During Dan's meet-n-greet lunch we got into a discussion about the role
delegates will play. At the time I was arguing that delegates don't know each
other and don't want to know each other. However, I have since been pondering
that position and think it is incorrect.
I'd LOVE to get in touch with you guys .. and don't see any issues with going
out for a beer or so .. as long as the duties for delegates are untouched ..
namely collecting valid transactions and signing blocks.
Currently with the small market cap and small volumes a delegate's role
is mainly a light IT position with some contributions like SVK's block/delegate
sites, evangelism, etc.
fully agree here .. I see my self in the support/tech and some evangelism regime.
However as traffic increases and 3i's role in the "running" of the BitSharesX
business fades out someone, or a collection of someones, will need to make
At least all delegates need to figure out how to 'tune' the burnrate, don't we?
What are the thoughts of other delegates? Do you think we should work to form a
more cohesive management structure or stay separate?
Puh, .. very difficult questions. Most important issues is that delegates
should be run on different machines administered by different people located
around the world. So I see no issue in having a management structure that gives
an "advice". As long as it is publicly available and NOTHING happens behind the
scene I would be o.k. with joining. In the end, delegates need to figure out
what is good for the network and might need to teach stakeholders (as already
taken place in several threads here)
My thinking is that there are delegates better suited to an IT role, others to
marketing, and others to working out ways to make deals with external parties
(for example payment processors).
... and they can coexist. 101 spots.
My thinking was that we might need to form groups of people that stand behind
ONE delegate and supports several works (from the technical as well as
political and management regimes).