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: Current plans on delegate pay?  (Read 1375 times)

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BTS: speedy
Current plans on delegate pay?
« on: April 25, 2015, 05:12:21 PM »

Managed to listen to some of the mumble on Friday. From what I gather, the new plans are:

-Remove inflation for delegate pay
-Create the referral scheme that takes all the BitUSD transaction fees, so no more yield on BitUSD

This is great for the people now known as marketing delegates, but how do we still pay developers, whose product cant be quantified but is no less valuable?

So is this the plan to make us deflationary again, instead of making fees generated > delegate pay, get rid of delegate pay altogether?

Offline Frodo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
  • BTS: frodo
Re: Current plans on delegate pay?
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2015, 06:02:27 PM »
I agree that the current delegate pay system may not be ideal but imo the new approach seems to be a lot worse.

1. I still don't understand how companys would be incentivized to hire core devs.
2. How are you supposed to raise money with refferals before there is a finished product?
3. The stakeholders give up direct control of what gets funded. There are most likely projects which are very beneficial to fund for BitShares as whole but can not be sufficiently monetized with referrals. (similar to point 1, but more general) Said differently, refferals aren't a perfect metric for overall userfulness. It is also about pleasing long time users, security and overall service quality.
4. This depends on the implementation of the referral system but I see the following danger: As long as the ecosystem expands everything is fine but once the stream of new users stagnates the whole system collapses.


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.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2015, 11:12:46 PM by Frodo »

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BTS: Stan
Re: Current plans on delegate pay?
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2015, 06:03:26 PM »
Managed to listen to some of the mumble on Friday. From what I gather, the new plans are:

-Remove inflation for delegate pay
-Create the referral scheme that takes all the BitUSD transaction fees, so no more yield on BitUSD

This is great for the people now known as marketing delegates, but how do we still pay developers, whose product cant be quantified but is no less valuable?

So is this the plan to make us deflationary again, instead of making fees generated > delegate pay, get rid of delegate pay altogether?

Bytemaster was just asking what attendees thought about various issues.  One should only infer that he is thinking about the topics, not that changes are imminent.

Feedback from such sessions helps guide his strategic planning on multiple fronts with multiple partners.  Setting the right rates for system services would increase revenues which could be used to do some mix of referrals and alternative ways to fund contributors of all kinds.

Providing a way for the shareholders/delegates to adapt to changing market conditions by dialing those various degrees of freedom up or down would make it more competitive and resilient over various business cycles.

He hopes to parameterize many more variables so it doesn't take a hard fork to adapt.

He mentioned that he wants to encourage more third-party involvement in funding the features they would like to see and to provide the financial incentives for them to want to do so.
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 fuzzy

Re: Current plans on delegate pay?
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2015, 06:13:35 PM »
I know beyond bitcoin hangouts may be on the chopping block from this proposal. Maybe this is the right way to do things, but I ultimately think it is a ham fisted attempt to do something that will do more harm the good. I guess we will see if it happens though.

One thing I do know is that focusing on benefitting bitshares' holders probably will come second if we can keep it running.   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. 
« Last Edit: April 25, 2015, 06:17:54 PM by fuzzy »
BROWNIE==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits Welcome to  the Sharing Economy w/ BeyondBitcoin.org Partners--ShareBits.io & OpenLedger.info
TIP FORMAT: #sharebits "ForumHandleInQuotes" Quanity Token_Name

Offline lovejoy

Re: Current plans on delegate pay?
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2015, 06:22:35 PM »
Managed to listen to some of the mumble on Friday. From what I gather, the new plans are:

-Remove inflation for delegate pay
-Create the referral scheme that takes all the BitUSD transaction fees, so no more yield on BitUSD

This is great for the people now known as marketing delegates, but how do we still pay developers, whose product cant be quantified but is no less valuable?

So is this the plan to make us deflationary again, instead of making fees generated > delegate pay, get rid of delegate pay altogether?

First off, this was a conversation in which some alternative ideas were floated out there, and I think it's important to make a distinction right out of the gate here that these are not 'plans', as such, these are ideas for discussion.  Bytemaster went off the radar for a while because when he brought up ideas for discussion, erroneous conclusions were drawn.  Let's not continue that old pattern.  Let's discuss the ideas.  Below is a partial transcript, with a very clear and welcoming invite to discuss 'what lessons we've learned over the past 4 months'.  Some specific concepts are brought up and further context can only be had by giving the full conversation a listen.

