Expanding the Role of Delegates

[Gentso1]

I guess I see the delegate role a little differently. Since delegates have the ability to fork the network, I view it as a senate of sorts. Users voting for delegates who have views that aligned with their own.This way users know they have a delegate that will represent their view. Even beyond that delegates that promote the platform (like the foundation) and conduct themselves in a way that doesn't shame or cast bitsharesX in a negative light.

Lets look at the current issue of increasing the max supply. Many users are for it and many are completely against. I would say its the delegates responsibility to voice their point of view on the big issues so that users can vote people in to represent them.     

I agree with this ONCE proper infrastructure is in place.  However, until then there needs to be at least a certain level of Unity. 

Also, BB^x could use delegates to sign on and donate funds so we can help build this infrastructure and then, perhaps even start paying correspondents from other networks that switch to DPOS or whatever solution our community consensus figures out.

At least in the initial stages, it seems like Unity of cause would move us forward significantly.

Unity is great, political parties are not. Unity behind specific causes or goals wonderful. But groups of delegates colluding together to put friends in power or push their own agenda. The delegates should fear the voters not the other way around.

Throughout history those who have been put into power have never been eager to relinquish it. These are careful fine lines to walk here.

[fuzzy]

I guess I see the delegate role a little differently. Since delegates have the ability to fork the network, I view it as a senate of sorts. Users voting for delegates who have views that aligned with their own.This way users know they have a delegate that will represent their view. Even beyond that delegates that promote the platform (like the foundation) and conduct themselves in a way that doesn't shame or cast bitsharesX in a negative light.

Lets look at the current issue of increasing the max supply. Many users are for it and many are completely against. I would say its the delegates responsibility to voice their point of view on the big issues so that users can vote people in to represent them.     

I agree with this ONCE proper infrastructure is in place.  However, until then there needs to be at least a certain level of Unity. 

Also, BB^x could use delegates to sign on and donate funds so we can help build this infrastructure and then, perhaps even start paying correspondents from other networks that switch to DPOS or whatever solution our community consensus figures out.

At least in the initial stages, it seems like Unity of cause would move us forward significantly. 

[Gentso1]

I guess I see the delegate role a little differently. Since delegates have the ability to fork the network, I view it as a senate of sorts. Users voting for delegates who have views that aligned with their own.This way users know they have a delegate that will represent their view. Even beyond that delegates that promote the platform (like the foundation) and conduct themselves in a way that doesn't shame or cast bitsharesX in a negative light.

Lets look at the current issue of increasing the max supply. Many users are for it and many are completely against. I would say its the delegates responsibility to voice their point of view on the big issues so that users can vote people in to represent them.     

[amencon]

I have no problem communicating with other delegates (even going for a beer if the situation permits it as xeroc stated), I also think some level of organization between delegates is OK as long as there isn't collusion among them.

Unfortunately I think the biggest problem has nothing to do with delegates and their role but getting the stakeholders interested in directing the management of BTSX.

I've created multiple threads requesting ideas for what people would like to see from their delegates with 0 responses.  We have multiple delegates voted in that don't even update price feeds at all.  There doesn't seem to be much interest from people in giving direction to delegates.

The point of a delegate system is to put the power in the hands of the systems stakeholders.  Now it appears the real trick is getting the stakeholders to actually give a shit.

What would be the stated goal or benefit of creating a "cohesive management structure" among delegates?  Not saying it's a bad idea but I'm coming up blank as far as it's potential benefit to BitsharesX unless it's a structure that can gain the involvement of the systems' users.

This sounds like perhaps the transaction fees should be increased so that the market for delegates is more competitive.

There is definitely a tradeoff.  Some delegates need to remain anonymous and not communicate in normal channels.  Others could work together to provide benefit for the community.

Good point about making competition worth it.  Hopefully it's a short term problem that will fix itself with a great increasing of value for the BitsharesX system.  Perhaps if more money was collected by delegates they would be able to make a larger difference without resorting to organizing among themselves, also perhaps with more money and adoption would come a greater number of vested users incentivized to participate in the delegate voting process.

One problem I see though is if adoption doesn't come, then your solution might become necessary, however increasing fees seems like a bad idea for a system that is already struggling with gaining adoption, kind of a catch 22 possibly.

[gamey]

I have no problem communicating with other delegates (even going for a beer if the situation permits it as xeroc stated), I also think some level of organization between delegates is OK as long as there isn't collusion among them.

Unfortunately I think the biggest problem has nothing to do with delegates and their role but getting the stakeholders interested in directing the management of BTSX.

I've created multiple threads requesting ideas for what people would like to see from their delegates with 0 responses.  We have multiple delegates voted in that don't even update price feeds at all.  There doesn't seem to be much interest from people in giving direction to delegates.

The point of a delegate system is to put the power in the hands of the systems stakeholders.  Now it appears the real trick is getting the stakeholders to actually give a shit.

What would be the stated goal or benefit of creating a "cohesive management structure" among delegates?  Not saying it's a bad idea but I'm coming up blank as far as it's potential benefit to BitsharesX unless it's a structure that can gain the involvement of the systems' users.

This sounds like perhaps the transaction fees should be increased so that the market for delegates is more competitive.

There is definitely a tradeoff.  Some delegates need to remain anonymous and not communicate in normal channels.  Others could work together to provide benefit for the community.

[fuzzy]

What if 20 delegates from each DAC were to combine forces. 

What if those delegates were to reach out to altcoins in distress and inject them with the funding they need to build infrastructure (that btsx could still use once it is finished)?

What if those altcoins started improving in valuation?  What if then we used this as a means to show them that it would be worth it to switch to DPOS? 

