Dan is doing the right thing .. again!

[btswildpig]

Here is an idea for how we could get better alignment on developer pay.

What if we pay developers part in BTS salary and part in "Performance Pay", giving them each a choice about the split they want?
Performance Pay could be structured as payments of BTS that are only exercisable if the BTS price or market cap exceeds some level at some future vesting date (e.g. 3 years). At that point the vested payments would be dilutive, but only if BTS had experienced substantial market cap growth. In this way, it may be that the prospect of future dilution is not viewed as a negative impact on the BTS price (although I accept not all BTS owners would find this acceptable).

Developer staff could have the following choices:

- Work for bitshares and receive pay of X BTS (less than market rate) - in this case they are like a salaried employee
- Work for bitShares and receive Performance Pay, with an underlying of X+Y BTS (will be worth more that straight salary if BTS is ultimately successful) - in this case, they are like workers in a startup business
- Work for some combination in the middle of these two extremes, depending on individual needs
- Work for IBM or Apple if they want and just invest in BTS, but potentially forgoing all the intangible benefits of working inside bitShares, such as future recognition and reputation value

Possibly such a structure could align everyone's interests better. Although something we must be alert to, as where executive options of this type are used in traditional industries, is that beneficiaries do not start focusing more on BTS price and trying to pump it through hype, than they do on underlying BTS progress and performance.

This is not the only possible solution I'm sure. But I think we would all be better served by creatively exploring the choices we can create, rather than irresolvable issues like rights, entitlements, or the fuzziness of future intents.

people assumed incentive account for majority of the success in a start-up .

But in the end is the cold hard business rule matters . If a business costs more than it creates , or a business is failing to sell the product , no matter how strong the incentive is for the employees , the business will still fail .

The old dilution model sadly ignored this fact . It assumed as long as people are working , they could bring success to the business . If that's the case , every programmer out there will jump to start their own business with money from their relatives and families . If that's the case , every high-tech start-up with tons of VC will be successful .

VC know what their getting into and willing to bet that someday the worker may generate income(not vague "value" , but economic income ) than they cost . Also they can't exit at will so even the cost > income it wouldn't matter to the path ahead as long as the fund are not dry up . 

But freely speculator on the market don't have to bear that burden . A good and useful wallet is no way near "value" in the eyes of business . Sooner of later , they'll bail and the price will fall if there is no income that they can see while the cost are piling up .

When you constantly remind people that you need to sell dilution to pay rent at a ridiculous price , you're reminding them you wasn't bringing income in the system just bring a wallet(no matter how good it is ) that may not even have customer to use it let alone generate profit  , and the price will be more ridiculous as they withdraw the buy order .

A company with hard working workers from former Google and cost XXXXX USD a month and generates awesome product  , while the company generate XXX USD income , no matter how good how awesome how amazing these workers are , the company will still be at red .  This was the joke that this community used to laugh at bitcoin .

I think with the new model where you dilute for shares with vest in period and exchange for outside money is the way to do it from day 1 .
The license model is also the way to do it , as long as the licence deal for BitShares are rock solid and without any way of withdrawing it .

[BTSdac]

I think , as a developer of block-chain , they must worker with dream .

[starspirit]

Here is an idea for how we could get better alignment on developer pay.

What if we pay developers part in BTS salary and part in "Performance Pay", giving them each a choice about the split they want?
Performance Pay could be structured as payments of BTS that are only exercisable if the BTS price or market cap exceeds some level at some future vesting date (e.g. 3 years). At that point the vested payments would be dilutive, but only if BTS had experienced substantial market cap growth. In this way, it may be that the prospect of future dilution is not viewed as a negative impact on the BTS price (although I accept not all BTS owners would find this acceptable).

