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: [Proposal] We need an architecture of how many delegates get paid in what %, ...  (Read 420 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cn-members

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
    • View Profile

The full title is:
"[Proposal] We need an architecture of how many delegates get paid in what %, rather than everyone has 100% delegate and get paid equally."

We understand that currently the income (calculated in fiat) of an 100% delegate is not really high, so it is ok that many ones working for BitShares can have 100% delegate for now to attract as many people as possible. So this question is actually about the future: Is it really suitable that so many people having 100% delegates and thus get paid as much as core devs like bytemaster and toast? I mean, if we use the metaphor of company, is it suitable that every employee get paid as much as CEO? Furthermore, considering that 100% is the best this ‘company’ can offer, then what could we offer in the future to motivate employees to do better? The key point in this issue is that we need an architecture of how many delegates get paid in what %, rather than everyone has 100% delegate and get paid equally.
Once again, we do know that currently the price of BTS is not high, so the income of 100% delegate is not high for now. The question is really about the future, as we believe the price of BTS will skyrocket to surpass other cryptcurrencies. When this happens, we definitely need a more organized system of how many delegates are paid in what %.
BTS中文区发言人公共账号,帮助社区有效沟通与交流。
Chinese Community Spokesman Account,to help the effective communication between Chinese and other members of the community.We're not translators to do regular translations , but will help with vital ones as we see fit and available at that time.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
 +5% liondani had a good idea, where shareholders influence the pay-rate.

it would be great that we have the option integrated in the wallet to vote independently for the pay rate for elected delegates...  imagine when you vote for a  delegate to have a second field  where you can enter your preferred pay rate... The actual payrate could be the average or median payrate from all voters... In that way the delegates don't need to campaign for new delegates with different names every now and then (it will be confusing)... 

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

 +5% That's an interesting idea.

I'd also like to see some 'director delegates' such as 'marketing director' and 'development director'. Besides their own job they are also responsible for keeping 4/5 other delegates 'in check' helping keep track of their projects, that they deliver, and that their pay doesn't get too high. So if a marketing delegate is suddenly earning a fortune a month and not doing much, it also reflects badly on the marketing director who should have been letting the community know about the situation sooner.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2014, 03:47:23 AM by Empirical1.1 »

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2809
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BTS: Stan
The full title is:
"[Proposal] We need an architecture of how many delegates get paid in what %, rather than everyone has 100% delegate and get paid equally."

We understand that currently the income (calculated in fiat) of an 100% delegate is not really high, so it is ok that many ones working for BitShares can have 100% delegate for now to attract as many people as possible. So this question is actually about the future: Is it really suitable that so many people having 100% delegates and thus get paid as much as core devs like bytemaster and toast? I mean, if we use the metaphor of company, is it suitable that every employee get paid as much as CEO? Furthermore, considering that 100% is the best this ‘company’ can offer, then what could we offer in the future to motivate employees to do better? The key point in this issue is that we need an architecture of how many delegates get paid in what %, rather than everyone has 100% delegate and get paid equally.
Once again, we do know that currently the price of BTS is not high, so the income of 100% delegate is not high for now. The question is really about the future, as we believe the price of BTS will skyrocket to surpass other cryptcurrencies. When this happens, we definitely need a more organized system of how many delegates are paid in what %.

As the value of a BTS grows we expect to transition through a period when it will be important to distinguish between pay scales for different skills and functions.  Beyond that, we expect it to move to the point where no single person merits 100% of a delegate revenue stream.  At that time, it will become more common for each delegate revenue stream to fund a small business or company department consisting of multiple contributors.  Each business/department will then have to justify its "services contract" with the DAC.  There is always room for a mix of part time individuals through larger teams.  Each will have to justify the size of its proposed income stream vs the value of the services it performs.  This will get competitive.  We are relying on this competition to produce the best possible allocation of resources using the 101 allocated revenue streams.

