do anything on the market ?

[fuzzy]

Update:  I just looked in my wallet with all blocks synced and it seems someone (ASK-1a2518f8 and ASK-2979b60b) sent me 28,500 BTS. 

Thank you whoever you are. 

[fuzzy]

Hiring contractors to preform tasks you're not knowledgeable in is standard business practice. What is needed for it not to be considered a kickback is if a fair price is paid for the work and the work is needed.

Whether I do it or you buy ALTPAY tokens it makes no difference.

I haven't read this thread. In this case it actually makes my opinion more relevant. Taking money from the people directly involved in running the platform you're providing a service to, importantly a media service, looks suspect. The reality in this case doesn't matter. I have no doubt about your sincerity and integrity but others will. As a media outlet this perception is your life blood.


Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

That is the thing. We are not a media outlet in the traditional sense because we focus precisely on providing town hall styled hangouts that invite anyone to have an equal voice despite their stake. It is recorded, put up in both raw and edited formats. No other media outlet that I know of (other than, perhaps, C-SPAN) does this. And they are paid by the american tax payments...they have salaried employees paid for by the ecosystem in which their focus resides (the american political system). They essentially operate off grants.

Now that is fine with me too, but the first grant I just recently received has already been attacked as stealing from people and an act of impaired judgment.

Lets also not forget that of we are to use the standard business practices analogy, that all media operations that do not operate off of payments from tax dollars...work off of sponsorships.

How does this get reconciled?

Oh and to be clear, im not in disagreement about your point about paying someone to run a delegate. I simply do not see how one method can be looked upon as worse than the other...especially when multiple people need to be paid (I intend on expanding the beyond bitcoin group significantly to reach out and show the power of DPOS in the altcoin cryptoshphere).

Thanks for the feedback btw..to all of you. I want to figure out the best way to move forward about this because quite frankly there I no job I'd rather have..than to help log the evolution of our Universe.

[Riverhead]

Hiring contractors to preform tasks you're not knowledgeable in is standard business practice. What is needed for it not to be considered a kickback is if a fair price is paid for the work and the work is needed.

Whether I do it or you buy ALTPAY tokens it makes no difference.

I haven't read this thread. In this case it actually makes my opinion more relevant. Taking money from the people directly involved in running the platform you're providing a service to, importantly a media service, looks suspect. The reality in this case doesn't matter. I have no doubt about your sincerity and integrity but others will. As a media outlet this perception is your life blood.


Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[zerosum]

I would have split the thread but I am no longer a mod here... I had a few not so nice things to say as I see them and decided to stop being a mod before I put them in writing rather than after. Which is semi-related to the part of the discussion that you are not so happy being part of this thread.

As in being independent requires to be independent to the extreme.

So ask somebody else to do the thread-splitting for you.

[fuzzy]

Using the current rationale, this requires someone else run it for me as  it is literally impossible for me (or many others) to run them on their ownand keep up with the people like xeroc, gamey and riverhead (among others) whonhave literally 20+ years of experience doing so. So I could then be seen as offering kickbacks to someone who runs the delegate for me.  Is this not the case?
NO, You will be paying for service.

And if they are not paid for this, are they going to be seen as requiring other ...more secret forms of payment in the form of special favors?

This choice gives assumes their are only 3 viable options:
1) compete by running running it purely by myself without years of experience in system/network administration, spending my time to gain those skills as opposed to doing what im currently doing, or
2) go without pay
3) have someone else run it for me, but open myself up to literally the same criticisms...only with the added downside of putting the funding of this decentralized project at risk by giving it a (pretty big) central point of failure.

Can you explain what other options im not seeing? Perhaps this is an exercise in vacuity.  Speaking of which, tony take your discussion of my impaired judgment to this thread/poll.
My opinion is in at least several threads as it is. It is well known. And as I told at least 15 people on mumble this last Saturday - I will not be a PLAY holder for long after launch... Not part of that community so to speak. I have seen enough.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11471.0

While you are there, make a vote as the only one against this grass roots marketing and community building effort for the DAC that kindly went far above and beyond the designated 10% PTS and 10% AGS to sharedrop far in excess of what was required by social consensus.

I am trying to infuse our ecosystem with new people and for the first time have been trusted with what I would consider a pretty large allotment to get it done. It was done with funds set aside precisely for this reason and in no way ever belonging to you, me, or anyone but those who intend to use it specifically for promotions.  Can you please give up on this silliness? It isnt even a viable argument given the topic of discussion this post was made incite.

I have stated my friendly advice in the previous post of mine in this thread, what you gonna end up doing is totally your business. so

You pay for service one way or another tony. I guess this thread has turned into something completely different than what it was meant to be... please use your mod privileges and move this portion of the discussion to the poll thread, you crazy bastard.. 

[zerosum]

Using the current rationale, this requires someone else run it for me as  it is literally impossible for me (or many others) to run them on their ownand keep up with the people like xeroc, gamey and riverhead (among others) whonhave literally 20+ years of experience doing so. So I could then be seen as offering kickbacks to someone who runs the delegate for me.  Is this not the case?
NO, You will be paying for service.

And if they are not paid for this, are they going to be seen as requiring other ...more secret forms of payment in the form of special favors?

This choice gives assumes their are only 3 viable options:
1) compete by running running it purely by myself without years of experience in system/network administration, spending my time to gain those skills as opposed to doing what im currently doing, or
2) go without pay
3) have someone else run it for me, but open myself up to literally the same criticisms...only with the added downside of putting the funding of this decentralized project at risk by giving it a (pretty big) central point of failure.

Can you explain what other options im not seeing? Perhaps this is an exercise in vacuity.  Speaking of which, tony take your discussion of my impaired judgment to this thread/poll.
My opinion is in at least several threads as it is. It is well known. And as I told at least 15 people on mumble this last Saturday - I will not be a PLAY holder for long after launch... Not part of that community so to speak. I have seen enough.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11471.0

While you are there, make a vote as the only one against this grass roots marketing and community building effort for the DAC that kindly went far above and beyond the designated 10% PTS and 10% AGS to sharedrop far in excess of what was required by social consensus.

I am trying to infuse our ecosystem with new people and for the first time have been trusted with what I would consider a pretty large allotment to get it done. It was done with funds set aside precisely for this reason and in no way ever belonging to you, me, or anyone but those who intend to use it specifically for promotions.  Can you please give up on this silliness? It isnt even a viable argument given the topic of discussion this post was made incite.

