What should be the default target of unclaimed referrals

[NewMine]

the question is about the 2042 none claimed referrals.

No referrals could have been claimed without the people who worked at building the code of Bitshares and the Faucet.

I say give it to people who deserve it: The devs.

Damn! You marketing delegates are killing it! Not sure what Bitshares would do without you guys. Good thing there are 10 of you guys.

[Thom]

reserve for later vote seems best. Then proposals can be put forward and then the community can vote on it.

If CMX can submit a proposal for a discount on the annon like was mentioned earlier then.. that would be nice. I think the community would like that.

I totally agree. We can decide this later if the code it to go to the reserve pool.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Only a hundred directions to go.. reserve for later vote seems best. Then proposals can be put forward and then the community can vote on it.

If CMX can submit a proposal for a discount on the annon like was mentioned earlier then.. that would be nice. I think the community would like that.

[mint chocolate chip]

the question is about the 2042 none claimed referrals.

This is way off, there are 37537 accounts, albeit some of the users have multiple accounts. The 2042 number is only relevant after the tracking of the referral system started after January, accounts have been created since July when the system launched. http://bitsharesblocks.com/accounts

The names on that list should be connected as the referrer for every referral they made, that is info that is in the database, that should also include all of the sub(other)-accounts a user created as well.

If a user creates multiple accounts, all of those sub-accounts should be connected to the original referrer.

[Permie]

I say give it to the developers but make the default referer a delegate parameter. If it needs changing in the future, get 51% of delegates to tweak the parameter. Otherwise sending it to the reserve pool would also make sense.

My first preference would be to send it to the reserve pool and decide how to best use it later.

But my 2nd choice would be to award the default referral fees to CMX with a new delegate-voted parameter on how to award default referral fees. Perhaps the default-fee allocation expires every 3 months and must be re-approved - else fees are returned to the reserve pool? The question is, will shareholders ever want to award the default fees to anyone that isn't CMX and the original bts devs? This new parameter could become obsolete very quickly.

If coding that up takes too long then refunding the reserve pool is an easy solution IMO

In fact, if another developer was implementing a feature, I would pay Cryptonomex to proofread the code for us, because right now, they are the only team that I trust.

[Erlich Bachman]

Send it to the reserve pool.

It's the easiest and fairest (perceived) option.

And the Cryptonomex devs will just get it all back after they price gouge us on their next proposal following the "perfect privacy for 2M BTS" gets implemented.

It's all going to the same place.  Let's at least keep up the illusion of fair play and free market competition.  We all know that no dev team is just going to step in here and convince us to spend money on a feature that Cryptonomex can code better.

In fact, if another developer was implementing a feature, I would pay Cryptonomex to proofread the code for us, because right now, they are the only team that I trust.

Why?  Because I am a fanboy?

No, because I use the tools.

[sumantso]

Just burn it, most hassle free solution.

[Method-X]

I say give it to the developers but make the default referer a delegate parameter. If it needs changing in the future, get 51% of delegates to tweak the parameter. Otherwise sending it to the reserve pool would also make sense.

[rgcrypto]

the question is about the 2042 none claimed referrals.

No referrals could have been claimed without the people who worked at building the code of Bitshares and the Faucet.

I say give it to people who deserve it: The devs.

[Chuckone]

It seems that sending them to the reserve pool makes the most sense because it is the least controversial.

I second that!

All shareholders profit from that option.

[bytemaster]

It seems that sending them to the reserve pool makes the most sense because it is the least controversial.

[Erlich Bachman]

Keyhotee founders received an entire day's worth of AGS.  BM said that this was more than was promised, and the rest of the mumble crowd agreed.

If we can't use them to pay for development, then how about if we just burn them?

[xeroc]

Have we considered paying it out equally to keyhotee founders and/or AGS holders?

Just putting in another option ..

[cass]

We should be able to vote default referrals out I think. So let them have it until they delivered some value.

i like 

[fav]

We should be able to vote default referrals out I think. So let them have it until they delivered some value.

[starspirit]

My view...Given its not clear how any existing accounts were referred to or found bitShares, it does not make a lot of sense to me to pay the referral amounts to any particular party, let alone CNX that did not exist before. If instead they are paid into the reserve pool for the benefit of all BTS owners (i.e. paying ourselves), community decisions can be taken later on whether to use these funds to pay workers or witnesses, or to burn. One of those options, but not the only one, could be as payment toward the first CNX projects, as BJ2.0 expresses above. Then everyone's happy?

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

It tells me you are striving for straws...What I mean is just tell us why they should not and someone might listen...do not jump to generalizations ,"What does that tell us?"

"What does that tell us" is an open ended question.
It's you who are grasping for straws.

