Things I don't like about the committee

[Thom]

The committee might not get anything done if they don't have a place to talk free of attacks & distractions. And this forum is not the platform most conducive for coming to consensus... but no system is perfect.

Politics is always accompanied by accusations of "backroom deals" and always will be. But you can (1) show respect and trust for people making proposals, and (2) judge them by their results, not personal fears. We CAN help bridge the gap by finding or creating tools that make transparency easier yet more productive (whereas typically transparency and productivity are inversely related, imo).

I was truly impressed by xeroc's effort on the fee proposal. When you compare it to the conversations the Bitcoin community is having, it's clear we are miles ahead, and it's easy to lose sight of that.

I've missed out on a lot of these fee/politics conversations because I've been busy with cryptofresh. I've been working on some experiments that I hope the community will be able to help me with soon.. it's almost ready for testing.. hope you guys will all still be around, lol.

 

[roadscape]

The committee might not get anything done if they don't have a place to talk free of attacks & distractions. And this forum is not the platform most conducive for coming to consensus... but no system is perfect.

Politics is always accompanied by accusations of "backroom deals" and always will be. But you can (1) show respect and trust for people making proposals, and (2) judge them by their results, not personal fears. We CAN help bridge the gap by finding or creating tools that make transparency easier yet more productive (whereas typically transparency and productivity are inversely related, imo).

I was truly impressed by xeroc's effort on the fee proposal. When you compare it to the conversations the Bitcoin community is having, it's clear we are miles ahead, and it's easy to lose sight of that.

I've missed out on a lot of these fee/politics conversations because I've been busy with cryptofresh. I've been working on some experiments that I hope the community will be able to help me with soon.. it's almost ready for testing.. hope you guys will all still be around, lol.

[cube]

I've used the word "rebranding" in this sense: the process of changing a product's purpose or target market .

Use a word loosely may cause confusion and misunderstanding.  If I may ask that you use the word 'repurpose/market retarget' to avoid potential misunderstanding.

If AM/LTM is no longer an attractive choice for non-advanced user, for me that's a substantial change in AM/LTM purpose and target market.

While there is a fee schedule proposed, there is much to be discussed about the structures and incentives of AM and LTM.  We will need input from the referrers.

I am not xeroc and I cannot know his intent.  But in general, each individual has a preference for a communication channel to achieve a specific purpose.  It could be different channels for different purposes.  Whether it is for a real-time discussion, co-ordination or organisation, I think we should let the individual decide what is most suitable for their own needs.

My assumption is that most of your communication stems from the fact that you differ in opinions and try to convince each other. For me, this part of the process belongs to the forum and you should be exposed to full public scrutiny while arguing your cases. All other communication can be wherever you want.

I know that as a proxy I could access your communication if I wanted.
But I also want the best minds on our forum to be able to comment on your arguments, as it often happens that other people expose things I could have missed myself.

Much of the conversations are about clearing doubts,  gathering different POVs, and getting a deeper understanding of the concerns and points raised in the forum.  These conversations are usually real-time and require near immediate responses.  The telegram or similar instant messaging tool is needed for such purposes.  Anything else is just too slow and inefficient.

Once a proposal from the committee is ready, it is posted to the forum for users' comments, feedbacks and new ideas.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

surely it's needed to seek consensus inside committee, and there is nothing strange for one committee member to consult other committee members before/after consulting the whole community.

committee members are similar to senators.

So what's the difference between a proxy and a committee member then?

You are effectively creating an elite of more privileged participants. Privileged to have special access to information and privileged to shape things up before they are presented to ordinary shareholders. This attracts the wrong type of people - those who enjoy power and privileges. Those who enjoy telling others: "we are very approachable".

Horribly wrong.

And unfortunately, xeroc, your initiative to consult political issues like fees with this self-proclaimed elite first, has set a terrible precedent.
I do believe your intentions were good and you only wanted to make the process more efficient - but I think you forgot about much more important principles.

Yes.. I would like to tell everyone we are approachable. At present the precedent set by others here in the forum is to do nothing but complain about it here in the forum.. when in fact Bitshares has a mechanism for taking action.

People in the forum have set as you like to call it, 'a dangerous precedent' for people to falsely believe that if any parameter changes need to be made or considered to bitshares, it must be posted to this forum. If you want to just jibber jab about it it, that is what you do. If you want to take action on something to make a change to bitshares, then make a proposal and/or contact a committee member so that you can present your issue or idea or get help to create a proposal.

There is nothing wrong with encouraging individuals to participate and let them know that it's not in the hands of the committee.. we ARE very approachable in this regard and want everyone to participate in making bitshares better. You want to hate on that thats your choice. Strawman.

There is nothing elite about this.. it's just a function. That's like suggesting devs telling people they are approachable about anything they would like to see happen with Bitshares is elitist. The only one characterizing it as some kind of elitism here is you.

You are choosing to try and warp and demonize what was a simple update that it seems 99.9% of people understood was made in good faith delivering a simple message of 'we want everyones input on fees next week, so watch for it. If you have suggestions, we are listening'.  You take issue with this. Fair enough. Encouraging community participation in fee schedule updates through all channels available should not be what the committee does. Got it. Instead we should just let the forum continue to ramble on endlessly with not actionable proposals. We can then call ourselves Bitcoin. Happy?

What is ironic about this steam of shifting complaints from you is that if I had said nothing at all, and instead just waited till we actually did a forum post which many would not even know about unless they follow every single post here, we wouldn't be getting this berating.

I gave an update on the hangout to ensure that we get the most community input/participation possible. You are instead saying it is better we say nothing at all, and do nothing. Then somehow, perhaps with some pixie dust and magic, an organized well thought out and analysed fee schedule will emerge via an outdated discussion forum that only has a fraction of a fraction of the community actually participating, english speaking only (wow that sounds really elite.. imperial really), and it isn't the major stake holders.

Create a Worker and get it voted in to make that the process to replace the committee if this is the way you believe shareholders want things.

The Worker system is very approachable for proposals (GASP IT'S ELITE TOO!  ). I can't say the same for the forum however. Good luck on that front. 

Or you can create a new forked network with your ideas on governance. Wait, that would make you the elite then. Ug, it's an endless loop that nobody wins it seems.

Whatever you do.. just do it. Don't let your dreams just be dreams!

[bitcrab]

surely it's needed to seek consensus inside committee, and there is nothing strange for one committee member to consult other committee members before/after consulting the whole community.

committee members are similar to senators.