I have stated my friendly advice in the previous post of mine in this thread, what you gonna end up doing is totally your business. so

[fuzzy]

Using the current rationale, this requires someone else run it for me as  it is literally impossible for me (or many others) to run them on their ownand keep up with the people like xeroc, gamey and riverhead (among others) whonhave literally 20+ years of experience doing so. So I could then be seen as offering kickbacks to someone who runs the delegate for me.  Is this not the case? 

And if they are not paid for this, are they going to be seen as requiring other ...more secret forms of payment in the form of special favors?

This choice gives assumes their are only 3 viable options:
1) compete by running running it purely by myself without years of experience in system/network administration, spending my time to gain those skills as opposed to doing what im currently doing, or
2) go without pay
3) have someone else run it for me, but open myself up to literally the same criticisms...only with the added downside of putting the funding of this decentralized project at risk by giving it a (pretty big) central point of failure.

Can you explain what other options im not seeing? Perhaps this is an exercise in vacuity.  Speaking of which, tony take your discussion of my impaired judgment to this thread/poll.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11471.0

While you are there, make a vote as the only one against this grass roots marketing and community building effort for the DAC that kindly went far above and beyond the designated 10% PTS and 10% AGS to sharedrop far in excess of what was required by social consensus.

I am trying to infuse our ecosystem with new people and for the first time have been trusted with what I would consider a pretty large allotment to get it done. It was done with funds set aside precisely for this reason and in no way ever belonging to you, me, or anyone but those who intend to use it specifically for promotions.  Can you please give up on this silliness? It isnt even a viable argument given the topic of discussion this post was made incite.

[xeroc]

Now THAT is worth a discussion and fair reasoning ...

[zerosum]

It is already happening fuzz...the mare fact that you have received said funds stays on the way of seeing the facts stright and is impairing your judgment. You are already unable to see the wrong done by the person who donated them to you...

And I am neither accusing you of stealing the funds nor asking you to work for free. Quite the opposite - I think you deserve far more pay for  what you are already doing now. But the way to achieve this is not through delegated slates... Those delegate slates not only does not provide enough funds to you but is also inherently corrupt system that is fogging your independent view point. In you positions your independency is one of the most important pillars. Receiving funds from someone will make you lean toward the interests of the donors and often not see and understand the community's interests.


[edit]
Let's put it as simple as possible - run a 100% pay delegate fuzz. Burn anything that you find excessive - say if the market cap becomes big burn everything above say 5,000 bitUSD.
It is that simple.

[fuzzy]

Saying "fuzz" and "thief" in the same sentence just doesn't make sense to me ..

Something tells me we should get into knock-down drag-out arguments about all this stuff on mumble and record them.  This would be:

A) a great historical archive of our ecosystem's evolution (and those existing within it), and
B) hilarious to look back on when drinking on BitShares Island


I can just see it now.  Gamey is sloshing around his words, Tony is apologizing for his English and Toast is saying "remember when fuzz was bitching over delegate slates?!".  Bytemaster just sitting there with his 8 lady-friends (to represent how he brought the world together, of course). 

[xeroc]

Saying "fuzz" and "thief" in the same sentence just doesn't make sense to me ..

[fuzzy]

Oh and to Julian.  The Server costs (currently) are minimal (though over the past year I have likely paid enough to almost buy another 21551.7241 BTS (approx 1/12th my current holdings)), but will grow when more people are joining and being more active.  This will happen as the community grows (which I have no doubt it will if what I am hearing about the marketing push is legitimate). 

It is not only about the server fees, however...it is also about the time it has taken and the fact that this can be a very stressful job (I won't get into why because those who have been around long enough know very well why). 

I am very glad for the open discussion and even for the points that others make with which I am in currently 100% disagreement--it helps us grow and recognize the landscape--and potentially even makes a point that changes my outlook completely.  I have not seen any of those arguments yet. 

However, I really hope people will stop saying I am a thief...or that I am enabling a thief.  This is simply ridiculous.  If you know me, you know that when I perceive corruption coming to my doorstep I get out a fucking shotgun.  How valuable is that worth?  I do not know.  If it isn't worth much, perhaps the community should band together and do something similar without me because that means I am spending enough time doing something lacking value that my time would be best spent elsewhere.

I have no problems with that if people honestly think it is the best route....because I'll just go get the job I turned down and pump a 1000 extra bucks a month into investing in crypto I believe in (without having to prove why I should be paid, keeping books and having to deal with crazy IRS shit that will likely require I pay out half my pay to tax specialists).

If these are donations...many of these issues go away.  Like it or not...there IS a case for what I am proposing.

DPOS----the only Truly political blockchain tech.  Gotta love it!

[fuzzy]

I consider this model screwed up.

Let's talk about the very last development.

The *Fisherman* donates to you 1mil PLAY tokens.

You are more than happy to promote him because of that.... And you just do not care if he screwed up the biggest believers in BTS/DPOS.

So, I have to donate the same amount to get the same exposure? I do not care about such system.
I have nobody  to screw up for 50 Mill, so I cannot donate 1mill to you;
So I am no good?...

Hope you get it TheNuts...

TK

OMG...tonyK , you still on this topic ?

I hate to break this to you , even if the original plan wasn't going to give share to the Long and Short orders , the 35% for BTS is still the same , just divided by different BTSer . So , if you think someone's benefiting from the original plan , it wasn't fuzz , it was the other BTSer who didn't long and short . The 35% for BTS is still the same amount no matter the plan allocate the 35% to whom.

If somehow it was stealing (which it wasn't) , it was one BTSer to another BTSer , not to fuzz .

So , would you please let Fuzz off the hook ?

Right WildPid,
It is still the same:

Great believers: 0%
Average holders: +500%

AS long as those 2 categories add up to 100% we are fine? NO?

OK if not the stolen funds (or at least 1% of them are donated to fuzz to make this allocation sound GREAAAAT)

PS
Do not play dump WildPig, you know full well what is going on.

Since this is apparently important enough to Tony to hijack this thread with something that is not even on point, let me clear this up. 

The funds I was "given" are specifically for a tournament that provides rewards for users to do outreach (aka work) outside our community to build their own team.  This means they have to recruit (aka work) and practice playing a game to have a chance at the final pot. 

