Author Topic: Current plans on delegate pay?  (Read 8007 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fuzzy

What happened to the empirical who made this awesome video? 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnunXnLdJdw

I miss him. 
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

delegate pay, referral system, devs seeking funding from entrepeneurs, bitAssets AND bitAssets 3.0 can all co-exist.

CLains with the essence of it all in 16 words.  +5%

+5%

Removing something that works, albeit imperfectly, for something that is completely unproven is not a good idea. Start out with a hybrid system, then if the referral thing works out well we can eventually all migrate to that. We need incremental changes, building on what already exists, not sweeping changes that throw out the old for new shinies.

 +5%

In my model you don't even need to 'shift' anything.. the delegates support the proposed 'toll roads' and serve to provide policy oversight and enforcement. This doesn't mean delegates have to remain as is.. I am all for improvements to the way delegates are handled also.. but the baby with the bathwater proposal is or was not received or perceived as an improvement but an upheaval.

We haven't seen the proposal.. but I certainly hope it is just that.. a proposal.. and I hope it can consider changes.. like my suggested adoption of a hybrid refer system integrated into UIAs with delegate oversight.. this to me utilizing all our core capacities to bring in something good.

I TOTALLY GET the incentive of transaction fees.. TOTALLY.. it just needs all the right pieces implimented to make it work right.. BM did say in the course of the meeting the idea of stability and neutrality.. after discussion with at least one core dev though.. I have the impression there won't be sweeping changes to delegates like the mumble session might have suggested.

UIA gateways for user refer fees with delegate vote capacity based on anti-spam mandate to freeze bad neighbourhood UIAs is the way I think it could/should go in an effective way to gain mass adoption and protect the brand/tech.

Changes to delegates is another discussion. :)

This ^ is why I am GLAD bytemaster is open about these things and discusses them with us.  Because rather than complain, data just came up with a happy medium proposal that we can try without significantly changing anything.
It is THIS ^ that makes bitshares amazing...our citizens have the power to do far more than just complain.  We can actually propose and use solutions dynamically.

As for unnecessary politics...well the only way you get rid of that is to make us all automatons connected to the borg mothership..and that is just no fun...  :)

4 100% delegates agree with maintaining 100% delegates, hardly surprising.

That's an inaccurate assessment of what has been agreed on this far.. but as far as having 100% delegates go the entire community voted on it.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline merivercap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
    • BitCash
delegate pay, referral system, devs seeking funding from entrepeneurs, bitAssets AND bitAssets 3.0 can all co-exist.

CLains with the essence of it all in 16 words.  +5%
I second that ... Have a self funded blockchain is one of our best selling points (I know that for a fact :) )

 +5%
BitCash - http://www.bitcash.org 
Beta: bitCash Wallet / p2p Gateway: (https://m.bitcash.org)
Beta: bitCash Trade (https://trade.bitcash.org)

Offline rgcrypto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
    • View Profile
    • Cryptoctopus Blog
delegate pay, referral system, devs seeking funding from entrepeneurs, bitAssets AND bitAssets 3.0 can all co-exist.

CLains with the essence of it all in 16 words.  +5%

+5%

Removing something that works, albeit imperfectly, for something that is completely unproven is not a good idea. Start out with a hybrid system, then if the referral thing works out well we can eventually all migrate to that. We need incremental changes, building on what already exists, not sweeping changes that throw out the old for new shinies.

I agree on this approach

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
delegate pay, referral system, devs seeking funding from entrepeneurs, bitAssets AND bitAssets 3.0 can all co-exist.

CLains with the essence of it all in 16 words.  +5%

+5%

Removing something that works, albeit imperfectly, for something that is completely unproven is not a good idea. Start out with a hybrid system, then if the referral thing works out well we can eventually all migrate to that. We need incremental changes, building on what already exists, not sweeping changes that throw out the old for new shinies.

 +5%

In my model you don't even need to 'shift' anything.. the delegates support the proposed 'toll roads' and serve to provide policy oversight and enforcement. This doesn't mean delegates have to remain as is.. I am all for improvements to the way delegates are handled also.. but the baby with the bathwater proposal is or was not received or perceived as an improvement but an upheaval.

We haven't seen the proposal.. but I certainly hope it is just that.. a proposal.. and I hope it can consider changes.. like my suggested adoption of a hybrid refer system integrated into UIAs with delegate oversight.. this to me utilizing all our core capacities to bring in something good.