So what's the difference between a proxy and a committee member then?

You are effectively creating an elite of more privileged participants. Privileged to have special access to information and privileged to shape things up before they are presented to ordinary shareholders. This attracts the wrong type of people - those who enjoy power and privileges. Those who enjoy telling others: "we are very approachable".

Horribly wrong.

And unfortunately, xeroc, your initiative to consult political issues like fees with this self-proclaimed elite first, has set a terrible precedent.
I do believe your intentions were good and you only wanted to make the process more efficient - but I think you forgot about much more important principles.

please stop demonizing committee.

if you are talking about to increase the transparency of committee discussion, I agree, If you are saying that there should be no space for inner discussion in committee, I totally disagree.

take xeroc's proposal as an example, anyway he need to draft a proposal first, and consult committee members first could get some feedback that can help to refine the proposal before asking feedback from the whole community, I don't see any problem here.   

[xeroc]

And unfortunately, xeroc, your initiative to consult political issues like fees with this self-proclaimed elite first, has set a terrible precedent.
I do believe your intentions were good and you only wanted to make the process more efficient - but I think you forgot about much more important principles.

I totally agree here and learn my lesson
Though, I don't think that forums or slack is a good fit for it .. I'd rather go for mailing lists

[jakub]

surely it's needed to seek consensus inside committee, and there is nothing strange for one committee member to consult other committee members before/after consulting the whole community.

committee members are similar to senators.

So what's the difference between a proxy and a committee member then?

You are effectively creating an elite of more privileged participants. Privileged to have special access to information and privileged to shape things up before they are presented to ordinary shareholders. This attracts the wrong type of people - those who enjoy power and privileges. Those who enjoy telling others: "we are very approachable".

Horribly wrong.

And unfortunately, xeroc, your initiative to consult political issues like fees with this self-proclaimed elite first, has set a terrible precedent.
I do believe your intentions were good and you only wanted to make the process more efficient - but I think you forgot about much more important principles.

[betax]

I think all the discussions should be on a open forum and recorded. Everyone should be able to participate,  so they should not synchronous but asynchronous. Slack / Forum is ideal for this, if not we are creating subgroups of people with a greater preference.

Note: I am the first one that loves to have a chat with everyone (as some of you know).

[xeroc]

The thing is, you do not need to seek consensus of the existing committee members, if you have an idea for a committee proposal. Just make the proposal and if there are some committee members who obstruct it but the majority of shareholders like your proposal, it will go through as those committee members blocking it will be voted out.

For that reason I do not understand why xeroc has decided to consult his initial ideas about the new fee schedule only with the current committee members. There is absolutely nothing special about them. They try to make it look like there is something special (e.g. BunkerChain making his mumble "announcement") but it's a myth I wanted to debunk.

The committee member position is extremely transient for a good reason: so that nobody holding this position feels important and has illusion of any power, including emotional power.

surely it's needed to seek consensus inside committee, and there is nothing strange for one committee member to consult other committee members before/after consulting the whole community.

committee members are similar to senators.

My assumption was that committee members have more technical understanding of the technical internals as well as the business part of BitShares as a whole. If I had put MY(!!) proposal forward to the whole community, I would have had to go through dozens of pages of posts from people "proposing this change" proposing "that change" yada yada ...
Thus, I took the approach to go the easier route FOR ME (alone) and consult the committee members about this proposal first (I was not a committee member at that time!). Next, I educated them about all the individual fees and had them understand the restriction we are facing (keeping Referral program alive and reducing the fees, as well as others).

Essentially, it was WAY easier for me to get a few people understand the whole concept first and have them educate every other community member (read: shareholder) later.

Again, this is *NOT* about making a decision, but putting together a fee schedule as well understanding as many consequences of fee changes as possible.

[bitcrab]

The thing is, you do not need to seek consensus of the existing committee members, if you have an idea for a committee proposal. Just make the proposal and if there are some committee members who obstruct it but the majority of shareholders like your proposal, it will go through as those committee members blocking it will be voted out.

For that reason I do not understand why xeroc has decided to consult his initial ideas about the new fee schedule only with the current committee members. There is absolutely nothing special about them. They try to make it look like there is something special (e.g. BunkerChain making his mumble "announcement") but it's a myth I wanted to debunk.

The committee member position is extremely transient for a good reason: so that nobody holding this position feels important and has illusion of any power, including emotional power.

surely it's needed to seek consensus inside committee, and there is nothing strange for one committee member to consult other committee members before/after consulting the whole community.

committee members are similar to senators.

[puppies]

I don't think that I am more important than any one else

You are not your f*cking khaki's!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe5MtupXTL0

Best movie ever.

[kenCode]

I don't think that I am more important than any one else

You are not your f*cking khaki's!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe5MtupXTL0

[puppies]

I also think that the committee should not be viewed as a single monolithic entity.  I am an individual not 1/11th of the committee.  I don't want any power over any of you, and I don't think that I am more important than any one else.  I will continue to discuss policy both in the forum, and in telegram.  The incredibly slow nature of getting anything done frustrates me to no end, and removing the ability to talk in telegram would slow things down even more.  I have no objection to someone posting all telegram chat in a thread here on the forum,  just post it all, and don't cherry pick things out of context. 

[abit]

I am sure coindesk news and bitcointalk will love this characterization.

I remember someone said that any news in coindesk or bitcointalk about BitShares are good news.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Ok.. if all it takes is for me or other people in the committee to say that the hard work we do is just like the hard work of every other shareholder or is otherwise of no import what so ever then fine. I totally agree.

I think you are debunking a strawman.. but if that's what it takes to end this showboat minutia then fine. I haven't seen an avalanche of people chiming in agreeing with how you choose to interpret things.

Nothing I said in my update was out of line or untrue or whatever conspiracy insert here thing.

Over the past week there was tons of discussion if you call it that over fees and all I was there to do was let everyone know the committee heard and wants everyone to participate next week in further review. Unless you have a problem with progress this is all good news.

Otherwise all the discussion you want to happen in the forum just results in a lot of jaw - jacking and dissatisfied shareholders if the committee choose to just sit on our hands and wait for a proposal.

A proactive forward moving and thinking  committee is an asset to Bitshares.

What I am getting from this though is we should not be thinking. We should be monkeys that push a button based on some segment of shareholders whom we really don't even know why they voted for us. Again though this is counter intuitive to attracting the best minds. This seems to be part of your mission to debunking the unimport of the committee or it's members contributions. No problem just be sure when ever the committee does anything to remind everyone that the Bitshares committee are just monkeys. I am sure coindesk news and bitcointalk will love this characterization.