These funds were Designated for this kind of thing...so it is not "stealing" from you.  Out of all people, Tony, it is actually getting frustrating for you to use that word with me.  I have stolen nothing from you---in fact I have worked my ass off for a total of 15 hours already just editing the 2 hangouts between Hackfisher and the community (and been paid nothing for it).  It will also require me to likely make a website, embed a twitch.tv stream among other things (all coming out of pocket) to allow people to watch.  There is far more to this than meets the eye...so please, please stop calling this stealing or I might actually---finally get pissed off and start using similar wording with you.

P.S.  If you would like to work for a chance at receiving some of these "stolen" funds, please do so and I will gladly help you out.  I will also make sure keep the record of events open and transparent for all involved.   I will likely be working too much on the behind the scenes to have this opportunity myself, unfortunately, so I suppose those stolen funds will not benefit me in any significant way... :/  Damn I am a bad thief...

ok  , dig dirt is a strong word ....It'ts better called "tough audit".

Tough audits are fine. What I'm worried about is seeing a lot of baseless or irrelevant accusations made that waste a lot of time for people. aka politics.

Politics is a central aspect of this system.  We either choose that or Rule by Machine.  I choose to let it get dirty and force people to evolve to the changing environment as opposed to giving them more of a reason to be "apathetic"...

We have a choice moving forward into the future with this technology---are people going to control it or is it going to control people?  I choose the first option.

Before this goes further, Tony was using it as an example of what can happen when you do kickbacks and how things can be misconstrued.

If someone gives Fuzz 1 million play shares (even if fuz turns around and gives them all away) then there is a problem that Fuzz might unfairly stick up for this person.  Tony used a real life example I think, but I don't think he is blaming Fuzz for anything directly.  It is all an attack on Hackfisher's decision on the nature of the BTS drop.

If I turn around and unfairly stick up for a person, that doesn't keep anyone else from standing up and stating their points...or giving facts that prove me wrong.  In fact, the Mumble Server is probably one of the BEST places in this entire ecosystem to bring this stuff up because you can be certain it is me and not some shell account. 

Though I understand everyone's concern...these delegate slates are eventually going to give kickbacks (read incentives) anyway---but most likely they will not be transparent as I am trying to be.

I do NOT have the time to run a damned delegate.  I do not have the technical expertise to run it at scale.  If I focus my efforts on this, I lose time to do the other stuff I and my team are providing the community--and have been providing since before most people even arrived here. 

Before this goes further, Tony was using it as an example of what can happen when you do kickbacks and how things can be misconstrued.

If someone gives Fuzz 1 million play shares (even if fuz turns around and gives them all away) then there is a problem that Fuzz might unfairly stick up for this person.  Tony used a real life example I think, but I don't think he is blaming Fuzz for anything directly.  It is all an attack on Hackfisher's decision on the nature of the BTS drop.

so , we can change the slate to a different dynamic .
The slate act like a media , no bias what so ever , just take donation , and promote the ideas of the delegates . If a delegate Toast wants to promote , the slate can help him ; If another delegate wants to dig dirt on Toast , the slate can help him to gather down votes to kick Toast out thus the delegate can be moved up by default .

Is this better ? just like all the televisions in political elections .

I don't think you are following the conversation in the same way I am.  Tony is arguing against paying people for spots on their slate.  Fuz has a point that this will happen behind the scenes anyway in the longrun, so his transparent uhh donation requests do nothing harmful.  Everyone else is disliking the precedent set by this which appears to be in agreement with you.

It's easy to solve this problem ... multiple slates , people can choose what slate they want to follow , the one slate owner can be bought and paid for ,  but there are 50,100+ different slate owners , there will be competition amount slates , force most of the slate owners to do the right thing .

Just like media competition , do you even worry about some "good guy" they said on TV isn't that good at all ? No worries , if the guy wasn't good , other TV media would dig that to make their news .

This is exactly my point right...here ^

However...in order to do this, we need to make it COMPLETELY accessible for anyone to have a delegate slate set up and easily put into their forum signature or embedded on their personal websites.

I recently read a thread on voter apathy: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11379.0 

This is precisely the kind of thing that will fix that.  We can even have delegate hangouts and enable people like TonyK to do hit-pieces on people (and even get paid for it if community members believe what he is saying is easily backed up by facts!)

But the fact remains.  People do not have to vote for this slate...having a slate diversifies my risk while making it so I do not have to depend on any single person to run a delegate for me (which could also put me in a very bad position), or choose to step away completely (because without doing what I am currently doing, I will have no chance of getting in a delegate spot anyway). 

Of course, this does not mean that people HAVE to "pay me" to be on the Mumble Delegate Slot, but if they are genuinely ethical individuals (Riverhead comes to mind) and want their delegate to be seen as one of the EPIC Foundational delegates that supported the open Town Hall format discussions and the vast (freely available--to anyone) Historical Archive of our open source revolution that it will someday represent, then it is a very good investment to donate to the project.

The "tipping" model doesn't work (if you have tipped me, please let me know because I am only aware of 3-4 people over the past year), and the current voting model does not work.  I recently turned down a job making twice as much as I currently make but I turned it down because it would leave a pretty terrible void with the current absense of marketing (which is why the Mumble was brought online in the first place---for those who were not here at the time).  I love this community and want to help it in any way I can, but I do need to keep the beasts at home at bay and prove that all this effort has started bearing fruit (at some point in the next couple months). 

I see no difference in letting someone run a delegate for me or having people donate a slight amount every month (which will likely give me LESS than running my own delegate overall, mind you) and having a delegate slate that rewards those who pass the community's smell test. 

If people dislike one of the choices, I have no doubt they will rake and claw against the audio recorder during mumble sessions until they are heard.  They will be able to give their reasons (facts) and the community can choose to openly say "i am going to downvote that person".  I assure you if this happens and I receive a great deal of this kind of input, then the person will quickly be taken off the slate (why the hell would I keep them on if their being there destroys the trust I have gained?)

[FreeTrade]

ok  , dig dirt is a strong word ....It'ts better called "tough audit".

Tough audits are fine. What I'm worried about is seeing a lot of baseless or irrelevant accusations made that waste a lot of time for people. aka politics.

[btswildpig]

hmm.... I was planing running a media empire in the BTS world .....
I can accept donations to dig dirt on any delegates to offset those who promote them   

This is likely to become a thing. It'll be very distracting for devs and other people creating value.

