BUMP!

Can we talk about this 'refund400k' worker proposal? It is currently active in the BTS network and previous posts in this thread seem to indicate that it's destroying the 400k BTS each day instead of refunding it to the reserve pool..

I created a thread on steemit regarding this issue https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cm-steem/refund400k-not-refunding-but-rather-burning-destroying-400k-bts-day

I would massively appreciate more information being provided, there's a surprising lack of information regarding this active worker proposal & many are confused about its purpose.

Thanks,
CM.

If we make BTS holders eligible for profit-sharing/dividends, what are your thoughts on only distributing dividends to users who have recently participated in witness/committee voting? So as to incentivize voting?

Thrown together an additional BSIP 21 regarding the 'coin-age' statistic that both BSIPs 19 and 20 referenced: https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cm-steem/bsip-0021-draft-introducing-the-coin-age-statistic-to-bitshares-assets-input-would-be-massively-appreciated

I'd greatly appreciate input on the contents of these 3 BSIPs, I'll refine the BSIPs with your input.

Best regards,
CM

Quote from: Customminer on July 04, 2017, 12:38:10 am

Quote from: yvv on July 03, 2017, 09:33:57 pm

Quote from: Akado on April 20, 2017, 09:53:06 am

BitShares is better technically and on the aspect of having a true decentralized and stable token. However that is not everything. Waves is way better funded, has more momentum and way better PR than BitShares. Their DEX even if it isn't as good, looks better. So people will naturally go there becasue user experience matters.

Either way, I think what matters the most and what ends up making the difference in the end will be liquidity. People trade where's volume. So better pump these bots, which are one of the best things happening to Bts imo. Anyone can provide liquidity even if only a tiny bit.

Btw, the way that was handled on Twitter was bad. It doesn't look good or show confidence on BitShares' product. Just focus on BitShares and bringing in liquidity, let others alone. The tech is here, so it's just a matter of time until the cliente looks better and liquidity increases.

I think BitShares should take advantage of this altcoin bubble to hire someone or a team of UX experts to do a rework. It will end eventually and might be harder to do so in the future.

Have to agree with this.

Among things which waves has and bitshares does not have is funding, solid business plan and dev team which sticks to it. TPS is not a bottleneck for wide adoption, user experience is.

This simply isn't true, Bitshares has a serious amount of funding at its disposal within the reserve pool, you just need a solid worker proposal in order to be funded; we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars within the reserve pool, much more than waves.

Reserve pool does not have hundreds of millions of dollars, it has a bunch of bullshit tokens. Try to use them for development and their price will go down fast, we have already seen this. Waves have different kind of funding. They don't need to dilute their tokens to fund the development, because they already sold them, and they can do with their funds whatever they want. They don't depend on fees, and they don't need to go through worker proposal bullshit each time they need to fix a flaw in their exchange. This is a big advantage they have over bitshares.

Bitshares are not bullshit tokens, to suggest so is absurd. Given that there have been multiple successful worker proposals whilst the Bitshares price has increased in value I don't see a correlation between spending a few thousand and the decrease in marketcap. Waves performed an ICO (potential securities fraud much?), worker proposals aren't required for upgrades to the network (the witnesses just need to upgrade their hardware), if waves doesn't have worker proposals then their funding is held centralized without input from the community?

You've got my vote!

I have written up a draft BSIP-020 regarding profit-sharing for UIA tokens; previously BSIP-019 covered both MPA & UIA however it was suggested to split the BSIP so as to separate the different required functionality (minimizing confusion).

I would massively appreciate input on the BSIP.

https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cm-steem/bsip-020-draft-introducing-profit-sharing-dividends-to-bitshares-uia-only-input-would-be-massively-appreciated

Cheers,
CM.

We need people talented enough to replicate STEEMIT if they wanted to. We are working on a large scale project and will pay for your time, and offer you a spot on our team.

Steem is MIT licensed & open-source, it doesn't take an ICO to create a fork..