I TOTALLY GET the incentive of transaction fees.. TOTALLY.. it just needs all the right pieces implimented to make it work right.. BM did say in the course of the meeting the idea of stability and neutrality.. after discussion with at least one core dev though.. I have the impression there won't be sweeping changes to delegates like the mumble session might have suggested.

UIA gateways for user refer fees with delegate vote capacity based on anti-spam mandate to freeze bad neighbourhood UIAs is the way I think it could/should go in an effective way to gain mass adoption and protect the brand/tech.

Changes to delegates is another discussion. :)

This ^ is why I am GLAD bytemaster is open about these things and discusses them with us.  Because rather than complain, data just came up with a happy medium proposal that we can try without significantly changing anything.
It is THIS ^ that makes bitshares amazing...our citizens have the power to do far more than just complain.  We can actually propose and use solutions dynamically.

As for unnecessary politics...well the only way you get rid of that is to make us all automatons connected to the borg mothership..and that is just no fun...  :)

4 100% delegates agree with maintaining 100% delegates, hardly surprising.   
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

[the referral program leaves] the door open to the snakes.. they come in.. affiliate networks and CPA networks deal with these sort of things ALL the time.. accounts get banned ALL the time for breaking policies they set for what types of marketing activities are acceptable and which are not... if they don't walk that fine line.. those affiliate networks become 'bad neighbourhoods' .. and eventually.. any links that lead to their systems.. become banned in major social networks.

Good point. This is like a tragedy of the commons for reputation. Solution?

UIA gateways for user refer fees with delegate vote capacity based on anti-spam mandate to freeze bad neighbourhood UIAs is the way I think it could/should go in an effective way to gain mass adoption and protect the brand/tech.

Is this the best solution? Is it all-encompassing of the problem? Could we have several solutions?

I am all for more solutions being proposed that addresses all he issues.. I just came up with this in the course of chatting in the market channel about the issues.

I think we will see more once we see what Dan and i3 had in mind during the mumble session.. because then we can actually take aim at what is really being proposed. I know of at least a few people who are waiting in the wings to even say anything about this until they see it.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
[the referral program leaves] the door open to the snakes.. they come in.. affiliate networks and CPA networks deal with these sort of things ALL the time.. accounts get banned ALL the time for breaking policies they set for what types of marketing activities are acceptable and which are not... if they don't walk that fine line.. those affiliate networks become 'bad neighbourhoods' .. and eventually.. any links that lead to their systems.. become banned in major social networks.

Good point. This is like a tragedy of the commons for reputation. Solution?

UIA gateways for user refer fees with delegate vote capacity based on anti-spam mandate to freeze bad neighbourhood UIAs is the way I think it could/should go in an effective way to gain mass adoption and protect the brand/tech.

Is this the best solution? Is it all-encompassing of the problem? Could we have several solutions?

Offline fuzzy

delegate pay, referral system, devs seeking funding from entrepeneurs, bitAssets AND bitAssets 3.0 can all co-exist.

CLains with the essence of it all in 16 words.  +5%

+5%

Removing something that works, albeit imperfectly, for something that is completely unproven is not a good idea. Start out with a hybrid system, then if the referral thing works out well we can eventually all migrate to that. We need incremental changes, building on what already exists, not sweeping changes that throw out the old for new shinies.

 +5%

In my model you don't even need to 'shift' anything.. the delegates support the proposed 'toll roads' and serve to provide policy oversight and enforcement. This doesn't mean delegates have to remain as is.. I am all for improvements to the way delegates are handled also.. but the baby with the bathwater proposal is or was not received or perceived as an improvement but an upheaval.

We haven't seen the proposal.. but I certainly hope it is just that.. a proposal.. and I hope it can consider changes.. like my suggested adoption of a hybrid refer system integrated into UIAs with delegate oversight.. this to me utilizing all our core capacities to bring in something good.

I TOTALLY GET the incentive of transaction fees.. TOTALLY.. it just needs all the right pieces implimented to make it work right.. BM did say in the course of the meeting the idea of stability and neutrality.. after discussion with at least one core dev though.. I have the impression there won't be sweeping changes to delegates like the mumble session might have suggested.

UIA gateways for user refer fees with delegate vote capacity based on anti-spam mandate to freeze bad neighbourhood UIAs is the way I think it could/should go in an effective way to gain mass adoption and protect the brand/tech.

