Author Topic: Proposed Future DAC Delegate Pay Model  (Read 24750 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bytemaster

I propose that the ratio be decided by the voters....

Looks good to me!

 Ability to "hire" entities is always good for a DAC. Imagine a future where a DAC hires another DAC ... :)

So that leaves us with just deciding on the required approval percentage.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
I propose that the ratio be decided by the voters....

Looks good to me!

 Ability to "hire" entities is always good for a DAC. Imagine a future where a DAC hires another DAC ... :)

Offline bytemaster

Network Maintainers' (aka Delegate's) job is measurable, strictly defined, and can be audited. It can even be decentralised (Imagine each delegate split into X different subdelegates that need all approve the same block). Their job is network support and security.

You propose to merge these accountable/auditable strictly defined jobs with investment politics, dilution and subjective  "increase the value of DAC".
Here I disagree with you.

I don't do anything of the sort but for the sake of discussion lets simply make ONE change:

90 block signing positions (audit-able, etc, paid as percent of trx fees)
10 business policy positions (paid as proposed in their bid for the position)

Each of which requires approval of the shareholders....

Do you really think that the people in the business policy positions position couldn't also sign blocks or hire someone who could for them?

Now all you are debating is the voting threshold for the 2 different positions...
Now all we are debating is what the proper ratio is between the two types of users...

Logic prevails. I'm onboard with that provided the numbers above are further discussed.

I propose that the ratio be decided by the voters....
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Network Maintainers' (aka Delegate's) job is measurable, strictly defined, and can be audited. It can even be decentralised (Imagine each delegate split into X different subdelegates that need all approve the same block). Their job is network support and security.

You propose to merge these accountable/auditable strictly defined jobs with investment politics, dilution and subjective  "increase the value of DAC".
Here I disagree with you.

I don't do anything of the sort but for the sake of discussion lets simply make ONE change:

90 block signing positions (audit-able, etc, paid as percent of trx fees)
10 business policy positions (paid as proposed in their bid for the position)

Each of which requires approval of the shareholders....

Do you really think that the people in the business policy positions position couldn't also sign blocks or hire someone who could for them?

Now all you are debating is the voting threshold for the 2 different positions...
Now all we are debating is what the proper ratio is between the two types of users...

Logic prevails. I'm onboard with that provided the numbers above are further discussed.

Offline bytemaster

Keep it simple.  You guys don't have a huge budget.  We are already victims of complexity.  Guy who like designing things come through and don't see the sky for the grass... or whatever that metaphor is..  (oh yea see forest for the trees!) 

We really don't need to make things more complicated.  The separation can always be applied in the future.  Keep it simple !  Keep the costs down required to implement ! Keep the complexity involved minimal to invite participation and adoption !

People are stupid.  That isn't an insult, thats just how it is.  Everyone has a limited amount of brain power and attention they are willing to give things.  Never overestimate that brain power.

We obviously need the DAC model with inflation.  We don't need another model where there are 2 elections to keep track of.  This will *not* help adoption.

+1
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline bytemaster

Network Maintainers' (aka Delegate's) job is measurable, strictly defined, and can be audited. It can even be decentralised (Imagine each delegate split into X different subdelegates that need all approve the same block). Their job is network support and security.

You propose to merge these accountable/auditable strictly defined jobs with investment politics, dilution and subjective  "increase the value of DAC".
Here I disagree with you.

I don't do anything of the sort but for the sake of discussion lets simply make ONE change:

90 block signing positions (audit-able, etc, paid as percent of trx fees)
10 business policy positions (paid as proposed in their bid for the position)

Each of which requires approval of the shareholders....

Do you really think that the people in the business policy positions position couldn't also sign blocks or hire someone who could for them?

Now all you are debating is the voting threshold for the 2 different positions...
Now all we are debating is what the proper ratio is between the two types of users...

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Keep it simple.  You guys don't have a huge budget.  We are already victims of complexity.  Guy who like designing things come through and don't see the sky for the grass... or whatever that metaphor is..  (oh yea see forest for the trees!) 

We really don't need to make things more complicated.  The separation can always be applied in the future.  Keep it simple !  Keep the costs down required to implement ! Keep the complexity involved minimal to invite participation and adoption !

People are stupid.  That isn't an insult, thats just how it is.  Everyone has a limited amount of brain power and attention they are willing to give things.  Never overestimate that brain power.

We obviously need the DAC model with inflation.  We don't need another model where there are 2 elections to keep track of.  This will *not* help adoption. 

I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag


The network administrator for the national ballerina society archive is also not likely voted into their position by approval voting of the society.  If they were however, it would seem reasonable to expect that they could make a competent decision on who should give the year's presentation.