Developer staff could have the following choices:

- Work for bitshares and receive pay of X BTS (less than market rate) - in this case they are like a salaried employee
- Work for bitShares and receive Performance Pay, with an underlying of X+Y BTS (will be worth more that straight salary if BTS is ultimately successful) - in this case, they are like workers in a startup business
- Work for some combination in the middle of these two extremes, depending on individual needs
- Work for IBM or Apple if they want and just invest in BTS, but potentially forgoing all the intangible benefits of working inside bitShares, such as future recognition and reputation value

Possibly such a structure could align everyone's interests better. Although something we must be alert to, as where executive options of this type are used in traditional industries, is that beneficiaries do not start focusing more on BTS price and trying to pump it through hype, than they do on underlying BTS progress and performance.

This is not the only possible solution I'm sure. But I think we would all be better served by creatively exploring the choices we can create, rather than irresolvable issues like rights, entitlements, or the fuzziness of future intents.

[lil_jay890]

Do you guys realize newmine doesn't respond to rabid bitshares defenders..? Maybe try saying something to him other than he is being "too negative"

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Did cryptomex  miss the boat?

http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/06/29/royal-bank-of-scotland-taps-ripple-labs-in-tech-revamp/

They missed the boat for the cruise liner.

[Riverhead]

Did cryptomex  miss the boat?

http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/06/29/royal-bank-of-scotland-taps-ripple-labs-in-tech-revamp/

Maybe a boat. There are many boats. Huge market is huge.

[topcandle]

Did cryptomex  miss the boat?

http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/06/29/royal-bank-of-scotland-taps-ripple-labs-in-tech-revamp/

[mike623317]

I am going to come right out and say that experienced software developers doing cryptography and advanced c++ work in major cities like NY or CA can easily justify a $150 to $200K salary.   Those *ARE* market rates.    That said, web developers do not earn those rates and typically make much less than a c++ developer.  So not all developers are equal in the market.   

In order for me to hire people at $100K I had to look for "inexperienced" yet highly motivated individuals straight out of school and be located in Blacksburg, a relatively low cost of living.    Overall I am very happy with the skill level of this team and am certain they could all earn over $100K at other companies. 

That said, this same amazing team has been earning just $36K plus delegate pay for all of 2015.   

The BTS in the angle fund are gone because we sold them off over the past 6 months at ridiculous prices just to pay the developers $36K/year each.

As far as newmine's claim that "our stake from mining PTS" of over 100M should be enough to motivate us to complete it completely ignores the following facts:

1. Mining PTS was not free, we had to PAY to buy that stake.
2. We would have to sell the stake to pay for development leaving 0 stake at the end.

Our team is highly motivated by principles and goals.  We work for the love of the job and so far have asked for relatively little compensation.

Your problem is that you continually compare Bitshares to [/b]

Bytemaster doesn't have the problem. You do.

Your FUD carries weight with fewer people all the time. More and more people see that Bytemaster tries to solve problems to the benefit of all while you try to create them.

  Agreed. Makes me wonder what the real agenda is behind those remarks.

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”
Bitshares

[mike623317]

By developing a product that they can sell to make a living, the developers bring new money into the ecosystem instead of relying on BitShares to bear all of the costs itself.  BitShares gets free unrestricted use of these products without incurring most of the costs.  This maximizes how many people we can have working to grow the ecosystem before the competition realizes what just hit them.

Totally agree Stan.

[onceuponatime]

I am going to come right out and say that experienced software developers doing cryptography and advanced c++ work in major cities like NY or CA can easily justify a $150 to $200K salary.   Those *ARE* market rates.    That said, web developers do not earn those rates and typically make much less than a c++ developer.  So not all developers are equal in the market.   

In order for me to hire people at $100K I had to look for "inexperienced" yet highly motivated individuals straight out of school and be located in Blacksburg, a relatively low cost of living.    Overall I am very happy with the skill level of this team and am certain they could all earn over $100K at other companies. 

That said, this same amazing team has been earning just $36K plus delegate pay for all of 2015.   

The BTS in the angle fund are gone because we sold them off over the past 6 months at ridiculous prices just to pay the developers $36K/year each.

As far as newmine's claim that "our stake from mining PTS" of over 100M should be enough to motivate us to complete it completely ignores the following facts:

1. Mining PTS was not free, we had to PAY to buy that stake.
2. We would have to sell the stake to pay for development leaving 0 stake at the end.