[jakub]

Committee members don't need to work hard. When they're working hard, most likely they're acting as some kind of market research department of the DAC, which should be paid via worker proposal (I agree with jakub's opinion here).

However, currently, due to voting apathy, and the anti-dilution action, it's a waste of time to wait for approval of such a worker position.

Since we don't have such a market research department, stake holders should work hard to find best business model and/or pricing strategy. When a proposal is proposed, stake holders have to make decisions by themselves, have to judge whether the proposal is good by themselves, then vote. This is very hard and inefficient.

Currently, even nobody proposes committee proposals except the ones in committee, although everyone is allowed to propose committee proposals. The committee members can be lazy and vote for nothing, or vote randomly when a proposal is proposed, and let stake holders judge whom to support. But imo this will do nothing good to the ecosystem.

There have to be someone to work hard, otherwise the platform won't grow. We'd better not blame anyone who is currently working hard for the platform or is willing to work hard for the platform.

I agree.
We are talking about very subtle (yet important) distinctions here.
If BunkerChain says he works hard as a shareholder, that's fine and I appreciate that.
But this has nothing to do with his role as a committee member.

I started this thread to put an end to this myth that adds so much false importance to this role.
The only important aspect of this role consists of your views and opinions.
If you do any extra work beyond discussing and presenting your views, you are doing this as a shareholder but not as a committee member.

[jakub]

IMO, the only thing you are supposed to do (for free) is this: have public discussions and publicly differ in your opinions. That's the whole point.
Not work together (as some kind of governmental body representing the shareholders' interests), but quite the opposite: discuss and publicly defend your views with solid arguments, so that the shareholders can see who is making sense and who is not. So basically do what everybody does here on this forum. Discuss. For free.

Okay, I think I'm beginning to understand what your position is.

Only I think that with this mode of operation no decisions would ever be made. For a decision, some committee member must create a proposal and put it up for voting. I think in most cases, 11 independently thinking and operating committee members would come up with 11 different proposals, and not one of these would have the slightest chance of being voted in.

I think for a decision you must find an agreement first, create a proposal based on the agreement (which will have a good chance of being voted in), and finally have the shareholders approve or disapprove by voting/unvoting committee members.

The thing is, you do not need to seek consensus of the existing committee members, if you have an idea for a committee proposal. Just make the proposal and if there are some committee members who obstruct it but the majority of shareholders like your proposal, it will go through as those committee members blocking it will be voted out.

For that reason I do not understand why xeroc has decided to consult his initial ideas about the new fee schedule only with the current committee members. There is absolutely nothing special about them. They try to make it look like there is something special (e.g. BunkerChain making his mumble "announcement") but it's a myth I wanted to debunk.

The committee member position is extremely transient for a good reason: so that nobody holding this position feels important and has illusion of any power, including emotional power.

[abit]

You are not supposed to "gather feedback" because you are not representing anybody's interests.
You are not supposed to do any "hard work". If hard work was needed for this position, it would have been a paid position.

surely a committee member represent at least a certain part of shareholder's benefits, otherwise he should be voted out.
surely committee need to gather feedback from community when committee is in the process of change something.
whether committee member should "work hard" is not a problem, but committee member really always need to put many time and energy on analysis and discussion.

Committee members don't need to work hard. When they're working hard, most likely they're acting as some kind of market research department of the DAC, which should be paid via worker proposal (I agree with jakub's opinion here).

However, currently, due to voting apathy, and the anti-dilution action, it's a waste of time to wait for approval of such a worker position.

Since we don't have such a market research department, stake holders should work hard to find best business model and/or pricing strategy. When a proposal is proposed, stake holders have to make decisions by themselves, have to judge whether the proposal is good by themselves, then vote. This is very hard and inefficient.

Currently, even nobody proposes committee proposals except the ones in committee, although everyone is allowed to propose committee proposals. The committee members can be lazy and vote for nothing, or vote randomly when a proposal is proposed, and let stake holders judge whom to support. But imo this will do nothing good to the ecosystem.

There have to be someone to work hard, otherwise the platform won't grow. We'd better not blame anyone who is currently working hard for the platform or is willing to work hard for the platform.

[bitcrab]

You are not supposed to "gather feedback" because you are not representing anybody's interests.
You are not supposed to do any "hard work". If hard work was needed for this position, it would have been a paid position.

surely a committee member represent at least a certain part of shareholder's benefits, otherwise he should be voted out.
surely committee need to gather feedback from community when committee is in the process of change something.
whether committee member should "work hard" is not a problem, but committee member really always need to put many time and energy on analysis and discussion.

[Samupaha]

bitcrab is a businessman, not a solution seeker interested in finding good incentive structures.
That's why he got a response like this - for pushing his interests above the interests of the whole system.

No, bitcrab received the response he did because some people think it's more productive to attack the person rather than the idea. It was an embarrassing thread to read.

Personal attacks on bitcrab shame this community. Discussion and arguments should not be about personal attacks but about ideas.
Those who attacked personally bitcrab using vulgar language should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm not ashamed. Bitcrab has shown many times that he is not interested in cooperative discussions. He is interested only in his own agenda and he doesn't give a shit about anybody else – or the whole system, which is most important thing here. Toxic people like him should be driven away from any community that wants to function properly. I'm horrified that so few other members of this community are seeing it.

[vegolino]

bitcrab is a businessman, not a solution seeker interested in finding good incentive structures.
That's why he got a response like this - for pushing his interests above the interests of the whole system.

No, bitcrab received the response he did because some people think it's more productive to attack the person rather than the idea. It was an embarrassing thread to read.

Personal attacks on bitcrab shame this community. Discussion and arguments should not be about personal attacks but about ideas.
Those who attacked personally bitcrab using vulgar language should be ashamed of themselves.

Please offer some understanding to people who have put their time and money on the line to build business around BitShares, not to be wiped out by a sudden change of rules.
They react passionately because they've risked a lot and have a lot to lose. Whereas it's easy for you to stay calm and advise them to be ashamed, as you have much less to lose.

I lost a lot with BTS ( in fiat terms ) probably more than most, but I do not use vulgar language in disagreements. Once we start to use vulgarities we have already lost an argument. 

[clayop]

Please offer some understanding to people who have put their time and money on the line to build business around BitShares, not to be wiped out by a sudden change of rules.