What if we don't want the network administrator to decide who gives the presentation? What if we (the shareholders) want to decide who should give the presentation? But how do we do that? We need to vote on it. How do we vote on it? Well the network administrator can set up a server that allows us to use cryptography to vote on who should present. They cannot falsify the votes, they can only exclude votes. But since we want this particular decision to be done by majority voting because it is important to us, they cannot change the results of the election, they can only delay allowing us to find out what the verified result are. But we still do need network administrators we can trust to run the election system for us. We ultimately control who these people are with our votes, but we only trust them with the very limited responsibility of running the consensus machinery that allows us (the shareholders) to make the rest of the decisions or delegate them to qualified people who will make those decision on our behalf (these qualified decision makers might be the network administrators but they most likely will not be).
« Last Edit: September 30, 2014, 03:55:07 am by arhag »

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Network Maintainers' (aka Delegate's) job is measurable, strictly defined, and can be audited. It can even be decentralised (Imagine each delegate split into X different subdelegates that need all approve the same block). Their job is network support and security.

You propose to merge these accountable/auditable strictly defined jobs with investment politics, dilution and subjective  "increase the value of DAC".
Here I disagree with you.

Offline theoretical


I am on board with bytemaster's suggestion for future DAC's.

I would even go so far as to say we could even increase max delegate pay in BTSX without breaking the social contract, so long as the total delegate pay never exceeds total fees / burn.

But I am worried about arhag's objection [1] that delegates with support from a substantial minority of the network may be able to game the system and introduce a level of inflation that is neither justified by their activities nor approved by a majority.

How about having each balance vote for a desired overall inflation cap as well as a slate of delegates?  Then we can determine a "consensus inflation cap" as the point where 50% [2] of outstanding shares have approved that cap or some higher cap.  We can implement this by giving only e.g. 256 choices for the desired inflation cap, and keeping track of the number of votes for each choice.  Then you sum the table from highest inflation cap down, stopping when you've accumulated more than 50% of the total share supply -- the inflation cap at which that happens is the maximum desired inflation the shareholders are willing to tolerate.

If all delegates' requested funding can be provided within the inflation cap, then everything is OK.  Otherwise, we adjust the delegates' pay rates downward proportionally [3] until the effective inflation level is equal to the consensus level.  And prominently display some "WE ARE IN A BUDGET CRISIS" banner on everyone's client until the situation is resolved, which happens when:

- Some or all delegates reduce their requested funding levels so the inflation cap is no longer exceeded ("management cuts costs to avoid shareholders' wrath")
- Shareholders agree to more dilution by adjusting their inflation cap upwards ("shareholders approve management's request for greater funding")
- Shareholders vote out delegates with high funding requirements in favor of delegates with lower expenses ("shareholders fire management for blowing the budget")

The banner would fight voter apathy by serving as a call to action to all delegates and shareholders that now is a time to get involved in the debate and examine your votes, regardless of which of the above policy choices you support.

[1] https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9452.msg122842#msg122842

[2] Instead of 50%, you could make this a parameter MAX_INFLATION_QUORUM and require e.g. 55%, 60% or 66.7% quorum to set the inflation cap.

[3] Other downward adjustment schemes are possible, where e.g. the pay of the delegates with the most recent raises is cut first, or there is some explicit prioritization of delegates.  These likely would be additional implementation complexity for unclear benefits.
BTS- theoretical / PTS- PZxpdC8RqWsdU3pVJeobZY7JFKVPfNpy5z / BTC- 1NfGejohzoVGffAD1CnCRgo9vApjCU2viY / the delegate formerly known as drltc / Nothing said on these forums is intended to be legally binding / All opinions are my own unless otherwise noted / Take action due to my posts at your own risk

Offline bytemaster

I'm referring to how I think things are running now of course.  I don't know how many delegates are currently competent directors employing others managing the IT side of the operation.

Exactly, the current slate of delegates would simply campaign as IT guys with a small budget of 2 BTSX per block or less in pay.   
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile


The network administrator for the national ballerina society archive is also not likely voted into their position by approval voting of the society.  If they were however, it would seem reasonable to expect that they could make a competent decision on who should give the year's presentation.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline blahblah7up

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
I'm referring to how I think things are running now of course.  I don't know how many delegates are currently competent directors employing others managing the IT side of the operation.

Offline blahblah7up

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
I didn't know network specialists made for qualified directors either.

Offline bytemaster

You have it backwards.  Delegates will be directors that hire IT experts not IT experts managing a business.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2014, 05:42:46 pm by Stan »
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.