To minimize this, I'm recommending we keep the politics at the slate publisher (director) level. That way we'll have directors to keep each other accountable, but we won't have the unedifying spectacle of devs sniping at each other.
 
Proposed model is - Devs to convince directors and directors to convince shareholders. Doesn't require any code/protocol changes, but default GUI should be changed to reflect it.

ok  , dig dirt is a strong word ....It'ts better called "tough audit".

[FreeTrade]

hmm.... I was planing running a media empire in the BTS world .....
I can accept donations to dig dirt on any delegates to offset those who promote them   

This is likely to become a thing. It'll be very distracting for devs and other people creating value.

To minimize this, I'm recommending we keep the politics at the slate publisher (director) level. That way we'll have directors to keep each other accountable, but we won't have the unedifying spectacle of devs sniping at each other.
 
Proposed model is - Devs to convince directors and directors to convince shareholders. Doesn't require any code/protocol changes, but default GUI should be changed to reflect it.

[zerosum]

Fuz, no kickbacks.

Fuz, make your delegate and promote it on the mumble server, people will support you as you are the mumble server and beyond bitcoin x.

I will probably spend months kicking my butt for this but,   eagleeye.
Eagleeye is right on this rare occasion.

[btswildpig]

It's easy to solve this problem ... multiple slates , people can choose what slate they want to follow , the one slate owner can be bought and paid for ,  but there are 50,100+ different slate owners , there will be competition amount slates , force most of the slate owners to do the right thing .

Just like media competition , do you even worry about some "good guy" they said on TV isn't that good at all ? No worries , if the guy wasn't good , other TV media would dig that to make their news .

Sure, but that doesn't mean people won't or shouldn't complain about the process until it comes to the conclusion you give.

hmm.... I was planing running a media empire in the BTS world .....
I can accept donations to dig dirt on any delegates to offset those who promote them   

[eagleeye]

Fuz, no kickbacks.

Fuz, make your delegate and promote it on the mumble server, people will support you as you are the mumble server and beyond bitcoin x.

Fuz, make a delegate slate and get people to donate based on what spot they get, not an ongoing percentage of income, but you get paid if they take first spot.  In the future we vote in which spots which delegates get based on technology (I know how to do this, and you with/orwithout me will be able to know how to do this)

Fuz, make it completely democratic but remember mumble is like TV people must pay you to be promoted on it.  Just remember your avenue will stay up as long as you stay uncorrupt.  If you take a percentage of delegates you will open yourself up to corruption.

Fuz, you rock.  End of story.

[zerosum]

Before this goes further, Tony was using it as an example of what can happen when you do kickbacks and how things can be misconstrued.

If someone gives Fuzz 1 million play shares (even if fuz turns around and gives them all away) then there is a problem that Fuzz might unfairly stick up for this person.  Tony used a real life example I think, but I don't think he is blaming Fuzz for anything directly.  It is all an attack on Hackfisher's decision on the nature of the BTS drop.

so , we can change the slate to a different dynamic .
The slate act like a media , no bias what so ever , just take donation , and promote the ideas of the delegates . If a delegate Toast wants to promote , the slate can help him ; If another delegate wants to dig dirt on Toast , the slate can help him to gather down votes to kick Toast out thus the delegate can be moved up by default .

Is this better ? just like all the televisions in political elections .

I don't think you are following the conversation in the same way I am.  Tony is arguing against paying people for spots on their slate.  Fuz has a point that this will happen behind the scenes anyway in the longrun, so his transparent uhh donation requests do nothing harmful.  Everyone else is disliking the precedent set by this which appears to be in agreement with you.

edit - So in Tony's example as to why this might be a bad idea, he took the moment to bring out his feeling of being wronged by hackfisher.  I think Tony is in a pretty grumpy mood tonight.   I would prefer he didn't say scam either, because that implies someone is being misled/cheated.

Gamey decide to bring in what mood I am tonight. (I will decide  if this is a good argument or not... tomorrow).

I've preferred, I did not use the word scam... I should have used 'lazy' or 'incompetent' instead... I only chose scammer as it seams easier to defend...



And on the 'pay for slate' issue - I do not believe I will change my opinion anytime soon...

"It is a laughable idea!"    Giving PLAYS [stolen from me] will make you included in the slate but...

[gamey]

It's easy to solve this problem ... multiple slates , people can choose what slate they want to follow , the one slate owner can be bought and paid for ,  but there are 50,100+ different slate owners , there will be competition amount slates , force most of the slate owners to do the right thing .

Just like media competition , do you even worry about some "good guy" they said on TV isn't that good at all ? No worries , if the guy wasn't good , other TV media would dig that to make their news .

Sure, but that doesn't mean people won't or shouldn't complain about the process until it comes to the conclusion you give.

[btswildpig]

Before this goes further, Tony was using it as an example of what can happen when you do kickbacks and how things can be misconstrued.

If someone gives Fuzz 1 million play shares (even if fuz turns around and gives them all away) then there is a problem that Fuzz might unfairly stick up for this person.  Tony used a real life example I think, but I don't think he is blaming Fuzz for anything directly.  It is all an attack on Hackfisher's decision on the nature of the BTS drop.

so , we can change the slate to a different dynamic .
The slate act like a media , no bias what so ever , just take donation , and promote the ideas of the delegates . If a delegate Toast wants to promote , the slate can help him ; If another delegate wants to dig dirt on Toast , the slate can help him to gather down votes to kick Toast out thus the delegate can be moved up by default .

Is this better ? just like all the televisions in political elections .

I don't think you are following the conversation in the same way I am.  Tony is arguing against paying people for spots on their slate.  Fuz has a point that this will happen behind the scenes anyway in the longrun, so his transparent uhh donation requests do nothing harmful.  Everyone else is disliking the precedent set by this which appears to be in agreement with you.

It's easy to solve this problem ... multiple slates , people can choose what slate they want to follow , the one slate owner can be bought and paid for ,  but there are 50,100+ different slate owners , there will be competition amount slates , force most of the slate owners to do the right thing .

Just like media competition , do you even worry about some "good guy" they said on TV isn't that good at all ? No worries , if the guy wasn't good , other TV media would dig that to make their news .

[gamey]

Before this goes further, Tony was using it as an example of what can happen when you do kickbacks and how things can be misconstrued.