I can tell this same statement back to you. Bitcrab also put, or maybe much more money and effort to build business on BitShares.
Ashamed is ashamed.

[jakub]

bitcrab is a businessman, not a solution seeker interested in finding good incentive structures.
That's why he got a response like this - for pushing his interests above the interests of the whole system.

No, bitcrab received the response he did because some people think it's more productive to attack the person rather than the idea. It was an embarrassing thread to read.

Personal attacks on bitcrab shame this community. Discussion and arguments should not be about personal attacks but about ideas.
Those who attacked personally bitcrab using vulgar language should be ashamed of themselves.

Please offer some understanding to people who have put their time and money on the line to build business around BitShares, not to be wiped out by a sudden change of rules.
They react passionately because they've risked a lot and have a lot to lose. Whereas it's easy for you to stay calm and advise them to be ashamed, as you have much less to lose.

[vegolino]

bitcrab is a businessman, not a solution seeker interested in finding good incentive structures.
That's why he got a response like this - for pushing his interests above the interests of the whole system.

No, bitcrab received the response he did because some people think it's more productive to attack the person rather than the idea. It was an embarrassing thread to read.

Personal attacks on bitcrab shame this community. Discussion and arguments should not be about personal attacks but about ideas.
Those who attacked personally bitcrab using vulgar language should be ashamed of themselves.

[jakub]

Next time we can of course ask every shareholder to spend 5 days straight and find a good fee schedule .. would that make sense?

@xeroc ,

As I suggested in my previous posts, IMO if this task requires this much work, it should have gone through a worker proposal.

IMO in reality there are only a few values in the fee schedule that are politically sensitive.
These are:
- the flat transfer fee and AM/LTM price
- place/cancel order trading fee
There are hundreds of other fees but I don't even remember their values, which suggests that they do not really matter to me (and I guess most other users) as long as they are within some reasonable limits.

So whatever you are going to present next week, I'll look at those 4-5 numbers and I'll read the logical justification you offer for the new schedule.
If the justification offers a good explanation why those 4-5 numbers need to change, I'll accept the whole package.

So my question is this: why on earth couldn't we have started from the discussing justification first?
*Before* you and several other people needed to "spend 5 days straight" working on tweaking numbers, whose current value I don't even remember.

IMHO, we, the DAC, the BitShares platform, need an over all review of the whole fee schedule. I am saying this as if I am a stake holder.

Your personal opinion, no matter on a few fees or all fees, have nothing to do with my opinion. I do what I want, not what you want.

I have a committee member account, I vote for what I think is better. You have stake, you vote for the committee member who have same opinion with you. This is the game.

Saying anything as representative of the committee, or against the committee, is totally non sense, since the structure, the members in the committee can change every maintenance interval, or say every hour. The committee is totally unstable.

Can we stop arguing on this?

I'm not saying anything against the committee or any particular member of the committee.
All I'm saying is that the committee has assumed a role which I did not expect it to have.

[jakub]

He presented his "idea" badly and without the slightest attempt to offer logical justification (apart from "lower fees = more users") and without the slightest attempt to take into consideration the interests of businesses other than those similar to his own.

(1)
So, if one person present his personal idea without too much "hard work" in finding rational and logical justification and only with the purpose to start a public discussion about it on the forum, it is bad and he deserves what bitcrab got.

(2)
At the same time, if one or more person try to pulicly share an idea and present it with in-depth analysis and rational and logical argumentations (from their pov ofc), it is also bad because they put too hard work in it and should have shared the general idea first: point (1)

I am totally lost here.

bitcrab is a businessman, not a solution seeker interested in finding good incentive structures.
That's why he got a response like this - for pushing his interests above the interests of the whole system.

Do you even know about his business?!
Bitcrab do not gain nothing from a lower transfer fee from the point of view of his business.

Maybe you did not realize that bitcrab is also one of the biggest proxy from chinese community.

The transfer fee debate is coming from a big part of our community, not from a man running his business

Why do you insist on playing the victim so much?
It does not matter if his motivation is his business or the community that supports him.
This is what matters: whether your are perceived as someone who tries to arrive at a universal solution which is fair for the whole ecosystem.
bitcrab clearly lacks this quality. He has earned this image of non-solution-seeker and now it's hard to change it. 
I've tried several times to engage him in a solution-seeking discussion and he never seemed interested.

It does not take a genius to know that when you propose a change of rules that dismantles somebody else's business and you offer no indication whatsoever about taking into consideration those consequences, you are not likely to engage people in a productive discussion.

[abit]

Next time we can of course ask every shareholder to spend 5 days straight and find a good fee schedule .. would that make sense?

@xeroc ,

As I suggested in my previous posts, IMO if this task requires this much work, it should have gone through a worker proposal.

IMO in reality there are only a few values in the fee schedule that are politically sensitive.
These are:
- the flat transfer fee and AM/LTM price
- place/cancel order trading fee
There are hundreds of other fees but I don't even remember their values, which suggests that they do not really matter to me (and I guess most other users) as long as they are within some reasonable limits.

So whatever you are going to present next week, I'll look at those 4-5 numbers and I'll read the logical justification you offer for the new schedule.
If the justification offers a good explanation why those 4-5 numbers need to change, I'll accept the whole package.

So my question is this: why on earth couldn't we have started from the discussing justification first?
*Before* you and several other people needed to "spend 5 days straight" working on tweaking numbers, whose current value I don't even remember.

IMHO, we, the DAC, the BitShares platform, need an over all review of the whole fee schedule. I am saying this as if I am a stake holder.

Your personal opinion, no matter on a few fees or all fees, have nothing to do with my opinion. I do what I want, not what you want.

I have a committee member account, I vote for what I think is better. You have stake, you vote for the committee member who have same opinion with you. This is the game.

Saying anything as representative of the committee, or against the committee, is totally non sense, since the structure, the members in the committee can change every maintenance interval, or say every hour. The committee is totally unstable.

Can we stop arguing on this?

[jakub]

Next time we can of course ask every shareholder to spend 5 days straight and find a good fee schedule .. would that make sense?

@xeroc ,

As I suggested in my previous posts, IMO if this task requires this much work, it should have gone through a worker proposal.

IMO in reality there are only a few values in the fee schedule that are politically sensitive.
These are:
- the flat transfer fee and AM/LTM price
- place/cancel order trading fee
There are hundreds of other fees but I don't even remember their values, which suggests that they do not really matter to me (and I guess most other users) as long as they are within some reasonable limits.

