Author Topic: Year End Developer Bonuses  (Read 23806 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline eagleeye

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • View Profile
Quote
*Why no bonus for the NullSt. people?  Can I have a severance too? I will take 3 million BTS to go away and never come back. Send to newmine  ;)

That is why you don't get a bonus/severance.  Those that did get it are committed to the cause and will not abandon the project even though in our contract-free ecosystem they could.

Wat? I have no affiliation with NullSt guys. I am just saying they are making about $2K per month and doing a better job than all of you guys, Stan, You, Brian Page etc. in the marketing arena and your near 1/2 a million dollars in pay you've paid yourselves. Just saying, maybe Stan's bonus (not sure why he earned it) should've gone to those guys.

Stan earned his bonus, go f yourself.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
I agree with you in general but don't forget bm was in pressure to give the bonuses earlier (end of 2014) because of taxes etc.  he would face if AGS funds would not spend the same year they purchased them... That was one of the main reason he made the merge thing (in my opinion, and not VOTE etc.) so a big stake of BTS from current devs are vested the next 2 years and they have still motivation to work for the project... Imagine the merge would not happen at 2014 and he would give the bonuses like he did now? ... am I missing something?

You are pretty close, except for the phrase in bold.   Let me unravel it a bit into the logical reasoning sequence:

1.  The Great BitCoin Depression reduced our development runway from 2 down to 1 years.
2.  The idea of a self-funding block chain emerged as a solution that would provide sustainable long-term funding.
3.  With it, there was no need to incur the tax and progress penalties of carrying half the funds into the second year at a much slower burn rate.  Best value was to use all donations this year.
4.  VOTE was the next DAC available to be implemented to honor post-Feb AGS donors.
5.  To honorably build VOTE to be the best it could be, we would have implemented what BTS is today, including the self-funding strategy and inheriting all the features of BTS.
6.  That would have left BTSX as the far distant second-best crypto in the world - stuck without any further funding.
7.  This would have been contrary to BM's other obligation to do what was best for BTSX.

dilemma  [dih-lem-uh] noun
1. a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives..

Thus, something had to give.  That led to the need for BM to focus on just one DAC so that each new, better, DAC didn't cannibalize the network effect of previous best effort.   

Thus the incorrectly named "merger" was
the ultimate effect not the initial cause.

We are here where we are by a Darwinian process of natural selection.  The current solution was deliberately engineered to be the most survivable. 

And to survive, we dinosaurs must continue to evolve. 
Rumor has it that mammals are on the drawing board...




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.

Offline neo1344

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
lucrative shares!! nothing wrong for DEV to get paid however what happened to DNS snapshot allocation to exchanges? it has been almost two months now and Bter keep writing me that they have not received any BTS yet.this is biggest obstacles that Bitshares facing right nowadays.many investors has lost their trust to this community.
happy new year and best wishes

Offline bytemaster

Ultimately we are competing against the obvious fact that, at some point, it is better for a developer to pull down $150K at  Google, live off $50K, and buy $100K worth of BTS - minus taxes.   

I am starting as well to get tired to hear this Google argument every time Stan!
If that was true Google would have a whole Country of developers employed right know! Don't they stop to hire ?
Or after all if they would not believe on the project they would already work for Google, and believe me they would not buy  $100K worth of BTS but $100K worth of ripple, ethereum etc.

Google is merely a proxy for market supply / demand for developer time and the need to pay competitive rates.   How do we know we are paying developers enough?  They work for us.  How do we know we aren't paying them too much?  Because they had other offers as similar prices elsewhere.    Ie: developers have an opportunity cost associated with working on BitShares. 

As far as Bonus / Severance goes it is all a matter of perspective.  What matters legally is that they have no legal obligation to perform work in 2015 for Invictus.     

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Ultimately we are competing against the obvious fact that, at some point, it is better for a developer to pull down $150K at  Google, live off $50K, and buy $100K worth of BTS - minus taxes.   

I am starting as well to get tired to hear this Google argument every time Stan!
If that was true Google would have a whole Country of developers employed right know! Don't they stop to hire ?
Or after all if they would not believe on the project they would already work for Google, and believe me they would not buy  $100K worth of BTS but $100K worth of ripple, ethereum etc.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Multiple delegates for core devs is a bad idea because precedent.

Core devs have large BTS stakes and are incentivized by their holdings.

Let's not forget that when BTS hits ~ $1 all of the core devs become independently wealthy.

At $10 - $100/BTS they join the ultra high net worth crowd.

Keeping the dev team hungry and lean right now is ideal. Experience talking.