If someone gives Fuzz 1 million play shares (even if fuz turns around and gives them all away) then there is a problem that Fuzz might unfairly stick up for this person.  Tony used a real life example I think, but I don't think he is blaming Fuzz for anything directly.  It is all an attack on Hackfisher's decision on the nature of the BTS drop.

so , we can change the slate to a different dynamic .
The slate act like a media , no bias what so ever , just take donation , and promote the ideas of the delegates . If a delegate Toast wants to promote , the slate can help him ; If another delegate wants to dig dirt on Toast , the slate can help him to gather down votes to kick Toast out thus the delegate can be moved up by default .

Is this better ? just like all the televisions in political elections .

I don't think you are following the conversation in the same way I am.  Tony is arguing against paying people for spots on their slate.  Fuz has a point that this will happen behind the scenes anyway in the longrun, so his transparent uhh donation requests do nothing harmful.  Everyone else is disliking the precedent set by this which appears to be in agreement with you.

edit - So in Tony's example as to why this might be a bad idea, he took the moment to bring out his feeling of being wronged by hackfisher.  I think Tony is in a pretty grumpy mood tonight.   I would prefer he didn't say scam either, because that implies someone is being misled/cheated.

[btswildpig]

Something feels wrong is far different from a scam .

Of course , now that I see your words and reactions for a simple allocation plan that nearly cost you nothing in the first place , do any of the western people wonder why the Chinese are so furious about the big changes cost them a great lost and even performed some personal attacks on the developers ?

Just so you're clear , when you accused some project was a scam , you were essentially accusing the other supporter for the project being scammers .

End of discussion with you .... No point in that anymore . By your standard , I think I've been scammed so many times that I can't even remember. The Bitcoin mining allocation with low difficulty in the beginning is the most scam of all time . 

I agree Tony shouldn't use the word scam in a general sense but you also shouldn't think that "western people" are all thinking in some specific way and are happy to have lost money.  That is silly.. possibly racist.. and not productive on any level.  I can speak for this western person and I'm not happy having lost money either.

I still think inflation increases longterm chances of success.  99% of the community seems to think people will just volunteer to build out ecosystem and their initial investment should cover it.

Ok , maybe my English is not that good than I thought ... By "do any of the western people wonder xxxx" , I meant "Do any of them don't understand the Chinese's irrational posts last month" , I was pointing out those who don't understand (the word any is for this kind of grammar right ?)should take TonyK's reaction as an example ....   so they might understand  .

[zerosum]

Before this goes further, Tony was using it as an example of what can happen when you do kickbacks and how things can be misconstrued.

If someone gives Fuzz 1 million play shares (even if fuz turns around and gives them all away) then there is a problem that Fuzz might unfairly stick up for this person.  Tony used a real life example I think, but I don't think he is blaming Fuzz for anything directly.  It is all an attack on Hackfisher's decision on the nature of the BTS drop.

Yes [or is it 'No, I do not blame fuzz' in English, but anyway], I do not blame fuzz... as in he was the tool in somebody's masterplan.

[btswildpig]

Before this goes further, Tony was using it as an example of what can happen when you do kickbacks and how things can be misconstrued.

If someone gives Fuzz 1 million play shares (even if fuz turns around and gives them all away) then there is a problem that Fuzz might unfairly stick up for this person.  Tony used a real life example I think, but I don't think he is blaming Fuzz for anything directly.  It is all an attack on Hackfisher's decision on the nature of the BTS drop.

so , we can change the slate to a different dynamic .
The slate act like a media , no bias what so ever , just take donation , and promote the ideas of the delegates . If a delegate Toast wants to promote , the slate can help him ; If another delegate wants to dig dirt on Toast , the slate can help him to gather down votes to kick Toast out thus the delegate can be moved up by default .

Is this better ? just like all the televisions in political elections .

[zerosum]

I consider this model screwed up.

Let's talk about the very last development.

The *Fisherman* donates to you 1mil PLAY tokens.

You are more than happy to promote him because of that.... And you just do not care if he screwed up the biggest believers in BTS/DPOS.

So, I have to donate the same amount to get the same exposure? I do not care about such system.
I have nobody  to screw up for 50 Mill, so I cannot donate 1mill to you;
So I am no good?...

Hope you get it TheNuts...

TK

OMG...tonyK , you still on this topic ?

I hate to break this to you , even if the original plan wasn't going to give share to the Long and Short orders , the 35% for BTS is still the same , just divided by different BTSer . So , if you think someone's benefiting from the original plan , it wasn't fuzz , it was the other BTSer who didn't long and short . The 35% for BTS is still the same amount no matter the plan allocate the 35% to whom.

If somehow it was stealing (which it wasn't) , it was one BTSer to another BTSer , not to fuzz .

So , would you please let Fuzz off the hook ?

Right WildPid,
It is still the same:
Great believers: 0%
Average holders: +500%

AS long as those 2 categories add up to 100% we are fine? NO?

Not the same ..... because you are still drilling on the 1 million Fuzz got , which is irrelevant...... You should drill on those BTSer who got the 500% in the original plan , leave Fuzz out of this .

You're doing the wrong math . If the original plan was to allocate 35% to BTS and then take the longer and shorter their shares to give Fuzz , then you can drill on Fuzz . But it wasn't the case . So , are you feeling clear now ?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WOW WOW WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never said fuzz got all the funds... Not even close to that!

I just said he was promoting the scam for 1% of the 'stolen' (aka wrongly distributed funds).

 And he was maid  saying 'All is good, all is great!' for a 1% of the 'inefficiently accounted for amount'

Something feels wrong is far different from a scam .

Of course , now that I see your words and reactions for a simple allocation plan that nearly cost you nothing in the first place , do any of the western people wonder why the Chinese are so furious about the big changes cost them a great lost and even performed some personal attacks on the developers ?

Just so you're clear , when you accused some project was a scam , you were essentially accusing the other supporter for the project being scammers .

End of discussion with you .... No point in that anymore . By your standard , I think I've been scammed so many times that I can't even remember. The Bitcoin mining allocation with low difficulty in the beginning is the most scam of all time . 

I really do not follow.

50% AGS, 50% PTS                 is fine with me - it is developers choice!
10% AGS, 10% PTS                 is fine with me - it is developers choice!
10% AGS, 10% PTS, 80% BTS  is fine with me - it is developers choice!
20%  BTS                                is fine with me - it is developers choice!




Handpicking some of the BTS holders...for the laziness of the developer or whatever  is when I get pissed off.
Especially if you chose to exclude the strongest believers in the system...