So whatever you are going to present next week, I'll look at those 4-5 numbers and I'll read the logical justification you offer for the new schedule.
If the justification offers a good explanation why those 4-5 numbers need to change, I'll accept the whole package.

So my question is this: why on earth couldn't we have started from the discussing justification first?
*Before* you and several other people needed to "spend 5 days straight" working on tweaking numbers, whose current value I don't even remember.

[TravelsAsia]

bitcrab is a businessman, not a solution seeker interested in finding good incentive structures.
That's why he got a response like this - for pushing his interests above the interests of the whole system.

No, bitcrab received the response he did because some people think it's more productive to attack the person rather than the idea. It was an embarrassing thread to read.

[pc]

IMO, the only thing you are supposed to do (for free) is this: have public discussions and publicly differ in your opinions. That's the whole point.
Not work together (as some kind of governmental body representing the shareholders' interests), but quite the opposite: discuss and publicly defend your views with solid arguments, so that the shareholders can see who is making sense and who is not. So basically do what everybody does here on this forum. Discuss. For free.

Okay, I think I'm beginning to understand what your position is.

Only I think that with this mode of operation no decisions would ever be made. For a decision, some committee member must create a proposal and put it up for voting. I think in most cases, 11 independently thinking and operating committee members would come up with 11 different proposals, and not one of these would have the slightest chance of being voted in.

I think for a decision you must find an agreement first, create a proposal based on the agreement (which will have a good chance of being voted in), and finally have the shareholders approve or disapprove by voting/unvoting committee members.

[Bhuz]

He presented his "idea" badly and without the slightest attempt to offer logical justification (apart from "lower fees = more users") and without the slightest attempt to take into consideration the interests of businesses other than those similar to his own.

(1)
So, if one person present his personal idea without too much "hard work" in finding rational and logical justification and only with the purpose to start a public discussion about it on the forum, it is bad and he deserves what bitcrab got.

(2)
At the same time, if one or more person try to pulicly share an idea and present it with in-depth analysis and rational and logical argumentations (from their pov ofc), it is also bad because they put too hard work in it and should have shared the general idea first: point (1)

I am totally lost here.

bitcrab is a businessman, not a solution seeker interested in finding good incentive structures.
That's why he got a response like this - for pushing his interests above the interests of the whole system.

Do you even know about his business?!
Bitcrab do not gain nothing from a lower transfer fee from the point of view of his business.

Maybe you did not realize that bitcrab is also one of the biggest proxy from chinese community.

The transfer fee debate is coming from a big part of our community, not from a man running his business

[jakub]

For me it's a loose collection of people, each of the them represents some kind of unique political view & experience and they do not really need to work together, apart from coordinating the usage of the mulit-sig account they share and control. All they need to do (free of charge), is discuss things publicly between each other, so that voters can form a view who is right and who is not. This way it's more like a panel of independent judges, each having his own wisdom.

Yes, and tell me: does the name "bitcrab" say something to you?

Because last couple of threads he make, ended up with just endless personal attacks.
People went crazy without a real reason, without trying to read and really understand his points.
I only saw a bunch of closed-minded/i-know-it-alls people insulting him without bring real and constructive arguments on the topic.
I only saw really stupid statements like: he is going to fork bts, he is going to kill bts, he is going to kill the referral program, he is going to replace all the committee, he is going to replace the witnesses.
Just after couple of minutes from his post, some people opened new threads titled "Please vote out Bitcrab if you care about bitshares" and "OBITS HODLERs, your money is in danger", just because a community member stated his pov. There was not even a proposal attached to his thread.

So, please, you can dream what you want, but try to stick to the reality of this forum.

Regarding bitcrab, he got exactly what he deserved.
(Apart from personal attacks, which I condemn, as they obscure the discussion)

He presented his "idea" badly and without the slightest attempt to offer logical justification (apart from "lower fees = more users") and without the slightest attempt to take into consideration the interests of businesses other than those similar to his own.

bitcrab is a businessman, not a solution seeker interested in finding good incentive structures.
That's why he got a response like this - for pushing his interests above the interests of the whole system.
But it's good he's quite open about it and does not pretend anything: he clearly says what he wants  - I value this.

[jakub]

It seems the current committee is operating exactly as documented.

Well, we are actually  gathering more feedback compared to what the documentation seems to says.

We gathered feedback before and during the creation of our proposal.
We are going to gather other feedback after the proposal will be given to the public for listen to their thoughts/ideas/comments etc.

Only after that, we are going to approve the proposal (probably modified with community input) and let the stakeholders do their job with the voting process.

This is exactly where we differ. IMO it's *not* the role of committee members to do what you described.

You are not supposed to "gather feedback" because you are not representing anybody's interests.

You are not supposed to do any "hard work". If hard work was needed for this position, it would have been a paid position.

You are not supposed to be "approachable" as Bunker said in the last mumble. If being approachable is a valuable quality for a committee member, that would mean s/he has access to some sort of power or resources which ordinary shareholder does not have. And this is clearly not the case. There should be nothing I should need to ask Bunker or you. I should not need to ask for any of your attention, either. When I have discussions on the forum, I don't expect anybody to be approachable.

IMO, the only thing you are supposed to do (for free) is this: have public discussions and publicly differ in your opinions. That's the whole point.
Not work together (as some kind of governmental body representing the shareholders' interests), but quite the opposite: discuss and publicly defend your views with solid arguments, so that the shareholders can see who is making sense and who is not. So basically do what everybody does here on this forum. Discuss. For free.

The only difference between me and you is that you have been given (by the shareholders) access to some special multi-sig account.
Otherwise we are equal and there is no reason I can think of, that entitles you to work on the details of the new holistic fee schedule but not e.g. luckybit, if he wanted to.
You are only committee members, not some sort of special commission, whose purpose is to arrive at a solution to a problem.
This is what pc wants you to be and I strongly disagree with him.

And this is where the pathology begins: when shareholders are misled to feel grateful for your "hard work". Their gratefulness gives you power over them.
You are not supposed to have any power - you are only supposed to have opinions, each of you individually, not collective as a group.

[xeroc]

Next time we can of course ask every shareholder to spend 5 days straight and find a good fee schedule .. would that make sense?

[xeroc]

@jakub
ALL discussions by voted-in members should be done right here on the fourm. Don't ask shareholders to install telegram, learn slack or whatever new trendy tool comes out.
 