It tells me they find it justifiable

You see you too can give an opinion

Whups.. you edited out his question by accident.. don't worry about it. Here it is again so you can answer it:

"You tell me now why it is too much."

Please proceed with the answer.

[klosure]

There were times when you made reasonable suggestion, raised concerns, asked question of value IMO etc. etc.
but that was all yesterday (literally).

The threads in which I voiced my opinion and raised concerns yesterday have all been locked or moved to a far away corner of the forum. Since voicing contrary opinions isn't welcome, I'll just keep my opinions to myself, and point people to the important elements and facts so that they can think for themselves and hopefully take a step back to look at the big picture.

It tells me you are striving for straws...What I mean is just tell us why they should not and someone might listen...do not jump to generalizations ,"What does that tell us?"

"What does that tell us" is an open ended question.
It's you who are grasping for straws.

It tells me they find it justifiable

Thanks for sharing your opinion

[tonyk]

bitsharesblog.com raises a very important point in another thread that definitely deserves its own thread.

So I listened to the mumble, and I have to say one thing struck me as something that seems rather important but was quickly brought to consensus based on the okays of two or three people in attendance.

Migration comes up around the 40:00 mark of https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/beyond-bitcoin-06-12-2015-dev-hangout-s3 and someone asks about the default referrer for all current account holders.

BM states that that has been an internal discussion topic with only two options, mark each account as either Null or mark each account as CMX as the referrer, since that would reward the developers for setting up the faucet, for their development efforts, and that they "in practice referred everyone that is here today".

[...]

Regardless, this is a very big decision to give all the referral income to CMX, a company that did not exist until recently. I would think that if the referrals were marked as null, that possibly six or seven digit referral revenue would flow back into BitShares (as a burn or the worker pool) [...] arbitrarily giving 100% of all current account holders referral revenue to CMX is something we should be discussing.

In the future, there possibly may be other non-referred users, who is given that referral credit, is it given to CMX automatically or is it null... for example, I asked about BitShares.org after Stan posted about it being public and have distanced themselves from it, and have not gotten a response https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16889.msg216043.html#msg216043 so maybe this is something we should be discussing as this is a potential opportunity for the BitShares DAC to profit as there will be a large percentage of users who land on the website as their first exposure to BitShares via links or search.

This is a very important point that seems to prefigure at least partially the relationship that would exists between Cryptonomex and BitShares should BitShares migrate to Graphene. If Cryptonomex is an independant worker working working for its own profit, why does it feel like it should be entitled to be hardcoded in BitShares code as the default recipient of all unattributed referral fees? What does that tell us?

There were times when you made reasonable suggestion, raised concerns, asked question of value IMO etc. etc.

but that was all yesterday (literally).

And as much as I despise the fan-boys that claim Cryptonomex will be the best thing after sliced bread...just cause BM is part of it.

The other end of the spectrum, which you make every attempt to be part of, is as stupid ...

"why does it feel like it should be entitled to be hardcoded in BitShares code" ,"What does that tell us?" -

It tells me you are striving for straws...


What I mean is just tell us why they should not and someone might listen...do not jump to generalizations ,"What does that tell us?"

It tells me they find it justifiable. You tell me now why it is too much.

[klosure]

These particular referral fees will count towards the first Cryptonomix development projects such as the "anonymous transaction plan" that they are charging us 2M BTS for.

Paid worker appointment is something that will be voted by stakeholders.
Hardcoded attribution of unattributed referral fees to Cryptonomix is a very different thing with much wider implications.

[klosure]

bitsharesblog.com raises a very important point in another thread that definitely deserves its own thread.

So I listened to the mumble, and I have to say one thing struck me as something that seems rather important but was quickly brought to consensus based on the okays of two or three people in attendance.

Migration comes up around the 40:00 mark of https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/beyond-bitcoin-06-12-2015-dev-hangout-s3 and someone asks about the default referrer for all current account holders.

BM states that that has been an internal discussion topic with only two options, mark each account as either Null or mark each account as CMX as the referrer, since that would reward the developers for setting up the faucet, for their development efforts, and that they "in practice referred everyone that is here today".

[...]

Regardless, this is a very big decision to give all the referral income to CMX, a company that did not exist until recently. I would think that if the referrals were marked as null, that possibly six or seven digit referral revenue would flow back into BitShares (as a burn or the worker pool) [...] arbitrarily giving 100% of all current account holders referral revenue to CMX is something we should be discussing.

This is a very important point that seems to prefigure at least partially the relationship that would exists between Cryptonomex and BitShares should BitShares migrate to Graphene. If Cryptonomex is an independant for profit company intervening as a paid worker, why does it feel like it should be entitled to be hardcoded in BitShares code as the default recipient of all unattributed referral fees? What does that tell us?