[gamey]

Something feels wrong is far different from a scam .

Of course , now that I see your words and reactions for a simple allocation plan that nearly cost you nothing in the first place , do any of the western people wonder why the Chinese are so furious about the big changes cost them a great lost and even performed some personal attacks on the developers ?

Just so you're clear , when you accused some project was a scam , you were essentially accusing the other supporter for the project being scammers .

End of discussion with you .... No point in that anymore . By your standard , I think I've been scammed so many times that I can't even remember. The Bitcoin mining allocation with low difficulty in the beginning is the most scam of all time . 

I agree Tony shouldn't use the word scam in a general sense but you also shouldn't think that "western people" are all thinking in some specific way and are happy to have lost money.  That is silly.. possibly racist.. and not productive on any level.  I can speak for this western person and I'm not happy having lost money either.

I still think inflation increases longterm chances of success.  99% of the community seems to think people will just volunteer to build out ecosystem and their initial investment should cover it.

[gamey]

Before this goes further, Tony was using it as an example of what can happen when you do kickbacks and how things can be misconstrued.

If someone gives Fuzz 1 million play shares (even if fuz turns around and gives them all away) then there is a problem that Fuzz might unfairly stick up for this person.  Tony used a real life example I think, but I don't think he is blaming Fuzz for anything directly.  It is all an attack on Hackfisher's decision on the nature of the BTS drop.

[btswildpig]

I consider this model screwed up.

Let's talk about the very last development.

The *Fisherman* donates to you 1mil PLAY tokens.

You are more than happy to promote him because of that.... And you just do not care if he screwed up the biggest believers in BTS/DPOS.

So, I have to donate the same amount to get the same exposure? I do not care about such system.
I have nobody  to screw up for 50 Mill, so I cannot donate 1mill to you;
So I am no good?...

Hope you get it TheNuts...

TK

OMG...tonyK , you still on this topic ?

I hate to break this to you , even if the original plan wasn't going to give share to the Long and Short orders , the 35% for BTS is still the same , just divided by different BTSer . So , if you think someone's benefiting from the original plan , it wasn't fuzz , it was the other BTSer who didn't long and short . The 35% for BTS is still the same amount no matter the plan allocate the 35% to whom.

If somehow it was stealing (which it wasn't) , it was one BTSer to another BTSer , not to fuzz .

So , would you please let Fuzz off the hook ?

Right WildPid,
It is still the same:
Great believers: 0%
Average holders: +500%

AS long as those 2 categories add up to 100% we are fine? NO?

Not the same ..... because you are still drilling on the 1 million Fuzz got , which is irrelevant...... You should drill on those BTSer who got the 500% in the original plan , leave Fuzz out of this .

You're doing the wrong math . If the original plan was to allocate 35% to BTS and then take the longer and shorter their shares to give Fuzz , then you can drill on Fuzz . But it wasn't the case . So , are you feeling clear now ?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WOW WOW WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never said fuzz got all the funds... Not even close to that!

I just said he was promoting the scam for 1% of the 'stolen' (aka wrongly distributed funds).

 And he was maid  saying 'All is good, all is great!' for a 1% of the 'inefficiently accounted for amount'

Something feels wrong is far different from a scam .

Of course , now that I see your words and reactions for a simple allocation plan that nearly cost you nothing in the first place , do any of the western people wonder why the Chinese are so furious about the big changes cost them a great lost and even performed some personal attacks on the developers ?

Just so you're clear , when you accused some project was a scam , you were essentially accusing the other supporter for the project being scammers .

End of discussion with you .... No point in that anymore . By your standard , I think I've been scammed so many times that I can't even remember. The Bitcoin mining allocation with low difficulty in the beginning is the most scam of all time . 

[zerosum]

I consider this model screwed up.

Let's talk about the very last development.

The *Fisherman* donates to you 1mil PLAY tokens.

You are more than happy to promote him because of that.... And you just do not care if he screwed up the biggest believers in BTS/DPOS.

So, I have to donate the same amount to get the same exposure? I do not care about such system.
I have nobody  to screw up for 50 Mill, so I cannot donate 1mill to you;
So I am no good?...

Hope you get it TheNuts...

TK

OMG...tonyK , you still on this topic ?

I hate to break this to you , even if the original plan wasn't going to give share to the Long and Short orders , the 35% for BTS is still the same , just divided by different BTSer . So , if you think someone's benefiting from the original plan , it wasn't fuzz , it was the other BTSer who didn't long and short . The 35% for BTS is still the same amount no matter the plan allocate the 35% to whom.

If somehow it was stealing (which it wasn't) , it was one BTSer to another BTSer , not to fuzz .

So , would you please let Fuzz off the hook ?

Right WildPid,
It is still the same:
Great believers: 0%
Average holders: +500%

AS long as those 2 categories add up to 100% we are fine? NO?

Not the same ..... because you are still drilling on the 1 million Fuzz got , which is irrelevant...... You should drill on those BTSer who got the 500% in the original plan , leave Fuzz out of this .

You're doing the wrong math . If the original plan was to allocate 35% to BTS and then take the longer and shorter their shares to give Fuzz , then you can drill on Fuzz . But it wasn't the case . So , are you feeling clear now ?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WOW WOW WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never said fuzz got all the funds... Not even close to that!

I just said he was promoting the scam for 1% of the 'stolen' (aka wrongly distributed funds).

 And he was maid  saying 'All is good, all is great!' for a 1% of the 'inefficiently accounted for amount'

[btswildpig]

I consider this model screwed up.

Let's talk about the very last development.

The *Fisherman* donates to you 1mil PLAY tokens.

You are more than happy to promote him because of that.... And you just do not care if he screwed up the biggest believers in BTS/DPOS.

So, I have to donate the same amount to get the same exposure? I do not care about such system.
I have nobody  to screw up for 50 Mill, so I cannot donate 1mill to you;
So I am no good?...

Hope you get it TheNuts...

TK

OMG...tonyK , you still on this topic ?

I hate to break this to you , even if the original plan wasn't going to give share to the Long and Short orders , the 35% for BTS is still the same , just divided by different BTSer . So , if you think someone's benefiting from the original plan , it wasn't fuzz , it was the other BTSer who didn't long and short . The 35% for BTS is still the same amount no matter the plan allocate the 35% to whom.

If somehow it was stealing (which it wasn't) , it was one BTSer to another BTSer , not to fuzz .