Customer service and transparency are imperative, especially in this crypto-space, it's a major learning curve for people. Make it easy for the newcomers!
 

transparent debate among our elected reps is what the masses demand

conducting secret closed door discussions is the fastest way to get voted out

Its also the fastest way to get a reasonable result.

Again, the committe worked on a fee schedule to present to the shareholders for further discussion .. it is not about voting but about working towards something to present to the shareholders for further discussion but have a reasonable starting point

[giant middle finger]

@jakub
ALL discussions by voted-in members should be done right here on the fourm. Don't ask shareholders to install telegram, learn slack or whatever new trendy tool comes out.
 
Customer service and transparency are imperative, especially in this crypto-space, it's a major learning curve for people. Make it easy for the newcomers!
 

transparent debate among our elected reps is what the masses demand

conducting secret closed door discussions is the fastest way to get voted out

[kenCode]

@jakub
ALL discussions by voted-in members should be done right here on the fourm. Don't ask shareholders to install telegram, learn slack or whatever new trendy tool comes out.
 
Customer service and transparency are imperative, especially in this crypto-space, it's a major learning curve for people. Make it easy for the newcomers!
 
See my threads about NodeBB. Realtime chat and a slew of other cool features can be added right here in an upgraded forum.

[xeroc]

It actually was my idea to start working on the fee schedule behind the scenes.
Apologies to those that felt treated badly be this decision.

My motivation was to develop a sound fee schedule before we reach out to the community about their input.
It never was the idea to develop a fee schedule and vote for it without a larger consent of the community (read: shareholders) but I felt that it is the job of the committee to propose a schedule with reasonable fees. I do see the issue with having most of the discussion in a private Telegram group and I would love to have one or two mailing lists for the committee eventually so that we only need to "organize" via Telegram and don't develop stuff behind scenes ..

[Bhuz]

It seems the current committee is operating exactly as documented.

Well, we are actually  gathering more feedback compared to what the documentation seems to says.

We gathered feedback before and during the creation of our proposal.
We are going to gather other feedback after the proposal will be given to the public for listen to their thoughts/ideas/comments etc.

Only after that, we are going to approve the proposal (probably modified with community input) and let the stakeholders do their job with the voting process.

[Stan]

[I wish @bytemaster could comment what his intentions were when he was designing the whole thing.

As documented in https://bitshares.org/technology/delegated-proof-of-stake-consensus/

Delegates are elected in a manner similar to witnesses. A delegate becomes a co-signer on a special account that has the privilege of proposing changes to the network parameters. This account is known as the genesis account. These parameters include everything from transaction fees, to block sizes, witness pay, and block intervals. After the majority of delegates have approved a proposed change, the stakeholders are granted a 2 week review period during which they may vote out delegates and nullify the proposed changes.

This design was chosen to ensure that delegates technically have no direct power and that all changes to the network parameters are ultimately approved by the stakeholders. This is done to protect the delegates against regulations that may apply to managers or administrators of cryptocurrencies. Under DPOS, we can truly say that the administrative authority rests in the hands of the users, rather than either the delegates or witnesses.

Thus, by posting their opinions (an exercise of free speech) in a way that the blockchain can understand them, the parameters of the system get set without anyone having formal control.  Shareholders decide whose opinions the system values.

And public discussion among all opiners helps shareholders do that.

[Bhuz]

For me it's a loose collection of people, each of the them represents some kind of unique political view & experience and they do not really need to work together, apart from coordinating the usage of the mulit-sig account they share and control. All they need to do (free of charge), is discuss things publicly between each other, so that voters can form a view who is right and who is not. This way it's more like a panel of independent judges, each having his own wisdom.

Yes, and tell me: does the name "bitcrab" say something to you?

Because last couple of threads he make, ended up with just endless personal attacks.
People went crazy without a real reason, without trying to read and really understand his points.
I only saw a bunch of closed-minded/i-know-it-alls people insulting him without bring real and constructive arguments on the topic.
I only saw really stupid statements like: he is going to fork bts, he is going to kill bts, he is going to kill the referral program, he is going to replace all the committee, he is going to replace the witnesses.
Just after couple of minutes from his post, some people opened new threads titled "Please vote out Bitcrab if you care about bitshares" and "OBITS HODLERs, your money is in danger", just because a community member stated his pov. There was not even a proposal attached to his thread.

So, please, you can dream what you want, but try to stick to the reality of this forum.

[jakub]

I'll comment only on one thing, and stop the discussion here.
Clearly, we have very different visions about the committee's role and I don't want to be part of your vision.
If we start treating the committee as some sort of government (even if it's fully controlled by the shareholders) it will end badly IMO.

That would be your interpretation and definition.. not stated fact. I understand that you might perceive a lower transfer fee as a direct threat to your worker proposal, but I have already expressed differing views on that if you factor in other aspects.

Please do not imply that my motivation stems from me "perceiving a lower transfer fee as a direct threat to my worker proposal".
Actually, in my own best interest would be to shut up and hope people don't notice that it's quite likely that 4.4m BTS is going to be wasted.

Whereas you seem to be quite unconcerned about this fact:

This all seems fine.. though your worry over the % based fee has no real reasoning. I understand that it was initially sought out as a means of lower fees, however, if it doesn't get used it really won't have any negative consequence to Bitshares.

I've said what I felt needed to be said, and I'll not post in this thread any more.

[jakub]

I don't really get you here...

Since we are going to public the fee schedule with all of our thoughts and rational conclusions on why we are proposing what we have come up with, what you are saying does not make sense.

If we will present something stupid, flawed, or anything that someone would like to comment, He will be free to point it out.
No one is hiding behind telegram or prevent someone to challenge our arguments.

But we need an argument first, so give us the time we need to be able to make it rational/sound/understandable.

So I guess we have very different visions of the role of the committee.

For you it's some sort of governmental body which works closely together and first achieves a consensus within itself and then announces the outcome of this consensus and asks voters to support this outcome. So it's more like a government which needs to sort things out within itself and then present a holistic solution to the voters.

For me it's a loose collection of people, each of the them represents some kind of unique political view & experience and they do not really need to work together, apart from coordinating the usage of the mulit-sig account they share and control. All they need to do (free of charge), is discuss things publicly between each other, so that voters can form a view who is right and who is not. This way it's more like a panel of independent judges, each having his own wisdom.


I wish @bytemaster could comment what his intentions were when he was designing the whole thing.

Yesterday, when Bunker made his announcement about "the committee working hard behind the scenes", I felt like this was some sort of governmental spokesperson giving a press conference.
If that's what shareholders want, I'm fine with that, but certainly this is not something I'd like to be part of.