We have learned not to try to impose strict rules on our future selves - for we cannot see that far ahead.  The current system allows for an evolution of best practices to occur and allows for our (presumably smarter) future selves to choose among them.

« Last Edit: November 30, 2014, 03:54:13 AM by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

julian1

  • Guest
There's no reason delegates couldn't engage external 'real-world' auditors to ensure that capital and labor resources are being used as stated.

I could also foresee the possibility of delegates being legally incorporated entities with extra reporting obligations, rather than working as individuals.

At the moment though, a core individual's contribution to, and standing within the Bitshares community is enough to warrant them being voted in as a paid delegate.

I'm intensely curious to see how this side of things will evolve as the stakes get bigger.

Offline ripplexiaoshan

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1982
    • View Profile
  • BTS: xiaoshan
What stan said sounds reasonable, we need a lot of competitors with high payrate delegates to join first, and then distinguish their contribution.
 
However, BTS is still at very early stage, the infrastructure(wallet protocol) is not well ready yet. It is therefore necessary for the core members like BM to be cautious to take any chance that might break down BTS, because once the community lose their faith, the second BTS might come out and win the final battle. Because the idea of BTS is already well known, and the technique is always second important. Just like Amazon was not the first E business company, and APPLE was not the first to make cellphones.

As to the thought of the OP, in my opinion, 3% delegates are responsible for wallet update to secure the system, so BM should have a full control of them. However, it is not appropriate for BM to vote for the high payrate delegates using AGS fund, because there will always be some guys think that BM is not as good as the whole community to distinguish the contribution of delegates. Moreover, it has been proved that the community can hire toast by their votes, so other high payrate delegates like BM, STAN, Methox, cass, bitsharesblocks,etc. can also be elected by the same way.

   
BTS ID:xiaoshan                   www.yoyow.org      www.btsabc.org      www.openledger.info

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
What stan said sounds reasonable, we need a lot of competitors with high payrate delegates to join first, and then distinguish their contribution.
 
However, BTS is still at very early stage, the infrastructure(wallet protocol) is not well ready yet. It is therefore necessary for the core members like BM to be cautious to take any chance that might break down BTS, because once the community lose their faith, the second BTS might come out and win the final battle. Because the idea of BTS is already well known, and the technique is always second important. Just like Amazon was not the first E business company, and APPLE was not the first to make cellphones.

As to the thought of the OP, in my opinion, 3% delegates are responsible for wallet update to secure the system, so BM should have a full control of them. However, it is not appropriate for BM to vote for the high payrate delegates using AGS fund, because there will always be some guys think that BM is not as good as the whole community to distinguish the contribution of delegates. Moreover, it has been proved that the community can hire toast by their votes, so other high payrate delegates like BM, STAN, Methox, cass, bitsharesblocks,etc. can also be elected by the same way.

   

 +5%  +5%

Offline BTSdac

there are many discussion about delegate issue in CN community.
I think BM have much ability about code. so he control AGS fund to vote developing 100% pay rate delegate is reasonable .
but for marketing delegate . I think don`t use AGS fund to vote is a better way.
but if a very good marketing  man cannot get AGS fund`S poll is not fair to him
so I have an idea.
consider now average voting percentage is about 10% now, so if a marketing delegate can get X % poll exclude AGS fund `s poll. then AGS fund can vote this delegate  (X%/10%*AGS poll)
« Last Edit: December 02, 2014, 02:39:15 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


clout

  • Guest
BM has said this before, but delegates should establish how much they need for their project in USD and burn any remaining BTS in excess of their stated funding goal. If you can't trust them to burn their excess funds than how can you trust them to act in the best interest of shareholders in any capacity. Thus, not complying with this unwritten rule would be grounds for removal from their positions. Although I am sure there will also be instances when the value added by an individual or team is sufficient enough to warrant the bonus.

Offline Overthetop

Good thoughts.

BTS is building a unique community,  all aspects of discussion would impel the community become more mature.

个人微博账号: Overthetop_万里晴空
“块链创新与创业”交流群: 330378613

 

Google+