So , would you please let Fuzz off the hook ?

Right WildPid,
It is still the same:
Great believers: 0%
Average holders: +500%

AS long as those 2 categories add up to 100% we are fine? NO?

Not the same ..... because you are still drilling on the 1 million Fuzz got , which is irrelevant...... You should drill on those BTSer who got the 500% in the original plan , leave Fuzz out of this .

You're doing the wrong math . If the original plan was to allocate 35% to BTS and then take the longer and shorter their shares to give Fuzz , then you can drill on Fuzz . But it wasn't the case . So , are you feeling clear now ?

[zerosum]

I consider this model screwed up.

Let's talk about the very last development.

The *Fisherman* donates to you 1mil PLAY tokens.

You are more than happy to promote him because of that.... And you just do not care if he screwed up the biggest believers in BTS/DPOS.

So, I have to donate the same amount to get the same exposure? I do not care about such system.
I have nobody  to screw up for 50 Mill, so I cannot donate 1mill to you;
So I am no good?...

Hope you get it TheNuts...

TK

OMG...tonyK , you still on this topic ?

I hate to break this to you , even if the original plan wasn't going to give share to the Long and Short orders , the 35% for BTS is still the same , just divided by different BTSer . So , if you think someone's benefiting from the original plan , it wasn't fuzz , it was the other BTSer who didn't long and short . The 35% for BTS is still the same amount no matter the plan allocate the 35% to whom.

If somehow it was stealing (which it wasn't) , it was one BTSer to another BTSer , not to fuzz .

So , would you please let Fuzz off the hook ?

Right WildPid,
It is still the same:

Great believers: 0%
Average holders: +500%

AS long as those 2 categories add up to 100% we are fine? NO?

OK if not the stolen funds (or at least 1% of them are donated to fuzz to make this allocation sound GREAAAAT)

PS
Do not play dump WildPig, you know full well what is going on.

[btswildpig]

I consider this model screwed up.

Let's talk about the very last development.

The *Fisherman* donates to you 1mil PLAY tokens.

You are more than happy to promote him because of that.... And you just do not care if he screwed up the biggest believers in BTS/DPOS.

So, I have to donate the same amount to get the same exposure? I do not care about such system.
I have nobody  to screw up for 50 Mill, so I cannot donate 1mill to you;
So I am no good?...

Hope you get it TheNuts...

TK

OMG...tonyK , you still on this topic ?

I hate to break this to you , even if the original plan wasn't going to give share to the Long and Short orders , the 35% for BTS is still the same , just divided by different BTSer . So , if you think someone's benefiting from the original plan , it wasn't fuzz , it was the other BTSer who didn't long and short . The 35% for BTS is still the same amount no matter the plan allocate the 35% to whom.

If somehow it was stealing (which it wasn't) , it was one BTSer to another BTSer , not to fuzz .

So , would you please let Fuzz off the hook ?

[zerosum]

I have also kicked around the idea of offering a limited number of sponsored slots in this slate.

This is completely contrary to the idea that slate recommendations should comprise an unbiased assessment and set of recommendations by the reviewer. Open to all kinds of abuse in my opinion.

Provide a slate by all means, and vote for your own paid delegate on that slate as compensation for the effort of maintaining a slate.

Run another paid delegate to compensate you for dev hangouts, and the community can decide to finance/reward that effort too. Add that delegate to your slate too - no problem as long as it is transparent.

But don't ask for a portion of someone else's delegate pay when you're voting for them on a slate. That looks too much like a kickback, and even if it doesn't start out that way, that's what it'll turn into. I won't vote for any whose behaviour could be confused with taking or encouraging kickbacks, and I won't add them to my slate.

As much as I disagree with how the above poster does stuff ( as in starting his own POW coin, having a ridiculous 15% rake on his gaming coin... and finally abandoning it just because he feels so)

I  agree with him on this issue - start a delegate that pays for the stuff you do... you supporting 'slate / mlates'  does not only sound scammy...at the end of the day it is...

I will not and I should not vote for a delegate just because he supports you or other great causes... To say nothing that some  of those projects are included just because they provided funding... funding taken out of my own pocket as is the case with PLAY...

[FreeTrade]

I have also kicked around the idea of offering a limited number of sponsored slots in this slate.

This is completely contrary to the idea that slate recommendations should comprise an unbiased assessment and set of recommendations by the reviewer. Open to all kinds of abuse in my opinion.

Provide a slate by all means, and vote for your own paid delegate on that slate as compensation for the effort of maintaining a slate.

Run another paid delegate to compensate you for dev hangouts, and the community can decide to finance/reward that effort too. Add that delegate to your slate too - no problem as long as it is transparent.

But don't ask for a portion of someone else's delegate pay when you're voting for them on a slate. That looks too much like a kickback, and even if it doesn't start out that way, that's what it'll turn into. I won't vote for any whose behaviour could be confused with taking or encouraging kickbacks, and I won't add them to my slate.
 

[fuzzy]

I consider this model screwed up.

Let's talk about the very last development.

The *Fisherman* donates to you 1mil PLAY tokens.

You are more than happy to promote him because of that.... And you just do not care if he screwed up the biggest believers in BTS/DPOS.

So, I have to donate the same amount to get the same exposure? I do not care about such system.
I have nobody  to screw up for 50 Mill, so I cannot donate 1mill to you;
So I am no good?...

Hope you get it TheNuts...

TK

In the middle of finishing editing the bitshares PLAY hangout.  I'll get back to you after I'm done working on it. 

[zerosum]

I consider this model screwed up.

Let's talk about the very last development.

The *Fisherman* donates to you 1mil PLAY tokens.

You are more than happy to promote him because of that.... And you just do not care if he screwed up the biggest believers in BTS/DPOS.

So, I have to donate the same amount to get the same exposure? I do not care about such system.
I have nobody  to screw up for 50 Mill, so I cannot donate 1mill to you;
So I am no good?...

Hope you get it TheNuts...

TK

[fuzzy]

We have volunteer poker dealers left and right in home poker games. Tipping the dealer is optional, however, it can serve a great motivator to come back again next week.

There is a weird social dynamic which compels people to tip/donate in poker games.  This does not hold true online.  I mean there is some sort of analogy there, but don't see the 2 situation as being very equal.