[Akado]

Yes but people might not want to use their phone number. On top of personal preference, that's another restriction you're adding to the use of the app, meaning it's one more entry barrier for users. Even though it's something really simple in this case, but still applies.

What I would suggest regarding this convos should be public vs private is having a section on the forum where only committee members can post but every can see the posts. This way they don't loose track of the subject, there's no spam, and everyone can easily see the conversations. Sounds pretty simple. Disadvantage however is it's not as fast as a chat.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

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.

You mean to tell me you haven't seen any posts from any Committee members in any of these threads? These are just a few off the top of my head in the past week..

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21202.0.html
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21314.0.html
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21326.0.html
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21293.0.html

The Committee members are always listening to what community is saying about anything related to fees.. and some of them weigh in on the discussions.... to go by your stated logic any committee members participating in an existing thread started by anyone else just doesn't count.

Oh and one of them WAS started by a committee member... considering your level of activity in that thread I can't believe you can't recall this.

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.

It would be impossible to have any kind of discussion in a timely manner that isn't hijacked by others. If the level of discourse is to take place among 300+ people at a time we would have no way to stay focused on any matter at any given time.

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.

It's not that interesting.. it's just what is possible with the way the system is now.

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.

Well you seen that one thread already started by bitcrab about 1BTS transfers... tell me.. how do you think the forum handled that? You are saying you want us to do this X 10 now with everything?

As for the paid worker proposal idea.. very unlikely that will ever get voted for given the current climate. You can keep that in your wish list though maybe when we have a $100m market cap. Perhaps then the Asian shareholders would be ok with it.

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.

I am pretty sure that every committee member has experienced that nonetheless from all those members. You seem more intent on getting some kind of entertainment factor out of this more of that rather than enabling the committee to have meaningful consultation.

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.

That would be your interpretation and definition.. not stated fact. I understand that you might perceive a lower transfer fee as a direct threat to your worker proposal, but I have already expressed differing views on that if you factor in other aspects. BM yesterday after dropping the bomb on no fees even went on to talk about % fees still being another 'tool in our box'.

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 did.. the whole forum is always buzzing with ideas and thoughts... as stated above.

We are doing everything based on shareholder feedback.

My impression is quite the opposite.

Who then? I love to know where we been getting all our input from then. Hint.. wasn't the bitcoin forums!

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.

If you want to fold your arms up and say you are not going to look that is your choice. I personally think that's not a good idea and would be counter productive. Also.. if you really do want to stop it from proceeding, you best know what is in it.

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.

You are recommending to create a worker then for committee members to spend more time in forums. The Worker feature is not a limitless gravy train for anyone to just reach into. I understand there are misconceptions about its impact as far as this idea of dilution, but the impact of that perception is still real.  Again.. $100m market cap later perhaps this is something to consider.. but I am a little taken aback you feel that the Worker is something we should so freely access for such things.

[Bhuz]

I think your are missing the point. If I wanted I could copy-paste all your debates into the forum to make them public.
But that's not really the point.

I have not missed the point, my post was a reply to Akado, not to you. So actually I don't get this last reply of you, but anyway...

The point is that when you are hiding behind Telegram, the validity of your arguments is not challenged by anyone.
You may say something stupid, and it will go unnoticed because nobody really can be bothered to go through Telegram and trace who said what.
On the forum though, there are still a few people left who will bother to comment and will point it out when you're talking rubbish.

Why do you think BM asked you yesterday to make formal notes of your debates? Because he's that interested in all those details you discuss?
I'd rather think he wants your logic to be exposed to the public scrutiny.

I don't really get you here...

Since we are going to public the fee schedule with all of our thoughts and rational conclusions on why we are proposing what we have come up with, what you are saying does not make sense.

If we will present something stupid, flawed, or anything that someone would like to comment, He will be free to point it out.
No one is hiding behind telegram or prevent someone to challenge our arguments.

But we need an argument first, so give us the time we need to be able to make it rational/sound/understandable.

[jakub]

Well, this is all based on trust. I understand jakub's view on this. Transparency is good and people can keep up with the discussions, see who is active, who is not, if the committee is "wasting" time debating over something that I think it's not relevant, etc, basically, to monitor if I should support them or not.

However I also understand the committee's opinion that sometimes there should be some privacy. There has been lack of communication and understanding in the past so the fact one member brings a controversial topic up, people can immediately panic and make a storm out of something that didn't really have importance. That privacy is good to avoid those things and imo, also because without people constantly in the middle they can (or should) work faster.

Like I said in the beggining, it's a matter of trust. If you don't like the way the committee operates, vote them down, vote for people who are more transparent. People always have the choice to vote for what they want right?

 

What I would suggest is:
Create a slack channel, it might be me but telegram sucks. I really don't like it. I don't want to install the app and I tried the web browser version, now it asks for a number again, etc. Also people might not want to share their phone number. It might not seem much for some but for others it can be. It needs to be easily accessible to everyone By using telegram you're already limiting people's access to the discussions.

Slack seems way better, saves the history, you can have a public channel and a private channel for committee to discuss. Or I imagine (not sure though) you could create one channel for committee discussion that everyone can see but only the committee members can participate, to avoid spam and loosing time. People then discuss what they see on the other channel.

It's way better. Telegram is just bad. It might be just me, but please consider moving to slack.

Btw: BitShares slack channel requires a CNX email... Not well thought. CNX should have their own slack, BitShares should have one for the community.

I think it is just personal preference at the end...

Anyway, the phone number you input will not be shared with other peoples. You have both a mobile application and web browser one, so it is really easily accessible to everyone.

We are limiting ppl access on telegram as mush as we would limiting ppl access to slack to whoever don't like slack and doesn't want to use it.
I think we can agree that we can not use both at the same time.

On telegram there are also other channel, Bitshares public one, witnesses, witnesses alert, committee, and probably other bitshares-regional too.
Having all this channel in one place is only a plus, above all for who have to deal with both committee and witnesses. The bots already present in telegram are also very usefull for everyone involved.

I think your are missing the point. If I wanted I could copy-paste all your debates into the forum to make them public.
But that's not really the point.

The point is that when you are hiding behind Telegram, the validity of your arguments is not challenged by anyone.
You may say something stupid, and it will go unnoticed because nobody really can be bothered to go through Telegram and trace who said what.
On the forum though, there are still a few people left who will bother to comment and will point it out when you're talking rubbish.