Bytemaster: "So we have to have a serious discussion as a community about the long term prospects of BitShares and what lessons we've learned over the past 4 months, so I'm curious what you all think have been the mistakes and how we can remedy them.  I can share with you some of the things I think I learned, and I'd love feedback on whether you think it's an accurate lesson or not. 

One of the very promising aspects of the delegate system is that the blockchain can hire people and those people can do work and so far it's managed to hire about 30 people and it's paying for some stuff to get done.  The side effect that I've noticed is there's a ton of politics and infighting.  It's been a very divisive feature if you will.  As powerful as it is it causes a lot of negativity.  A lot of people are afraid of Bitshares because they are worried about the dilution that is going on with Bitshares.  And so the question I had for you guys is:  Is the politics and infighting worth the miniscule amount of dilution or would the system be better of if we found an alternative to fund and sustain the network without doing the dilution?"


Please listen to the full discussion here:
https://beyondbitcoin.org/developer-hangout-with-bytemaster-april-24-2015/
« Last Edit: April 25, 2015, 06:26:19 PM by bitscape »

Offline fuzzy

Re: Current plans on delegate pay?
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2015, 06:30:00 PM »
Managed to listen to some of the mumble on Friday. From what I gather, the new plans are:

-Remove inflation for delegate pay
-Create the referral scheme that takes all the BitUSD transaction fees, so no more yield on BitUSD

This is great for the people now known as marketing delegates, but how do we still pay developers, whose product cant be quantified but is no less valuable?

So is this the plan to make us deflationary again, instead of making fees generated > delegate pay, get rid of delegate pay altogether?

First off, this was a conversation in which some alternative ideas were floated out there, and I think it's important to make a distinction right out of the gate here that these are not 'plans', as such, these are ideas for discussion.  Bytemaster went off the radar for a while because when he brought up ideas for discussion, erroneous conclusions were drawn.  Let's not continue that old pattern.  Let's discuss the ideas.  Below is a partial transcript, with a very clear and welcoming invite to discuss 'what lessons we've learned over the past 4 months'.  Some specific concepts are brought up and further context can only be had by giving the full conversation a listen.

Bytemaster: "So we have to have a serious discussion as a community about the long term prospects of BitShares and what lessons we've learned over the past 4 months, so I'm curious what you all think have been the mistakes and how we can remedy them.  I can share with you some of the things I think I learned, and I'd love feedback on whether you think it's an accurate lesson or not. 

One of the very promising aspects of the delegate system is that the blockchain can hire people and those people can do work and so far it's managed to hire about 30 people and it's paying for some stuff to get done.  The side effect that I've noticed is there's a ton of politics and infighting.  It's been a very divisive feature if you will.  As powerful as it is it causes a lot of negativity.  A lot of people are afraid of Bitshares because they are worried about the dilution that is going on with Bitshares.  And so the question I had for you guys is:  Is the politics and infighting worth the miniscule amount of dilution or would the system be better of if we found an alternative to fund and sustain the network without doing the dilution?"


Please listen to the full discussion here:
https://beyondbitcoin.org/developer-hangout-with-bytemaster-april-24-2015/

But the framing of that question already tells us what we need to know about what is going on behind the scenes doesn't it?


The more I think about this (and I take beyond bitcoin out of the equation here) comes back down to the point cryptoprometheus made: is it better to give the holders of bitshares more options or less? 

Finally we know this is just up for discussion...but it is going to incite alot of emotion nonetheless.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2015, 06:35:12 PM by fuzzy »
BROWNIE==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits Welcome to  the Sharing Economy w/ BeyondBitcoin.org Partners--ShareBits.io & OpenLedger.info
TIP FORMAT: #sharebits "ForumHandleInQuotes" Quanity Token_Name

Offline lovejoy

Re: Current plans on delegate pay?
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2015, 06:42:50 PM »

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.

Offline Chronos

Re: Current plans on delegate pay?
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2015, 06:50:01 PM »
If shareholders don't like the 100% delegate pay slots, they can vote out all 100% delegates. There's no need for a hard fork to eliminate this (negligible) inflation.