The only way that works is if we dont show up on the weeks we do not get tips.  If that happens, others who have interests more openly aligned with our competitors may also want to jump in to fill the void.  They will not have been tried during the toughest times in this community and will not have proven their loyalties to the underdog that is bitshares.  Or worse they might leave at the first sign they could "make it big" faster by allying themselves with competitors with more resources who rely on the entrenched, centralized power structures that currently exist to promote themselves and their interests. This type of representative might even eventually conclude that town hall style meetups should be retired in exchange for private discussions between pundits and devs, cutting out the little guy and his/her questions/concerns.  We might even see bitshares all over television, but promoted by the same people who caused our financial crisis and are open enemies of freedom.

But the question is...how can anyone be certain the people who intend to fill this void will have the same philosophy that investors big and small should have such priceless access to the developers in whose projects they are investing? The only way to find out for sure is to give them a chance...to take a risk at a time when I honestly do not know the risk is safe to take (of course I may be biased here). 

It is a risk either way. But I assure everyone, we will all pay either way. The question really comes down to how valuable the people who have proven they will work for nothing (or very little) consistently for almost the entirety of the past year are to the community...and what they would be capable of doing with a captial infusion that is consistent and reliable. 

I would prefer to have delegates donate a small portion for sponsorships and in return I and the (expanding) beyond bitcoin crew organize hangouts that anyone can attend for as long as we can have devoted funding to support it. This way the weight of the community can be brought to bare to ask them questions and keep them honest--and this could include altchains.   When the majority of the community likes what they are doing and see their value proposition as worthwhile, they get the stamp of approval. The delegates that get that stamp and want to be seen as foundational to the bitshares community would then see giving a small, consistent donation to have a sponsorship slot as an honor given them by the community. The only benefit to these sponsorship slots being that they are openly advertised as being a proponent of the open and transparent discussions that enable the community vetting process.  Those who remain in power long enough...and support the system's sustainability over time will be seen like the beacons of light in a dark, uncertain sea of possibility.  They will bring stability and trust.

I actually see the hangouts we run as being a potential counterbalance to the problems that arise from large stakeholders having significantly more power than small stakeholders to vote these people into power.  It is the only place where you have all consistently been given a voice and direct contact with devs (and potentially delegates) in a way that produces results...not to mention content that enables anyone interested to become a cryptojournalist without ever having to pay out of pocket or join a club.

Sure these may even grow into large debates in the future...but even that will be historically significant and over time crypto historians and journalists alike will see our hangouts as treasure troves of content ripe for the picking.  And unlike jstor and other archives, these will not require payment to access because the community accepted the responsibility a LONG time ago to ensure they always remained free to the public. 

This is COMPLETELY unique to the system we are building...the one that started in bitshares community...and will always be recognized as such.  How can any other crypto compete with this vision?

My question, then, is does the community value this vision enough to support those who would work for chump change, for free, or pay out of pocket to see that vision fulfilled.  I can tell you for certain where I stand...and I, gamey, and joeyD have a pretty solid archive to prove it already.

Still interested in opinions though

P.S. julian..thanks for being open and honest with your opinions. Really.



Sent from my Galaxy Tab.

[gamey]

We have volunteer poker dealers left and right in home poker games. Tipping the dealer is optional, however, it can serve a great motivator to come back again next week.

There is a weird social dynamic which compels people to tip/donate in poker games.  This does not hold true online.  I mean there is some sort of analogy there, but don't see the 2 situation as being very equal.

[hpenvy]

I have also kicked around the idea of offering a limited number of sponsored slots in this slate.

This is completely contrary to the idea that slate recommendations should comprise an unbiased assessment and set of recommendations by the reviewer. Open to all kinds of abuse in my opinion.

pay the volunteers

Then they're not volunteers!

and the server fees

Exactly how much are your server fees? I pay a few dollars a month for EC2 instances, and can obtain research infrastructure IAAS for nothing.

volunteers also means their income from doing something does not match the value of that service in open market .

We have volunteer poker dealers left and right in home poker games. Tipping the dealer is optional, however, it can serve a great motivator to come back again next week.

[btswildpig]

I have also kicked around the idea of offering a limited number of sponsored slots in this slate.

This is completely contrary to the idea that slate recommendations should comprise an unbiased assessment and set of recommendations by the reviewer. Open to all kinds of abuse in my opinion.

pay the volunteers

Then they're not volunteers!

and the server fees

Exactly how much are your server fees? I pay a few dollars a month for EC2 instances, and can obtain research infrastructure IAAS for nothing.

volunteers also means their income from doing something does not match the value of that service in open market .

[fuzzy]

Ill answer each point as soon as I can get to my pc.  However, my opinion on the objective aspect of voting for delegate slates with regard to corruption is that the weekly mumble hangouts provide a dynamic environment and opportunity for anyone to whistleblow on a delegate who may be doing something corrupt. It could easily be recorded and posted to the forums to allow the entire weight of the community to gather the facts.  In my eyes, this is far from corrupt.

Also, people get to enter the mumble server to participate in discussions that are completely open with devs. They can ask hardball questions and get them on record in a way completely unique to our ecosystem.  They would be able to do this with or without voting for the slate, but could vote on the slate instead of us relying on tips.  This would free up more time for us to get closer to full time on this.  Of course, they could choose to refrain from voting for the slate and still receive this service...so I am not sure how this is corrupting.  Please give some examples?

(Ill get to the voluteer stuff from my computer so I can isolate your points individually because they are points worth bringing up so the community can know more about this).

[julian1]

I have also kicked around the idea of offering a limited number of sponsored slots in this slate.

This is completely contrary to the idea that slate recommendations should comprise an unbiased assessment and set of recommendations by the reviewer. Open to all kinds of abuse in my opinion.

pay the volunteers

Then they're not volunteers!

and the server fees

Exactly how much are your server fees? I pay a few dollars a month for EC2 instances, and can obtain research infrastructure IAAS for nothing.

[fuzzy]

I have kicked around the idea of offering Delegate Slates to help get delegates voted into power who have projects that myself and the Beyond Bitcoin volunteers believe in.  I have also kicked around the idea of offering a limited number of sponsored slots in this slate. 

In return for donating perhaps 5% of their income, we would hold hangouts for these devs and this would help pay the volunteers and the server fees so I do not have to do so out of pocket or rely on (often non-existent) tips. 

I am interested in people's thoughs on allowing this.  I am not saying opinions will necessarily change my mind moving forward with this, but I do want to hear opinions in the case I am missing some valuable insights that might evolve my current solution.