Our team is highly motivated by principles and goals.  We work for the love of the job and so far have asked for relatively little compensation.

Your problem is that you continually compare Bitshares to [/b]

Bytemaster doesn't have the problem. You do.

Your FUD carries weight with fewer people all the time. More and more people see that Bytemaster tries to solve problems to the benefit of all while you try to create them.

[Ander]

Since most here seem to like the term incentive over interests, I'm very concerned over potential problems with the conflict of incentives in the move to cryptonomex/bitshares2.0.

Wow, to that entire post. I too have noticed that in this community, it's always been more about profit and comparing salaries to Google employees then freedom and building a fair financial system. Recently, I've been seriously questioning whether cryptocurrency will change anything when it's human nature that's fucked up. Even if we pay lip service to "liberty", our God is money.

Financial INCENTIVES must be aligned to produce freedom.   It is crazy to think that we can build a platform that secures life, liberty, and property while depending upon individuals doing something against their best interest.   Profit must exist for any system to be sustainable.  Above market profit must exist for any system to grow.

Wow, tell that to any Soldier who died in any battle anywhere in the world.

One's best interest and profit are not dependent on one another. You just decided it was for you. Securing life, liberty and property isnt worth your effort unless you are getting paid to do so. You basically just said you are no different than any politician, Democrat or Republican, who will only vote for a righteous bill if there is some pork in it that benefits himself in some way.

Thats not at all what he said.

He said that a working financial system needs to assume that people will do whats in their best interest, and needs to function correctly in that state.

If your system assumes that some participants are going to act against their own interests, then that solution is not sustainable and will eventually collapse.  The system needs to be built such than in an equilibrium state where various agents are following their financial incentives, that freedom is secured.

[Stan]

I am going to come right out and say that experienced software developers doing cryptography and advanced c++ work in major cities like NY or CA can easily justify a $150 to $200K salary.   Those *ARE* market rates.    That said, web developers do not earn those rates and typically make much less than a c++ developer.  So not all developers are equal in the market.   

In order for me to hire people at $100K I had to look for "inexperienced" yet highly motivated individuals straight out of school and be located in Blacksburg, a relatively low cost of living.    Overall I am very happy with the skill level of this team and am certain they could all earn over $100K at other companies. 

That said, this same amazing team has been earning just $36K plus delegate pay for all of 2015.   

The BTS in the angle fund are gone because we sold them off over the past 6 months at ridiculous prices just to pay the developers $36K/year each.

As far as newmine's claim that "our stake from mining PTS" of over 100M should be enough to motivate us to complete it completely ignores the following facts:

1. Mining PTS was not free, we had to PAY to buy that stake.
2. We would have to sell the stake to pay for development leaving 0 stake at the end.

Our team is highly motivated by principles and goals.  We work for the love of the job and so far have asked for relatively little compensation.

Your problem is that you continually compare Bitshares to that of Oracle, Cisco, Microsoft, Apple, IBM etc. You could very easily and deserve $100K plus per year salaries working for one of those companies. Bitshares is not one of those companies. You ever watch Silicon Valley on HBO? You aren't barely to the level of Pied Piper and you had VC funding in that what you received as AGS in the beginning where PP didn't. Those fictional characters were working a "real' job while creating their code, quit their job when they got funding and got paid shit in the meantime despite VC funding.

Stop using terms like "market rate". If it was a market rate you could get, then go get it and stop complaining about how little you receive and stop spending an enormous amount of time searching for ways to get more money. You chose not to take a market rate and work on Bitshares damn well knowing that it might not pan out and you might end up with beans for pay. you have no right to complain about pay in any way and niether does your Dad (for all the crying he does about pay, I am curious how much his pension is by the way  ). And I have every right to complain since you are once again changing the social contract. You should go back to your original white paper and see how far away you are from those ideas. I think I remember something about a difference in ideology regarding Charles in the beginning because he wanted a for profit model and you did not and ways were parted. Look at you now. You have somehow altered your stance there and makes me wonder where else you conformed and compromised your original beliefs and ideas of what Bitshares is and should be in order to "get paid" now.

