Author Topic: Paid Workers Proposal for Review  (Read 43840 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
The  rumour is it is actually itBit !!! https://www.itbit.com/

Nice try. :P 

But, itbit is pretty bullish for Bitcoin and the whole sector imo.

I do not know...judge for yourself.

Ever since the time when we all thought the on/off ramps are in the pipeline last year, BM is saying that "the problem with all partners is they are startup(s) too, so they have to go through regulation step and licensing. The current once do not want extra trouble...and I do not blame them." 
UIA allowing regulatory compliance of future partners is arguable the most heavily developed feature for the last what?... any way a lot of months...
Stan start talking about an exiting times this summer, but he cannot actually talk about them. BM is exited about affiliate program + privatized bitAssets (and I guess the said UIAs).
BM talked about a week or so ago with somebody integrating BTS on their (exchange/gateway do not remember exactly).
BM gives the firs clue (in a   ;) form) it is a gateway (at least partly).
bitBIT gets its license.
I become aware of this this rumour - itBit is the partner BM is hinting about and Stan can't talk about....
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/358wcb/itbits_exchange_allows_frontrunning/

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
They will probably announce a Ripple partnership due to the recent fine. 
???

jaran

  • Guest
itBit seems way too legit for bitshares.  There are former senators and shit bankers on their board.  They will probably announce a Ripple partnership due to the recent fine. 

Hope you are right though.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 03:53:04 am by jran »

Offline ebit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1905
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: ebit
welcome VC
welcome External Funding
telegram:ebit521
https://weibo.com/ebiter

zerosum

  • Guest
BTW Ander - great response in the other thread regarding bitAsset.  +5%

Which leads me to - robrigo was looking for someone to talk about bitAssets trading on the  Bitcoin and Gravy show  and I believe you are a great fit for the job. Let me find the link.

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
The  rumour is it is actually itBit !!! https://www.itbit.com/

Nice try. :P 

But, itbit is pretty bullish for Bitcoin and the whole sector imo.

I do not know...judge for yourself.

Ever since the time when we all thought the on/off ramps are in the pipeline last year, BM is saying that "the problem with all partners is they are startup(s) too, so they have to go through regulation step and licensing. The current once do not want extra trouble...and I do not blame them." 
UIA allowing regulatory compliance of future partners is arguable the most heavily developed feature for the last what?... any way a lot of months...
Stan start talking about an exiting times this summer, but he cannot actually talk about them. BM is exited about affiliate program + privatized bitAssets (and I guess the said UIAs).
BM talked about a week or so ago with somebody integrating BTS on their (exchange/gateway do not remember exactly).
BM gives the firs clue (in a   ;) form) it is a gateway (at least partly).
bitBIT gets its license.
I become aware of this this rumour - itBit is the partner BM is hinting about and Stan can't talk about....

Hell of a rumor if true, but I wouldnt believe it unless an announcement was made.  We got screwed too much last year believing the hints and rumors. :)

Plenty of reasons to buy BTS at these prices even if nothing huge like this is coming.  We are undervalued even if the only thing that happens this summer is a stable client released.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

zerosum

  • Guest
The  rumour is it is actually itBit !!! https://www.itbit.com/

Nice try. :P 

But, itbit is pretty bullish for Bitcoin and the whole sector imo.

I do not know...judge for yourself.

Ever since the time when we all thought the on/off ramps are in the pipeline last year, BM is saying that "the problem with all partners is they are startup(s) too, so they have to go through regulation step and licensing. The current once do not want extra trouble...and I do not blame them." 
UIA allowing regulatory compliance of future partners is arguable the most heavily developed feature for the last what?... any way a lot of months...
Stan start talking about an exiting times this summer, but he cannot actually talk about them. BM is exited about affiliate program + privatized bitAssets (and I guess the said UIAs).
BM talked about a week or so ago with somebody integrating BTS on their (exchange/gateway do not remember exactly).
BM gives the firs clue (in a   ;) form) it is a gateway (at least partly).
bitBIT gets its license.
I become aware of this this rumour - itBit is the partner BM is hinting about and Stan can't talk about....

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
The  rumour is it is actually itBit !!! https://www.itbit.com/

Nice try. :P 

But, itbit is pretty bullish for Bitcoin and the whole sector imo.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

zerosum

  • Guest
I would like to ask: What is the big problem with the current system which requires this change?
Why does this change need to be prioritized now, when we are desperate for things like a stable client?

