1. Committee ISN'T making decisions outside of the forum.
You keep repeating this and I do know this. That's not my point.
Several committee members have posted about what they thought about things and have gotten feedback from the community.
I've seen only one case of this: xeroc (not a committee member yet) asking us about
the 90/10 split idea.
Other than that, please point me to the relevant threads or I'll say it's not true.
As already noted and as I reminded all proxies today, they are welcome to join us in the telegram chat if they think it is going to provide some additional insights. You ( @jakub ) are already there and have had the option to check in at any time. I encourage all others to join in if they think it is of any value.
Again, I know that and that's not my point.
My point is this: all political discussions belong to the forum. If you are discussing non-political stuff, I'm not interested - you can have them on Telegram or wherever you want.
The idea of negotiated deals is highly unlikely. The idea of certain number of committee members who will vote a certain way only because another committee member has gotten them voted in is more plausible.
So you say it's plausible that committee members back up each other, but at the same time you rule out any negotiated deals between them.
That's an interesting view.
Yeah.. the committee IS working hard.
Going over line by line every single fee schedule of the entire Bitshares ecosystem is a lot of work.
Discussing the ramifications of every single one is a lot of work.
Having not everyone agree about what each of those fee schedules is meant for and how it should be used is a lot of work.
So when I said they are working hard, it really is an understatement. Some have been more engaged in the process than others. I have found myself spending at least a few hours a day either reading over or responding to matters related to the committee.
That's the thing:
I don't want you to work hard.
You are not supposed to, especially if you have an unpaid position.
That's why I said you probably misunderstood the purpose of the committee.
This is what should have happened:Those of you who feel we need this new holistic approach to fees, should first run a forum thread and present the assumptions & outlines of this approach. Take this chance to argue why this new holistic approach is needed in the first place. Convince others that we need external business rules to be changed before we sort out internal liquidity problems.
Then, if you felt the idea has got some traction, create a worker proposal and reach those two goals:
- prove that your idea has enough support among the shareholders
- get some financing so that you do not need to work for free on every little detail of your implementation
IMO the committee is meant to discuss and make general political decisions, not do the the hard work on a very detailed level. This is what paid worker proposals are for.
It depends on what your definition of 'engaged' in discussion threads really means. I am not detached at all.. but rather have been reading over everyone's input and considering all the aspects. Just because I am not regurgitating every thought at every given time in the forum doesn't mean I am not engaging.
What I mean is that none of you (except abit) have responded in any serious manner in the
the recent thread which offers a viable alternative to a drastic cut of the flat transfer fee.
(Actually, you did respond but in a way that indicated you did not understand the merits of the proposal, so I treat it as a non-response.)
The same refers to
Xeldal's propsal. Not a single comment.
(Except Bhuz but he commented on my side-comment, not the proposal itself.)
You guys seem don't seem to be interested in this stuff. Or you don't have time for this because you are busy talking within your inner circle.
This forum doesn't represent the shareholders, so I disagree with the notion of it being Parliament. Until we have such a platform then it would make sense. DID YOU KNOW... the Chinese/Asians don't even use this forum.. most of the discussion happens in QQ. More than half of the Committee are there. So how about them?
This forum is the best substitute of a Parliament that we have.
If you want to switch to Telegram, I'm fine with that but then let's move *all* activity there and invite everyone, not just the proxies.
And why the proxies only? If any of you say something stupid, I want tonyk or luckybit or gamey or akado to be able to point it out for everybody to see.
2. I don't understand this in reference to a rebranding of the refer program. If this is regarding fees ok, yes that's what we discuss. We haven't specifically decided anything about rebranding the refer program as far as i know.
The referral program, as we have it now, strictly depends on the flat transfer fee being above certain level.
So if you consider a substantial cut to the flat transfer fee, then you have put RP rebranding on the table.
We have had extensive discussions and input about the fees and how they relate to the refer program. Just as we have extensive discussions on every other element and how it might be impacted negatively or positively.
As I've stated above, we should have had these discussions *before* you set out to work on the fee overhaul and we should had have these discussions held in the public domain on the forum.
We are doing everything based on shareholder feedback.
My impression is quite the opposite.
When we share this.. we are AGAIN seeking to get input and feedback from the community. It is going to be VERY difficult because there is going to be a fair number who may simply not bother to look at it all and decide to start things in descension instead of discussion.. because once again.. this forum does not represent the stakeholders.
I will certainly be one of those who will not bother to look into any details of you work *unless* you make a clear argument, why we needed this fee overhaul in the first place and what assumptions you have made.
So you could have saved yourself quite a lot of time and work, if the committee had set out to this task in the reverse order: first arguments, assumptions & outlines, then the actual work on details.
On a side note.... This post has eaten up a good hour of my time. If I did this for every single post in the forum in response to one thing or another I would need to make posting in the forum my full time job. If you want Committee members to be fully paid thats up to the shareholders. I think that would be a bad idea personally at this stage.
As I said before, things like this should be paid from a worker proposal, which is also good, as it means they first need the shareholders' approval.
You've turned this process upside down, and now you try to make me feel guilty for your unpaid hours. Not fair.