With regard to dev pay BM needs to stop using the term 'bonus'.

I don't think anyone in the community feels core devs are over compensated.

However, bonuses are associated with achieving goals etc. and 2014 was defined by continually moving the goal posts.

This was a good thing and ultimately will increase stakeholder returns etc. but it's 2015 and no 1.0.

Perhaps it would have been wise to schedule 'bonus' payments on release of 1.0, probably more palatable to the community and more in line with common perception of bonusing schemes.

Going forward I would suggest that 'bonus' payments be tied to achieving milestones and everything else be compensation, whether paid as salary or lump sum.

My other take away is that BTS needs to hit $.5-$1 in 2015.

I agree with you in general but don't forget bm was in pressure to give the bonuses earlier (end of 2014) because of taxes etc.  he would face if AGS funds would not spend the same year they purchased them... That was one of the main reason he made the merge thing (in my opinion, and not VOTE etc.) so a big stake of BTS from current devs are vested the next 2 years and they have still motivation to work for the project... Imagine the merge would not happen at 2014 and he would give the bonuses like he did now? ... am I missing something?

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Multiple delegates for core devs is a bad idea because precedent.

Core devs have large BTS stakes and are incentivized by their holdings.

Let's not forget that when BTS hits ~ $1 all of the core devs become independently wealthy.

At $10 - $100/BTS they join the ultra high net worth crowd.

Keeping the dev team hungry and lean right now is ideal. Experience talking.

With regard to dev pay BM needs to stop using the term 'bonus'.

I don't think anyone in the community feels core devs are over compensated.

However, bonuses are associated with achieving goals etc. and 2014 was defined by continually moving the goal posts.

This was a good thing and ultimately will increase stakeholder returns etc. but it's 2015 and no 1.0.

Perhaps it would have been wise to schedule 'bonus' payments on release of 1.0, probably more palatable to the community and more in line with common perception of bonusing schemes.

Going forward I would suggest that 'bonus' payments be tied to achieving milestones and everything else be compensation, whether paid as salary or lump sum.

My other take away is that BTS needs to hit $.5-$1 in 2015.
If our developers are forced to live off their existing stash, most will not have any holdings at all by the end of this year.  Hardly a motivating proposition.

Ultimately we are competing against the obvious fact that, at some point, it is better for a developer to pull down $150K at  Google, live off $50K, and buy $100K worth of BTS - minus taxes.    Compare this to the strategy of trying to live off a single delegate's salary (1/4 of the going average rate) and having no new BTS at the end of the month -- in fact, having less because you were forced to eat into some of what you earned last year just to pay your rent.

So we don't really have the presumptive option to "keep the developers hungry and lean."  We need them more than they need us.   BitShares will need to compete with their other options.

As for the "bonus" strategy, our approach was simply dictated by IRS tax rules. "Bonuses" were an IRS-acceptable way to achieve best value for BitShares.  The fact that there might be more optimal ways to do things without artificial constraints placed on us by The Powers that Be, doesn't really matter.  We worked with several law firms and an international accounting firm to optimize last year's unique tax situation.   This stretched the value we were able to generate for the BitShares community to the max extent those expert advisers were able to conceive. 

 :)


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.

sumantso

  • Guest
Just saying, maybe Stan's bonus (not sure why he earned it) should've gone to those guys.

Somewhat agree to this part, having a bonus as well as a 100% delegate is overkill. But maybe he is handling expenses we are not aware of?

Offline oldman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
    • View Profile
Multiple delegates for core devs is a bad idea because precedent.

Core devs have large BTS stakes and are incentivized by their holdings.

Let's not forget that when BTS hits ~ $1 all of the core devs become independently wealthy.

At $10 - $100/BTS they join the ultra high net worth crowd.

Keeping the dev team hungry and lean right now is ideal. Experience talking.

With regard to dev pay BM needs to stop using the term 'bonus'.

I don't think anyone in the community feels core devs are over compensated.

However, bonuses are associated with achieving goals etc. and 2014 was defined by continually moving the goal posts.

This was a good thing and ultimately will increase stakeholder returns etc. but it's 2015 and no 1.0.

Perhaps it would have been wise to schedule 'bonus' payments on release of 1.0, probably more palatable to the community and more in line with common perception of bonusing schemes.

Going forward I would suggest that 'bonus' payments be tied to achieving milestones and everything else be compensation, whether paid as salary or lump sum.

My other take away is that BTS needs to hit $.5-$1 in 2015.




Offline James212

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Tired of hearing "These developers could be earning over $100K per year at places like google". If they really could, they would have.

