Current plans on delegate pay?

[fuzzy]

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

I miss him. 

[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. 

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.

 

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.

[merivercap]

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. 

I second that ... Have a self funded blockchain is one of our best selling points (I know that for a fact )

 

[rgcrypto]

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. 

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

[Empirical1.2]

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. 

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.

 

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.   

[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.

[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?

[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. 

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.

 

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... 

[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. 

I second that ... Have a self funded blockchain is one of our best selling points (I know that for a fact )

[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. 

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.

 

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.

[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. 

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.

[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. 

[mike623317]

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.

[CryptoPrometheus]

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?

[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

[fuzzy]

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 think this makes sense

Bitscape is a wise man...

[mike623317]

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 think this makes sense

[fuzzy]

BM roughly said this on the Hangout:

-Delegates are not going to run nodes, and not be compensated for their time and resources.
-Stakeholders also want to have a viable business so they have to pay the delegates.
-So we have to raise fees to cover the cost of delegates and user acquisitions.
-So we need a business model that is sustainable from a revenue perspective. If its not sustainable, then we don't have a viable business.

Agree with you BM, what about starspirit idea.

Voting is only good for allocating trust.
It is very bad for running a business or even a project.
Such roles involve specialty skills and deep hands-on knowledge beyond the average voter's abilities.

Any solution needs to, at most, vote on who to hold accountable and then let them manage the allocated resources.

I wouldn't want to fly on a plane controlled by voting passengers.
(And I wouldn't want to own a company that worked that way either.)

Absolutely! This is why a voting system where the coding workers are delegates is now sub-optimal. The only people that should fill delegate roles are those whose mandates and delivery outcomes are transparent enough for the community to judge. Most stakeholders are not and should not need to be sitting alongside developers to have any control.

Stan, how do you envisage the delegate structure should best be utilised then? My view is something like this:

Remove the need for delegates to produce blocks and price feeds. Within the broad delegate group, there should be competitive subsets of delegates responsible for:

- managing the decentralised pool of (X=101?) block-producers
- managing the pool of price feed submitters

The "Head of Development" should be responsible for allocations amongst coders based on value produced, rather than being determined by broad stakeholder voting.

In the "company model" delegates should be more like directors or managers, who are hired and fired on how well they allocate resources, including to others, to meet expected outcomes.

If this evolves in time toward a "network economy " model, the delegates would be more like public agents that are granted budgets to implement their public mandates, by allocating these to the service providers that best meet them. An entire system of decentralised governance could be built around this.

The key is that stakeholders need to delegate accountabilities, but always hold the collective power of conferring or removing that accountability if needs are not being met.

Further, voluntary funding models should be strongly considered to complement anything else we do.

[/b]

What is unsustainable about the current path?  There are already so many people working on meager delegate pay for basically nothing anyway so at this point I'm pretty sure the delegates in place will likely remain at just about any price point. 

Why not just vote in 101 delegates to pay for the marketing proposal?  Vote the delegates who are doing work that doesn't fit into the "bringing new users" category out of power.  Simple as that.  If this idea is one we should go with, I'm sure we can get consensus on it.  If not, then we know that people don't want it.
If they don't vote and font get what they want, then ...it's their fault.

[canucklehead]

BM roughly said this on the Hangout:

-Delegates are not going to run nodes, and not be compensated for their time and resources.
-Stakeholders also want to have a viable business so they have to pay the delegates.
-So we have to raise fees to cover the cost of delegates and user acquisitions.
-So we need a business model that is sustainable from a revenue perspective. If its not sustainable, then we don't have a viable business.

Agree with you BM, what about starspirit idea.

Voting is only good for allocating trust.
It is very bad for running a business or even a project.
Such roles involve specialty skills and deep hands-on knowledge beyond the average voter's abilities.

Any solution needs to, at most, vote on who to hold accountable and then let them manage the allocated resources.

I wouldn't want to fly on a plane controlled by voting passengers.
(And I wouldn't want to own a company that worked that way either.)

Absolutely! This is why a voting system where the coding workers are delegates is now sub-optimal. The only people that should fill delegate roles are those whose mandates and delivery outcomes are transparent enough for the community to judge. Most stakeholders are not and should not need to be sitting alongside developers to have any control.

Stan, how do you envisage the delegate structure should best be utilised then? My view is something like this:

Remove the need for delegates to produce blocks and price feeds. Within the broad delegate group, there should be competitive subsets of delegates responsible for:

- managing the decentralised pool of (X=101?) block-producers
- managing the pool of price feed submitters

The "Head of Development" should be responsible for allocations amongst coders based on value produced, rather than being determined by broad stakeholder voting.

In the "company model" delegates should be more like directors or managers, who are hired and fired on how well they allocate resources, including to others, to meet expected outcomes.

If this evolves in time toward a "network economy " model, the delegates would be more like public agents that are granted budgets to implement their public mandates, by allocating these to the service providers that best meet them. An entire system of decentralised governance could be built around this.

The key is that stakeholders need to delegate accountabilities, but always hold the collective power of conferring or removing that accountability if needs are not being met.

Further, voluntary funding models should be strongly considered to complement anything else we do.

[/b]

[starspirit]

Voting is only good for allocating trust.
It is very bad for running a business or even a project.
Such roles involve specialty skills and deep hands-on knowledge beyond the average voter's abilities.