None of us would ever mention pay if there wasn't someone out there making outrageously false claims about it.  Every developer has the opportunity to make what the market is paying for their skills - regardless of which industry needs them.  If they take a 75% pay cut to work on BitShares, that's 75% they don't have to buy BitShares.  We've already had one of our best developers decide that it is better to work elsewhere just so he can invest the difference in our industry. Q.E.D.

Our position has always been that block chains should be designed to be profitable and that all economics is about aligning profit driven incentives to produce a desired outcome.  No change.  Perfectly consistent.

To change the world, we need to enlist an army of happy, productive, creative entrepreneurs who are seeking a better life for themselves and their families.  If we don't provide good economic outcomes for our developers, we'll have less developers and reach our grand vision at a slower rate. 

Given the intense competition we are facing, waiting for independently wealthy volunteers to implement that vision could be a silly, unnecessary constraint.

Who would want to invest in a project that wasn't doing everything possible to generate more thrust towards achieving its stated goals?

"Throw another log on the fire Marty, we've got to get this train up to 88 miles per hour!"
"Sorry Doc, I'm philosophically opposed to giving this engine any more fuel than it's already got..."

[santaclause102]

I am going to come right out and say that experienced software developers doing cryptography and advanced c++ work in major cities like NY or CA can easily justify a $150 to $200K salary.   Those *ARE* market rates.    That said, web developers do not earn those rates and typically make much less than a c++ developer.  So not all developers are equal in the market.   

In order for me to hire people at $100K I had to look for "inexperienced" yet highly motivated individuals straight out of school and be located in Blacksburg, a relatively low cost of living.    Overall I am very happy with the skill level of this team and am certain they could all earn over $100K at other companies. 

That said, this same amazing team has been earning just $36K plus delegate pay for all of 2015.   

The BTS in the angle fund are gone because we sold them off over the past 6 months at ridiculous prices just to pay the developers $36K/year each.

As far as newmine's claim that "our stake from mining PTS" of over 100M should be enough to motivate us to complete it completely ignores the following facts:

1. Mining PTS was not free, we had to PAY to buy that stake.
2. We would have to sell the stake to pay for development leaving 0 stake at the end.

Our team is highly motivated by principles and goals.  We work for the love of the job and so far have asked for relatively little compensation.

Your problem is that you continually compare Bitshares to that of Oracle, Cisco, Microsoft, Apple, IBM etc. You could very easily and deserve $100K plus per year salaries working for one of those companies. Bitshares is not one of those companies. You ever watch Silicon Valley on HBO? You aren't barely to the level of Pied Piper and you had VC funding in that what you received as AGS in the beginning where PP didn't. Those fictional characters were working a "real' job while creating their code, quit their job when they got funding and got paid shit in the meantime despite VC funding.

Stop using terms like "market rate". If it was a market rate you could get, then go get it and stop complaining about how little you receive and stop spending an enormous amount of time searching for ways to get more money. You chose not to take a market rate and work on Bitshares damn well knowing that it might not pan out and you might end up with beans for pay. you have no right to complain about pay in any way and niether does your Dad (for all the crying he does about pay, I am curious how much his pension is by the way  ). And I have every right to complain since you are once again changing the social contract. You should go back to your original white paper and see how far away you are from those ideas. I think I remember something about a difference in ideology regarding Charles in the beginning because he wanted a for profit model and you did not and ways were parted. Look at you now. You have somehow altered your stance there and makes me wonder where else you conformed and compromised your original beliefs and ideas of what Bitshares is and should be in order to "get paid" now.

It's really a bit sad to see such a wild mix of negativity. You are just attacking the person. Why else (for what other final argument) would you throw in arguments about "altering belief"? It dosn't make any sense to discuss any of that in detail. But you may want to check your own motivations. Why do throw so much negativity around? Probably in order to throw negativity around which satisfies you. If you were just "objectively" negative about the prospects of Bitshares / the team around Bytemaster then you would have just sold and you would be done or you would put forward critique that helps to improve - both is not the case.