Changes to delegates is another discussion. :)

This ^ is why I am GLAD bytemaster is open about these things and discusses them with us.  Because rather than complain, data just came up with a happy medium proposal that we can try without significantly changing anything.
It is THIS ^ that makes bitshares amazing...our citizens have the power to do far more than just complain.  We can actually propose and use solutions dynamically.

As for unnecessary politics...well the only way you get rid of that is to make us all automatons connected to the borg mothership..and that is just no fun...  :)
« Last Edit: April 26, 2015, 12:06:54 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
delegate pay, referral system, devs seeking funding from entrepeneurs, bitAssets AND bitAssets 3.0 can all co-exist.

CLains with the essence of it all in 16 words.  +5%
I second that ... Have a self funded blockchain is one of our best selling points (I know that for a fact :) )

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

delegate pay, referral system, devs seeking funding from entrepeneurs, bitAssets AND bitAssets 3.0 can all co-exist.

CLains with the essence of it all in 16 words.  +5%

+5%

Removing something that works, albeit imperfectly, for something that is completely unproven is not a good idea. Start out with a hybrid system, then if the referral thing works out well we can eventually all migrate to that. We need incremental changes, building on what already exists, not sweeping changes that throw out the old for new shinies.

 +5%

In my model you don't even need to 'shift' anything.. the delegates support the proposed 'toll roads' and serve to provide policy oversight and enforcement. This doesn't mean delegates have to remain as is.. I am all for improvements to the way delegates are handled also.. but the baby with the bathwater proposal is or was not received or perceived as an improvement but an upheaval.

We haven't seen the proposal.. but I certainly hope it is just that.. a proposal.. and I hope it can consider changes.. like my suggested adoption of a hybrid refer system integrated into UIAs with delegate oversight.. this to me utilizing all our core capacities to bring in something good.

I TOTALLY GET the incentive of transaction fees.. TOTALLY.. it just needs all the right pieces implimented to make it work right.. BM did say in the course of the meeting the idea of stability and neutrality.. after discussion with at least one core dev though.. I have the impression there won't be sweeping changes to delegates like the mumble session might have suggested.

UIA gateways for user refer fees with delegate vote capacity based on anti-spam mandate to freeze bad neighbourhood UIAs is the way I think it could/should go in an effective way to gain mass adoption and protect the brand/tech.

Changes to delegates is another discussion. :)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline svk

delegate pay, referral system, devs seeking funding from entrepeneurs, bitAssets AND bitAssets 3.0 can all co-exist.

CLains with the essence of it all in 16 words.  +5%

+5%

Removing something that works, albeit imperfectly, for something that is completely unproven is not a good idea. Start out with a hybrid system, then if the referral thing works out well we can eventually all migrate to that. We need incremental changes, building on what already exists, not sweeping changes that throw out the old for new shinies.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline lovejoy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
    • Cryptofresh
  • BitShares: lovejoy
delegate pay, referral system, devs seeking funding from entrepeneurs, bitAssets AND bitAssets 3.0 can all co-exist.

CLains with the essence of it all in 16 words.  +5%

Offline mike623317

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
    • View Profile
I will be the first to admit that I'm not sure I fully understand every part of the BitAssets proposed reforms, but I do fear that too many fundermental changes make us look indecisive and unsure. I agree that  change, if merited, should be implemented, but fundermental changes should be few and far between.

I have misgivings about leaving our source for self funding. Only the other month BM was saying in a mumble that it would make all the difference in the world. For the record I agree with that, so I'm not sure what caused such a monumental shift? It makes the vision look shaky if you ask me.
Evolution not revolution bitmaster.

Offline CryptoPrometheus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile

I remember Bytemaster said in the hangout something that the people making transactions should be the ones paying for the service and not stakeholders. Ultimately this is right, but I do think that stakeholders have a certain buffer role. There are times where expenses are going to exceed income, and yet it is necessary to spend those funds. Currently we are in this situation. If we had to cover all delegate pay with TX fees, they would be so high that no one would use BTS anyway.

I may be alone with this opinion but I still think that efficient, sustainable funding through dilution is a great idea and gives us an advantage over all the other crypto projects out there. For now growth is far more important than some percent stake. And once BitShares reaches a substantial size, and tx fees get adjusted we might be able to become deflationary.