If we get enough coins joining the DPOS network...we essentially have an alliance between numerous coins that will likely sharedrop on other DPOS based coin holders.  This is a win win for literally everyone and it markets the power of DPOS at the same time. 

After they switch, we could hold dev hangouts for them and eventually maybe even hire someone to work as a "correspondent" for their coin...

"what if?"

This could and should be done by anyone. I think delegates (those that only sign blocks, nothing more) should not do anything else publicly. They should be neutral. The other entities (we should invent consistent naming scheme eg business delegates) should work towards maximizing the value. They should be paid (even more) than "normal" delegates.

Now we are talking

[emski]

What if 20 delegates from each DAC were to combine forces. 

What if those delegates were to reach out to altcoins in distress and inject them with the funding they need to build infrastructure (that btsx could still use once it is finished)?

What if those altcoins started improving in valuation?  What if then we used this as a means to show them that it would be worth it to switch to DPOS? 

If we get enough coins joining the DPOS network...we essentially have an alliance between numerous coins that will likely sharedrop on other DPOS based coin holders.  This is a win win for literally everyone and it markets the power of DPOS at the same time. 

After they switch, we could hold dev hangouts for them and eventually maybe even hire someone to work as a "correspondent" for their coin...

"what if?"

This could and should be done by anyone. I think delegates (those that only sign blocks, nothing more) should not do anything else publicly. They should be neutral. The other entities (we should invent consistent naming scheme eg business delegates) should work towards maximizing the value. They should be paid (even more) than "normal" delegates.

[fuzzy]

What if 20 delegates from each DAC were to combine forces. 

What if those delegates were to reach out to altcoins in distress and inject them with the funding they need to build infrastructure (that btsx could still use once it is finished)?

What if those altcoins started improving in valuation?  What if then we used this as a means to show them that it would be worth it to switch to DPOS? 

If we get enough coins joining the DPOS network...we essentially have an alliance between numerous coins that will likely sharedrop on other DPOS based coin holders.  This is a win win for literally everyone and it markets the power of DPOS at the same time. 

After they switch, we could hold dev hangouts for them and eventually maybe even hire someone to work as a "correspondent" for their coin...

"what if?"

[oldman]

DACs will need both security delegates (to sign transactions) and operations delegates.

Operations delegates should not need to sign transactions, rather, they are responsible for allocating revenue to fulfil well-defined business functions, ie. marketing, development, legal, etc.

Operations delegates can be voted in/out using the same mechanism as security delegates.

Currently I3 are the operations delegates.

In the future the DAC will need to hire and compensate other delegates.

[fuzzy]

I will post something soon with respect to this. 

[amencon]

Just to be clear you're talking about something completely separate from this threads OP right?  Creating a new type of delegate and organizing the current delegates into some sort of foundation seem like two very different topics.

Same topic. Different idea. Similar threads linked.

Hmm OK I think I see.

I'm assume with organizing current delegates you could build a foundation of sorts, then have a delegate propose say a plan to implement a marketing strategy and organize the collection of funds from the pay of multiple delegates through this collective. 

Thinking about it a bit more I find pooling delegate funds for larger initiatives problematic in that there doesn't seem to be a way with the current system to transparently see where the funds for each delegate go.  Even if voters could vote out delegates that propose plans they don't like that they get funded by other delegates, it would be better if they could vote out everyone involved in the scheme.  By having each delegate campaign separately it makes it easier for voters to see how well each delegate is performing based on their own stated goals that got them elected to the top 101 in the first place.

Then again, for now it appears users seem to be fine letting delegates do whatever they want for the most part.  A delegate organization would probably function fine and in light of current stakeholder voter apathy might even get more done but I don't think it would serve in the spirit of what the delegates meant to represent when DPOS was designed.

Maybe what people want is for their delegates to communicate amongst themselves and come up with their own best strategies to utilize delegate funds to help build up BitsharesX, rather than be bothered with having to get involved themselves.  Will be interesting to get more perspectives on the subject from others.

[emski]

Just to be clear you're talking about something completely separate from this threads OP right?  Creating a new type of delegate and organizing the current delegates into some sort of foundation seem like two very different topics.

Same topic. Different idea. Similar threads linked.

[amencon]

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).

If delegates can be said to serve a political role, I'd prefer they have beers with the users they run for

Delegates (these who support the network signing blocks) should be neutral. No politics. No strings attached. They just support the "infrastructure". They are simply low level workers. There should be another entity (for now called "business delegate"/"business proposal"/"worker?"/"CEO"/"Board of directors") that should have other functions like governing, marketing, decision making and so on. All of them should be chosen by the shareholders.

Just to be clear you're talking about something completely separate from this threads OP right?  Creating a new type of delegate and organizing the current delegates into some sort of foundation seem like two very different topics.

[xeroc]

Delegates (these who support the network signing blocks) should be neutral. No politics. No strings attached. They just support the "infrastructure". They are simply low level workers. There should be another entity (for now called "business delegate"/"business proposal"/"worker?"/"CEO"/"Board of directors") that should have other functions like governing, marketing, decision making and so on. All of them should be chosen by the shareholders.

I like that proposal .. we can learn from MemoryCoin here!!

[emski]

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).

If delegates can be said to serve a political role, I'd prefer they have beers with the users they run for

Delegates (these who support the network signing blocks) should be neutral. No politics. No strings attached. They just support the "infrastructure". They are simply low level workers. There should be another entity (for now called "business delegate"/"business proposal"/"worker?"/"CEO"/"Board of directors") that should have other functions like governing, marketing, decision making and so on. All of them should be chosen by the shareholders.