Apart from that: You could say what SPECIFIC decisions by which specific person you are upset about (taking ALL the factors into account that mattered at that time). Just mixing things ranging from "financial mismanagement" to "giving up own beliefs" in such a general way is OBVIOUSLY not aiming to constructively criticize.

You basically just said you are no different than any politician, Democrat or Republican, who will only vote for a righteous bill if there is some pork in it that benefits himself in some way.

-> So here you are basically requesting BM to work for free or very little if the work is in line with his ideals. And so? If he decides that is not appropriate that is his decision. If you are not ok with that entitlement (which is everyone's own decision) move on and sell your shares instead of insulting people (based on the entitlement you expect them to have).

[NewMine]

Since most here seem to like the term incentive over interests, I'm very concerned over potential problems with the conflict of incentives in the move to cryptonomex/bitshares2.0.

Wow, to that entire post. I too have noticed that in this community, it's always been more about profit and comparing salaries to Google employees then freedom and building a fair financial system. Recently, I've been seriously questioning whether cryptocurrency will change anything when it's human nature that's fucked up. Even if we pay lip service to "liberty", our God is money.

Financial INCENTIVES must be aligned to produce freedom.   It is crazy to think that we can build a platform that secures life, liberty, and property while depending upon individuals doing something against their best interest.   Profit must exist for any system to be sustainable.  Above market profit must exist for any system to grow.

Wow, tell that to any Soldier who died in any battle anywhere in the world.

One's best interest and profit are not dependent on one another. You just decided it was for you. Securing life, liberty and property isnt worth your effort unless you are getting paid to do so. You basically just said you are no different than any politician, Democrat or Republican, who will only vote for a righteous bill if there is some pork in it that benefits himself in some way.

[NewMine]

I am going to come right out and say that experienced software developers doing cryptography and advanced c++ work in major cities like NY or CA can easily justify a $150 to $200K salary.   Those *ARE* market rates.    That said, web developers do not earn those rates and typically make much less than a c++ developer.  So not all developers are equal in the market.   

In order for me to hire people at $100K I had to look for "inexperienced" yet highly motivated individuals straight out of school and be located in Blacksburg, a relatively low cost of living.    Overall I am very happy with the skill level of this team and am certain they could all earn over $100K at other companies. 

That said, this same amazing team has been earning just $36K plus delegate pay for all of 2015.   

The BTS in the angle fund are gone because we sold them off over the past 6 months at ridiculous prices just to pay the developers $36K/year each.

As far as newmine's claim that "our stake from mining PTS" of over 100M should be enough to motivate us to complete it completely ignores the following facts:

1. Mining PTS was not free, we had to PAY to buy that stake.
2. We would have to sell the stake to pay for development leaving 0 stake at the end.

Our team is highly motivated by principles and goals.  We work for the love of the job and so far have asked for relatively little compensation.

Your problem is that you continually compare Bitshares to that of Oracle, Cisco, Microsoft, Apple, IBM etc. You could very easily and deserve $100K plus per year salaries working for one of those companies. Bitshares is not one of those companies. You ever watch Silicon Valley on HBO? You aren't barely to the level of Pied Piper and you had VC funding in that what you received as AGS in the beginning where PP didn't. Those fictional characters were working a "real' job while creating their code, quit their job when they got funding and got paid shit in the meantime despite VC funding.

Stop using terms like "market rate". If it was a market rate you could get, then go get it and stop complaining about how little you receive and stop spending an enormous amount of time searching for ways to get more money. You chose not to take a market rate and work on Bitshares damn well knowing that it might not pan out and you might end up with beans for pay. you have no right to complain about pay in any way and niether does your Dad (for all the crying he does about pay, I am curious how much his pension is by the way  ). And I have every right to complain since you are once again changing the social contract. You should go back to your original white paper and see how far away you are from those ideas. I think I remember something about a difference in ideology regarding Charles in the beginning because he wanted a for profit model and you did not and ways were parted. Look at you now. You have somehow altered your stance there and makes me wonder where else you conformed and compromised your original beliefs and ideas of what Bitshares is and should be in order to "get paid" now.