...If we will not be paid to offer these services by the blockchain, we will be forced to form alliances with entities that do not necessarily have transparency for everyday investors as a concern.  That means that even if bitshares does well in marketcap, you will likely see the old system, only 2.0  the only media you will get will be paid by big players who see little players as sheep to be sheered.  Just like Fox news and MSNBC. 

I also share the above concerns.

My feeling is that we should preserve the 100%  paid delegate option, while introducing the referral system.  Shareholders can decide long term whether there is a benefit to delegates providing development and marketing services.

More fine grained voting systems can be implemented as development resources allow.

I think it would be premature to abandon the self funding model at this stage.  In the future it may not be necessary, but at the moment even this 'miniscule' dilution is providing the ability to seed efforts across a wide range of developments.  So I advocate for a 'hybrid' model until we are grown up enough to survive and thrive in the wild.

I have similar sentiments. It is possible we might cause irreparable harm to our reputation as a community if we decide to "flip-flop" on an already controversial system after only allowing, what, 5 months trial run in the middle of a brutal bear market? Sure, holding elections for business proposals is far from a perfect solution, but are we so shortsighted as to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", as DataSecurityNode put it?

It is already clear that the outright removal of delegate dilution would harm and probably destroy a number of fledgling enterprises that have, trusting in the stability of the protocol, begun to utilize this feature to bring value to the ecosystem.

I have yet to see a sound mathematical argument that delegate dilution has caused any major or even significant drop in share price. The percentages just aren't there. What we DO have at this time, however imperfect, is a number of trusted delegates (and by extension, their business proposals) that HAVE been democratically elected into place by stakeholders. Removing this feature, and thus overturning these votes, should require a true majority approval at the very least, should it not?

I agree with Bitscape. If the referral program ends up being our silver bullet, then what is wrong with just allowing shareholders to decide afterwards (through their up or down votes) whether or not we continue to allow high % dilution delegates. Meanwhile, would it really be that horrible if these features existed side by side?


« Last Edit: April 26, 2015, 04:31:24 am by CryptoPrometheus »
"Power and law are not synonymous. In fact, they are often in opposition and irreconcilable."
- Cicero

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

I shared this in the marketing channel and feel compelled to share it here as well to see how you all might feel about the way I think this could/should work.. along side my concerns for a trustless blockchain based refer system and why it will mean the end of the bitshares brand (not to be too dramatic or anything :) )

datasecuritynode
there are serious issues with this refer program model too.. how is governance over this program going to be accomplished.. if it is not run  like other affiliate programs.. bitshares is going to be the next payment option of choice for all virus and malware makers.. and every SPAMMER in the world is going to continue to spam bitshares everywhere completely unchecked with no consequence

datasecuritynode [9:32 AM]
resulting ultimately in turning bitshares into a bad community.. getting added to the DBLs.. and never being able to post a link to bitshares in any social platform

it needs governance.. I know this from knowing the industry..

datasecuritynode [9:35 AM]
the way to stop the behaviour is cutting off the income source

they just need offers.. most offers shut them down and they dont get paid once they see how it is being done.. but in bitshares.. with no governance.. they can continue bad bahaviour without consequence and keep making moeny.. if I can get just 0.1% of my 200 million email list.. and keep making money from that for the natural life of the end user.. I will be pissing rainbows

datasecuritynode [9:42 AM]
the delegate mechanism gives the people control over who gets funds.. so if someone was doing something like that the way it is now.. they would just get voted out... incentive gone

datasecuritynode [9:43 AM]
in an affiliate network.. there is no oversight over everyone.. there is nothing to vote out

stan [8:28 PM]
RE SPAM:  The leading referral concept offers referrers a vesting slice of the lifetime fees paid by each user they sign up ...as those fees are paid.  No point in signing up sock puppets that won't pay.  You are rewarded with transferrable revenue streams, not a cash payment.

fox [11:07 PM]
I for one am skeptical.  Something feels misaligned from BM's original ambition.

datasecuritynode [11:47 PM]
@stan RE SPAM: Yes.. that's what I understood.. bitcoin is the payment of choice for these bad players and some spammers because of its finality in transactions.. however.. a spammer (and I am including malware and virus spreaders in that term.. not just bulk emailers) would recognize the bitshares refer offer to mean more money on the table for them.. they will acquire the new users before the market does and because there is no governance that would prevent them from profiting from the bad behavior.. it will be by their way of trickery and extortion that massive numbers will be acquired where these bad behavior actors will have beaten everyone else to setting up the 'tolls on the road' as Dan put it..