I think we should avoid creating a huge overhand of vesting BTS which people know will be unlocked at some point in the future.  This could make people think "Well, if I invest in BTS now, I'm going to get dumped on in the future as soon as those shares become unlocked".

The paid worker proposal seems to be specifically tied to the 'project' BM is proposing. So it is most likely a workaround for VC funding.

Personally I don't think I'll be a fan unless the VC is also a gateway or that's in the mix too.

;)

The  rumour is it is actually itBit !!! https://www.itbit.com/

sumantso

  • Guest
I would like to ask: What is the big problem with the current system which requires this change?
Why does this change need to be prioritized now, when we are desperate for things like a stable client?

Under this new approach their combined pay would be 3x higher

Offline merivercap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
    • BitCash
The proposal seems fine for the most part although the nature of Bitshares will seem more cliquish if all the core developers are part of one corporation with VC funding.  It will be like Coinbase developers being the main developers of Bitcoin.  I don't think there is anything wrong with that, but the perception might deter others from wanting to build on top of Bitshares and fear that a monolithic entity would have too much influence over the protocol.   It would probably look better if all the core devs were from several independent corporations.  BTW is the new company going to maintain the main Bitshares wallet?  It would seem so since it wouldn't make sense for core devs to build separate ones.

I figure based on your budget a $1 million seed round can last a few years for the new company.  The funding would probably be more favorable to the new company as a $1 million convertible note at a $5/10 million conversion cap depending on how well you can negotiate a deal with the VC or partner company.   

Anyways according to the hints, it seems like there is positive news coming. 
BitCash - http://www.bitcash.org 
Beta: bitCash Wallet / p2p Gateway: (https://m.bitcash.org)
Beta: bitCash Trade (https://trade.bitcash.org)

Offline role

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
你是老板,你说了算   +5%

Offline helloworld

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
I understand current BTS's price can't maintain 7 core developers,my opinion is that when the price is low, Devs can create more delegate to make sure maitain their live(Vote up by shareholders), when the price up, excess delegate will be vote down by shareholders, The most important key is give the right to shareholders,

It is more simple to understand. more easy to accept.and not change the rule.

Abort VC?  I think it's delegate their own thing, shareholders need't to care. and also need't care lock 5 years or 2 years, may be don't need lock, Just the Devs and VC make deal, It is OK.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2015, 04:51:59 am by helloworld »
BTS:bts-hero

Offline helloworld

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
My counterproposal:

* Instead of spending time on this, spend time on getting bitAssets 2.0 finalized and coded, and getting stable client released fairly soon. 

* As a result of 1.0 release and improved bitassets which ahve better convertability and don't punish shorts, BTS price hopefully rebounds.  Developer pay goes back towards what we would like it to be.  If BTS price doesnt rebound, developers create more paid delegates, and the community can vote them in to keep devs fed.

* Later on, now that the critical and immediate needs of Bitshares are completed, if we feel that separating workers from block producers is important, put time into working on this.  But even then, it is competing against other features that would be nice, such as the bond market, prediction market, voting on proposals, smart contracts, etc.


If the plan in the original post in this thread is better than my plan, or is critical right now for some reason, please explain why.  I am very open to hearing this, and am not going to claim that I am definitely right or anything like that.  After all, the core team is MUCH better informed about what is going on in bitshares than I am, and they know everything going on behind the scenes, and I don't. 

What makes it so that we NEED to prioritize work on this change right now?  Is this the biggest thing for us to work on right now?  Is it worth pivoting in this way, given the perception that we already pivot too much, and that we are also already pivoting on bitAssets (which is necessary). 


I would like to see a Bitshares that doesnt just pivot, pivot, pivot, over and over.  But sticks with working things and gives them time to work.  We learned that bitassets had a problem and we needed to fix that, which is important, and justifies the pivot there.  What requires the pivot here, at this point in the development?  If the devs need more compensaiton, which is justified imo given that the price declined so much, isnt the easy answer of 'devs create more delegates and we vote them in' a much better solution?  One which requires no development time because it doesnt change bitshares in any way?


I would really like to see a stable 1.0 release which fixes problems people are having with the client as soon as possible.  Other things should not be being prioritized over this unless they are essential.

Thanks!

 +5%  +5%  +5%
BTS:bts-hero