I reneged on my offer which effectively blacklists me from applying there again any time soon. "They would have" is directly contradicted by the evidence.

I'm grateful that you did. If we can get this to work, just think of all the good it will help to produce.  What a great use of talent and what a legacy for yourself, dan and others.

Let's bring this puppy home over the next year or two and be grateful for what we have. There's a lot of people suffering out there.


I personally agree with Rune's Statement that top devs should temporarily have more than 1 delegate.  It is beyond frustrating to me that people would even question whether someone like toast should be getting paid well for their work.  It is not like these guys are just sitting around drinking beer and eating chips all day...
They are innovating, working hard, pitching marketing ideas, helping manage forums and github repos, answering questions of investors, attending interviews...etc.  I sincerely doubt any of them get a normal night's sleep--ever.  The amount of complaining I see is (imho) shameful.

 +5% +5%
BTS: theangelwaveproject

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
I am personally ok with adequate (relative to industry standards) pay and think it is necessary. But there should be complete transparency which is why I am very happy about this step / OP. If there is no transparency observers have to no basis to form an opinion which is the worst because it is the "job" of shareholders to form an opinion on whether to vote in a delegate or not. In the past I had to "vote blindly" for toast

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Tired of hearing "These developers could be earning over $100K per year at places like google". If they really could, they would have.

I reneged on my offer which effectively blacklists me from applying there again any time soon. "They would have" is directly contradicted by the evidence.

I'm grateful that you did. If we can get this to work, just think of all the good it will help to produce.  What a great use of talent and what a legacy for yourself, dan and others.

Let's bring this puppy home over the next year or two and be grateful for what we have. There's a lot of people suffering out there.


I personally agree with Rune's Statement that top devs should temporarily have more than 1 delegate.  It is beyond frustrating to me that people would even question whether someone like toast should be getting paid well for their work.  It is not like these guys are just sitting around drinking beer and eating chips all day...
They are innovating, working hard, pitching marketing ideas, helping manage forums and github repos, answering questions of investors, attending interviews...etc.  I sincerely doubt any of them get a normal night's sleep--ever.  The amount of complaining I see is (imho) shameful.
+1
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
Tired of hearing "These developers could be earning over $100K per year at places like google". If they really could, they would have.

I reneged on my offer which effectively blacklists me from applying there again any time soon. "They would have" is directly contradicted by the evidence.

I'm grateful that you did. If we can get this to work, just think of all the good it will help to produce.  What a great use of talent and what a legacy for yourself, dan and others.

Let's bring this puppy home over the next year or two and be grateful for what we have. There's a lot of people suffering out there.


I personally agree with Rune's Statement that top devs should temporarily have more than 1 delegate.  It is beyond frustrating to me that people would even question whether someone like toast should be getting paid well for their work.  It is not like these guys are just sitting around drinking beer and eating chips all day...
They are innovating, working hard, pitching marketing ideas, helping manage forums and github repos, answering questions of investors, attending interviews...etc.  I sincerely doubt any of them get a normal night's sleep--ever.  The amount of complaining I see is (imho) shameful.

 +5% Well said! I second that!
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline fuzzy

Tired of hearing "These developers could be earning over $100K per year at places like google". If they really could, they would have.

I reneged on my offer which effectively blacklists me from applying there again any time soon. "They would have" is directly contradicted by the evidence.

I'm grateful that you did. If we can get this to work, just think of all the good it will help to produce.  What a great use of talent and what a legacy for yourself, dan and others.

Let's bring this puppy home over the next year or two and be grateful for what we have. There's a lot of people suffering out there.


I personally agree with Rune's Statement that top devs should temporarily have more than 1 delegate.  It is beyond frustrating to me that people would even question whether someone like toast should be getting paid well for their work.  It is not like these guys are just sitting around drinking beer and eating chips all day...
They are innovating, working hard, pitching marketing ideas, helping manage forums and github repos, answering questions of investors, attending interviews...etc.  I sincerely doubt any of them get a normal night's sleep--ever.  The amount of complaining I see is (imho) shameful. 
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline mike623317

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
    • View Profile
Tired of hearing "These developers could be earning over $100K per year at places like google". If they really could, they would have.

I reneged on my offer which effectively blacklists me from applying there again any time soon. "They would have" is directly contradicted by the evidence.

I'm grateful that you did. If we can get this to work, just think of all the good it will help to produce.  What a great use of talent and what a legacy for yourself, dan and others.

Let's bring this puppy home over the next year or two and be grateful for what we have. There's a lot of people suffering out there.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2015, 06:22:10 am by mike623317 »