Offline fuzzy

Re: Current plans on delegate pay?
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2015, 06:52:33 PM »

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.

It seems to me that the delegates system will eventually represent exactly what the shareholders in the ecosystem want anyway... So if people want an MLM program funded, they should vote delegates in that pay the fees. Nothing is stopping it if it gains high levels of approval.

We should not be afraid to ask for enough votes to get something done right.   So if there is a need for MLM, make a proposal and give an idea what would be needed in terms of funding for it to be a success. If people agree with the proposal,  then they will gladly vote it in.   Best to do this only after it is easy to vote though.

The more I think about it the more I think taking the power out of the hands of shareholders is ultimately a bad idea especially considering that our wallet it too difficult for the average user to even vote from.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2015, 06:54:57 PM by fuzzy »
BROWNIE==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits Welcome to  the Sharing Economy w/ BeyondBitcoin.org Partners--ShareBits.io & OpenLedger.info
TIP FORMAT: #sharebits "ForumHandleInQuotes" Quanity Token_Name

Offline triox

Re: Current plans on delegate pay?
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2015, 07:04:44 PM »
Delegate pay is a non-problem compared to the vested funds being released from the "merger". I think the community would much rather see that side being addressed.  (I haven't listened to the session yet)

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1337
    • View Profile
Re: Current plans on delegate pay?
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2015, 07:21:12 PM »
Many devs aren't even sellimg infact im trying to short bitusd at these prices.. If 10% of devs I know aren't sellimg that's 10% less of potential dilution of a small pct of the ask side of the cny book.. It's a non problem imo.. I think price is being kept down on cny side somehow thru exchange hack or so,ething... Once it's allowed to rise it will be like the previous rise but bigger
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline fuzzy

Re: Current plans on delegate pay?
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2015, 07:38:13 PM »
Delegate pay is a non-problem compared to the vested funds being released from the "merger". I think the community would much rather see that side being addressed.  (I haven't listened to the session yet)

It is obscene the deal bts holders receive in terms of value for their dollar with the current delegates.  In fact our delegate alone pays for a website devoted to bitshares and 3rd parties providing services for us. It has a team of 5 spanning across the globe. It gives us enough funding to pay for everything and 3 dollars per hour (probably much less) in terms of time spent. 

I could understand the complaints if we were half bitcoins marketcap, but at current prices it is laughable.

The merger was PRECISELY the problem.  In fact I'd be willing to say we lost a core dev over it.  What is the take away?  Every time a decision is made without the consent of the bts holders, bad things happen.

That is why we have these hangouts and I am glad BM asks these questions instead of simply doing something without input.  In terms of lessons learned, that is a lesson I'm glad we have learned.





« Last Edit: April 25, 2015, 07:50:11 PM by fuzzy »
BROWNIE==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits Welcome to  the Sharing Economy w/ BeyondBitcoin.org Partners--ShareBits.io & OpenLedger.info
TIP FORMAT: #sharebits "ForumHandleInQuotes" Quanity Token_Name

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
Re: Current plans on delegate pay?
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2015, 08:59:54 PM »
The general gist of this sounds very good.

Marketers would be fairly rewarded for the BTS users they actually bring in.

Moonstone for example (& a wide range of other competitive third parties) could potentially earn large sums via a fee sharing model so would be incentivised to develop and market a wide range of BTS supporting products and services.

Delegate pay is a non-problem compared to the vested funds being released from the "merger". I think the community would much rather see that side being addressed.  (I haven't listened to the session yet)

Dan/Stan can't really alter/cancel the merger as it's viewed as part of a commitment/obligation that they have made to PTS & AGS holders of which they are also large holders.

However shareholders can potentially choose to change it.  It would be interesting to see what some of the most supported Chinese delegates think of the merger.
If you want to take the island burn the boats


Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: Current plans on delegate pay?
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2015, 11:00:12 PM »
Bytemaster: or would the system be better of if we found an alternative to fund and sustain the network without doing the dilution?"[/size]


Yes, I think it could be better. Done correctly and with community support, it could be a very positive change. Money needs to be directed where needed in this ecosystem. Once it's built, developers will continue to need paychecks for maintenance, but we also need to direct resources toward growing BitShares.

 

Google+