I am a supporter of block-chain hire , but I think there are many bts -holder that is opposed to delegates with 100% pay.
so I think we must give a way to them to oppose all 100% delegates . if they cannot express their view by vote ,they maybe sell their bts ,this would make price of BTS drop, delegate income would become less because low price of bts.
but there is no negative vote with direct methods.
but people can vote his negative vote indirectly by voting all 3% delegates
so if you want to oppose all 100% delegates you can do as follow
1.Un-appove all delegate
2.Click this link bts:negative-vote/approve approve my delegate this is a 1% pay rate delegate , vote all 3% delegate in top 101
3. then vote you delegate "As My delegates Recommanded"
I am a huge supporter of this idea, I tried and failed to do this before
Out of deference to your reputation here toast, and what you have in fact accomplished, I would like to hear your rationale for such a position. Please elaborate. As a dev with two 100% delegates you would be directly on the chopping block.
Or would you? BM has said
you are giving your delegate pay away to others. Is your apparent agreement with the OP to cut funding to these other camouflaged recipients, or are there other reasons?
Why not let the shareholders vote for who they wish to support rather than using your rep and clout to redirect funds to other parties? If those other parties are worthy of shareholder support & delegate pay let them campaign for it themselves rather than you shielding them with your rep and proven value?
I don't know who has more responsibility in this you or BM, but it doesn't seem right to me, and it seems this is not an isolated case.
This redirection of delegate pay in principle is not good, tho the end result might be fine. This redirection practice not only breaks accountability but it misrepresents what the funds are used for and is counter to the spirit of delegate voting. Some shareholders I'm sure are fine with how your spending your delegate pay, but others probably assume it is to support you directly when in fact it is not.
In the case of mineBitShares at least the redirection was above board, fully explained and the transfer of the delegate ownership to DSN was endorsed and approved by the shareholders. I don't think that is the case for the delegates of toast and methodx, who is also sending his pay elsewhere, as I recall reading some time ago.
You may say what you do with your pay is nobody's business but your own, but that isn't true. You and every recipient of delegate pay have a responsibility to the shareholders and their desire is expressed thru their votes for you, not some other party they may not even know.
Perhaps this is of limited importance with DPoS 1.0 about to be replaced with DPoS 2.0, but the heart of the matter concerning transfer of accountability and pay is not. This is one issue that should be thoroughly discussed before DPoS 2.0 is put into practice.