You leave the door open to the snakes.. they come in.. affiliate networks and CPA networks deal with these sort of things ALL the time.. accounts get banned ALL the time for breaking policies they set for what types of marketing activities are acceptable and which are not... if they don't walk that fine line.. those affiliate networks become 'bad neighbourhoods' .. and eventually.. any links that lead to their systems.. become banned in major social networks.

I don't know what kind of industry experts who have real world experience in managing these types of networks have been consulted.. but the threats I talk about are from real world experience I have.. and I have only run one affiliate program myself while participating in many over the years in many networks.

Delegates now are held to account by the people through a system.. this type of bad behavior would easily be voted out and cut off their source of income.. which largely prevents the bad behaviour from happening in the first place..

An affiliate program on the blockchain without governance and oversite to enforce anti-spam policies WILL result in the WORLD enforcing it's governance over it by adding it to the DBLs around the world as a bad neighbourhood that can be caused all by just ONE single bad player. The power of a single spammer to poison a program like this is real... again because the world will attempt to seek out governance from our system only to find there is none.. THEY know what this means (again my reference to industry experts with experience) .. and will act accordingly to label the bitshares community as a bad community that condones the type of bad activity that snagged their attention via spam reports, honey pots, and virus reports... the label will be given only because we will have no mechanism to effectively have people who judge and apply policies of good or bad behaviour to the program to stop the incentive to continue the bad behaviour... on the other hand.. currently a voting system is in place that does effectively 'judge' ... but the proposed system as I heard it has none of that.

Ok.. I have surpassed way to many TLTR buffers in this response. :simple_smile: .. think I have made it clear enough. Without governance, bad actors will be the standard by which bitshares will be seen and judged as a condoner of such activity.

----- Today April 26th, 2015 -----

rnglab [12:03 AM]
I'm afraid I agree with fox and datasecuritynode. Even before reading in depth about new delegate pay rate and BitAsset propositions (huge chances), I believe almost close eyed on founders, devs and main community members judgment.

rnglab [12:05 AM]
but talking about a marketing system implementation at protocol level makes me doubt somehow

rnglab [12:06 AM]
in the long term course of Bitshares

datasecuritynode [12:13 AM]
noooooow.. having said THAT ... and I am thinking of how a refer program COULD be implemented to incentivize along side of everything else and including voters/judges... if I could have a UIA on which the bitshares network would track new users coming in via that 'currency'.. where in that the issuer of the UIA is going to make money on all the transactions of that UIA.. and the UIA becomes the 'gateway' so to speak of the profit model for that business.. it then becomes the UIA issuers responsibility to govern over bad behaviour... BUT.. WE need a way to govern over UIAs as well.. ie. stop bad actors from using the system.. how that would look I am not sure.. but a system like that where a sort of local/self regulated level is there and a public level of oversight is also there.. that I think would provide a mechanism... I am thinking delegates would be ideal to handle that as the trusted.. guardians of the bitshares galaxy. :simple_smile: (movie reference.. recent favorite :simple_smile: )

rnglab [12:14 AM]
(have to say I know nothing about marketing and that I still don't clearly see where this discontent comes from)
datasecuritynode
[12:21 AM]

now if the UIA issuer who brought in the new user can profit on that user in the entire ecosystem.. yes.. that is incentive.. fees would flow to the UIA 'gateway' that user came in through... if bad behviour was found to be a problem with this UIA and they do not act to govern (ie. the UIA issuer is a nasty spammer) .. then the 101 delegates could get a majority vote to 'freeze' the asset and 'cut off' the incentive.. all the users fees then go back to the network... the Guaradians of the BitShares Galaxy did their duty to protect it from evil.



datasecuritynode [12:24 AM]
and in this scenario.. the trusted delegates voted by the public are actually more critical than ever to protecting the interests of bitshare holders

datasecuritynode [12:25 AM]
this is just one way *I* can see it potentially work.. we have an affilite program governed by delegates.. the question of dilution is moot because they are doing more for the public good than what dilution amounts to.. who ever is crying over this needs their head checked.

datasecuritynode [12:35 AM]
btw.. if THIS was how it works.. and UIAs are grandfathered.. I will be one happy BunkerShares UIA issuer :simple_smile:

datasecuritynode [12:35 AM]
and I am betting MoonStone will be doing backflips
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+