Any solution needs to, at most, vote on who to hold accountable and then let them manage the allocated resources.

I wouldn't want to fly on a plane controlled by voting passengers.
(And I wouldn't want to own a company that worked that way either.)

Absolutely! This is why a voting system where the coding workers are delegates is now sub-optimal. The only people that should fill delegate roles are those whose mandates and delivery outcomes are transparent enough for the community to judge. Most stakeholders are not and should not need to be sitting alongside developers to have any control.

Stan, how do you envisage the delegate structure should best be utilised then? My view is something like this:

Remove the need for delegates to produce blocks and price feeds. Within the broad delegate group, there should be competitive subsets of delegates responsible for:

- managing the decentralised pool of (X=101?) block-producers
- managing the pool of price feed submitters

The "Head of Development" should be responsible for allocations amongst coders based on value produced, rather than being determined by broad stakeholder voting.

In the "company model" delegates should be more like directors or managers, who are hired and fired on how well they allocate resources, including to others, to meet expected outcomes.

If this evolves in time toward a "network economy " model, the delegates would be more like public agents that are granted budgets to implement their public mandates, by allocating these to the service providers that best meet them. An entire system of decentralised governance could be built around this.

The key is that stakeholders need to delegate accountabilities, but always hold the collective power of conferring or removing that accountability if needs are not being met.

Further, voluntary funding models should be strongly considered to complement anything else we do.

[rgcrypto]

1. There is no relation between pay and actual value being delivered.

In a certain way there is. Shareholders are the judges and accordingly adjust payrate.
And imo there is no way overall value to the ecosystem can be mathematically measured. In particular referrals are an insufficient metric as stated earlier. Hence the best way to adjust payrate according to performance is by a panel of judges that are incentivized to be honest, which is what we currently have.

2. Democratic vote is not a good system to know what to invest in...governments are reknown for being terrible investors.

This is a vote per share system, that has nothing to do with democracy.

You have good points and let me correct my statement.

1. Right now, rather than having the market being the judge about what brings value to our ecosystem, we have to go through politics.
Imagine Apple having all of it's shareholders decide what projects should be funded rather than having the market being the judge on that matter. It would go out of business within a year because a bunch of project would be started then interupted because of a new fad happening on the market place.

2.You are correct it is not a democratic vote, my bad. It is still important to point out that voting is far from being the optimal way to allocate resources.

[Stan]

Voting is only good for allocating trust.
It is very bad for running a business or even a project.
Such roles involve specialty skills and deep hands-on knowledge beyond the average voter's abilities.

Any solution needs to, at most, vote on who to hold accountable and then let them manage the allocated resources.

I wouldn't want to fly on a plane controlled by voting passengers.
(And I wouldn't want to own a company that worked that way either.)

[Frodo]

1. There is no relation between pay and actual value being delivered.

In a certain way there is. Shareholders are the judges and accordingly adjust payrate.
And imo there is no way overall value to the ecosystem can be mathematically measured. In particular referrals are an insufficient metric as stated earlier. Hence the best way to adjust payrate according to performance is by a panel of judges that are incentivized to be honest, which is what we currently have.

2. Democratic vote is not a good system to know what to invest in...governments are reknown for being terrible investors.

This is a vote per share system, that has nothing to do with democracy.

[fuzzy]

Here what I dont like about how 100% delegates dilution model:

1. There is no relation between pay and actual value being delivered.

2. Democratic vote is not a good system to know what to invest in...governments are reknown for being terrible investors.

3. Having your business on the choping block depending on the trends of the day creates a lot of uncertainty and will get worse as the market cap introduce more competition.

I think the blockchain should support core devs to make it as neutral as possible as well as delegates. For the devs to be paid in equity is a great incentive.

Overall, I am for blockchain neutrality.

Bitshares should provide the platform on which entrepreneurs are incentivized in direct proportion to their contribution rather than through tge political means.

In a perfect world I agree. Except it will never work that way.  We can't ignore the human element and if we do, we might find ourselves talking about how important it is to drop the earth's population to a "sustainable" 500 million :/

[rgcrypto]

Here what I dont like about how 100% delegates dilution model:

1. There is no relation between pay and actual value being delivered.

2. Democratic vote is not a good system to know what to invest in...governments are reknown for being terrible investors.

3. Having your business on the choping block depending on the trends of the day creates a lot of uncertainty and will get worse as the market cap introduce more competition.

I think the blockchain should support core devs to make it as neutral as possible as well as delegates. For the devs to be paid in equity is a great incentive.

Overall, I am for blockchain neutrality.

Bitshares should provide the platform on which entrepreneurs are incentivized in direct proportion to their contribution rather than through their ability to smooth talk to the community.

PS: I wouldnt start downvoting the 100% delegate UNTIL we have something to replace it.

[donkeypong]

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.

[CLains]

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

[Empirical1.2]

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.

[fuzzy]

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.

[jsidhu]

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

[triox]

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)

[fuzzy]

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.

[Chronos]

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.

[lovejoy]

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.

[fuzzy]

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.

[lovejoy]

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/

[fuzzy]

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. 

[Stan]

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.

[Frodo]

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.

[speedy]

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?