Why do you think BM asked you yesterday to make formal notes of your debates? Because he's that interested in all those details you discuss?
I'd rather think he wants your logic to be exposed to the public scrutiny.

[Bhuz]

Really, jakub, I don't get your point.

The forum is full of discussion about the fee structure. I spend a lot of time here, and I find that I can follow these discussions only on a very general level. Those who invest the time to sieve through all these posts and come up with proposals that try to balance everybody's interests in the best possible way deserve my highest respect. Especially so the committee members, because whatever they come up with they're likely to get flamed by someone!

transparency does not mean any discussion should happen in forum, inner discussion are also needed.

I just wanted to say that I urge tell you: THANK YOU!

[jakub]

Well, this is all based on trust. I understand jakub's view on this. Transparency is good and people can keep up with the discussions, see who is active, who is not, if the committee is "wasting" time debating over something that I think it's not relevant, etc, basically, to monitor if I should support them or not.

My main point is that the committee is "wasting" time debating over something that is based on assumptions that have not been accepted by the shareholders.

[Bhuz]

Well, this is all based on trust. I understand jakub's view on this. Transparency is good and people can keep up with the discussions, see who is active, who is not, if the committee is "wasting" time debating over something that I think it's not relevant, etc, basically, to monitor if I should support them or not.

However I also understand the committee's opinion that sometimes there should be some privacy. There has been lack of communication and understanding in the past so the fact one member brings a controversial topic up, people can immediately panic and make a storm out of something that didn't really have importance. That privacy is good to avoid those things and imo, also because without people constantly in the middle they can (or should) work faster.

Like I said in the beggining, it's a matter of trust. If you don't like the way the committee operates, vote them down, vote for people who are more transparent. People always have the choice to vote for what they want right?

 

What I would suggest is:
Create a slack channel, it might be me but telegram sucks. I really don't like it. I don't want to install the app and I tried the web browser version, now it asks for a number again, etc. Also people might not want to share their phone number. It might not seem much for some but for others it can be. It needs to be easily accessible to everyone By using telegram you're already limiting people's access to the discussions.

Slack seems way better, saves the history, you can have a public channel and a private channel for committee to discuss. Or I imagine (not sure though) you could create one channel for committee discussion that everyone can see but only the committee members can participate, to avoid spam and loosing time. People then discuss what they see on the other channel.

It's way better. Telegram is just bad. It might be just me, but please consider moving to slack.

Btw: BitShares slack channel requires a CNX email... Not well thought. CNX should have their own slack, BitShares should have one for the community.

I think it is just personal preference at the end...

Anyway, the phone number you input will not be shared with other peoples. You have both a mobile application and web browser one, so it is really easily accessible to everyone.

We are limiting ppl access on telegram as mush as we would limiting ppl access to slack to whoever don't like slack and doesn't want to use it.
I think we can agree that we can not use both at the same time.

On telegram there are also other channel, Bitshares public one, witnesses, witnesses alert, committee, and probably other bitshares-regional too.
Having all this channel in one place is only a plus, above all for who have to deal with both committee and witnesses. The bots already present in telegram are also very usefull for everyone involved.

[jakub]

Really, jakub, I don't get your point.

The forum is full of discussion about the fee structure. I spend a lot of time here, and I find that I can follow these discussions only on a very general level. Those who invest the time to sieve through all these posts and come up with proposals that try to balance everybody's interests in the best possible way deserve my highest respect. Especially so the committee members, because whatever they come up with they're likely to get flamed by someone!

transparency does not mean any discussion should happen in forum, inner discussion are also needed.

This is exactly the impression the committee wants you to have.
It's quite amazing how quickly we've managed to replicate almost every single pathology of power that exists in the real world.

[Akado]

Well, this is all based on trust. I understand jakub's view on this. Transparency is good and people can keep up with the discussions, see who is active, who is not, if the committee is "wasting" time debating over something that I think it's not relevant, etc, basically, to monitor if I should support them or not.

However I also understand the committee's opinion that sometimes there should be some privacy. There has been lack of communication and understanding in the past so the fact one member brings a controversial topic up, people can immediately panic and make a storm out of something that didn't really have importance. That privacy is good to avoid those things and imo, also because without people constantly in the middle they can (or should) work faster.

Like I said in the beggining, it's a matter of trust. If you don't like the way the committee operates, vote them down, vote for people who are more transparent. People always have the choice to vote for what they want right?

What I would suggest is:
Create a slack channel, it might be me but telegram sucks. I really don't like it. I don't want to install the app and I tried the web browser version, now it asks for a number again, etc. Also people might not want to share their phone number. It might not seem much for some but for others it can be. It needs to be easily accessible to everyone By using telegram you're already limiting people's access to the discussions.

Slack seems way better, saves the history, you can have a public channel and a private channel for committee to discuss. Or I imagine (not sure though) you could create one channel for committee discussion that everyone can see but only the committee members can participate, to avoid spam and loosing time. People then discuss what they see on the other channel.

It's way better. Telegram is just bad. It might be just me, but please consider moving to slack.

Btw: BitShares slack channel requires a CNX email... Not well thought. CNX should have their own slack, BitShares should have one for the community.

[bitcrab]

transparency does not mean any discussion should happen in forum, inner discussion are also needed.

Please, give me an example where inner (i.e. non-public) discussion is needed between two committee members.

here the inner discussion refer to the discussion in committee telegram group, all the discussion is open to all the committee members and some proxies, it is "inner" but not "secret", committee also need communication efficiency. you are also in the telegram group and are not supposed to miss any discussion.

[pc]

Really, jakub, I don't get your point.

The forum is full of discussion about the fee structure. I spend a lot of time here, and I find that I can follow these discussions only on a very general level. Those who invest the time to sieve through all these posts and come up with proposals that try to balance everybody's interests in the best possible way deserve my highest respect. Especially so the committee members, because whatever they come up with they're likely to get flamed by someone!

transparency does not mean any discussion should happen in forum, inner discussion are also needed.

[jakub]

transparency does not mean any discussion should happen in forum, inner discussion are also needed.

Please, give me an example where inner (i.e. non-public) discussion is needed between two committee members.

[jakub]

Is there a brand to begin with?  AFAIK, as BM took pain to explain, bts2 began as an experiment. Its self-governing structure with committee and proxies only started to function recently.  I did not see any attempt in branding bts2, let alone RP.  Or am I missing something?  If there is no brand to begin with, there is certainly no rebranding.

ps: A good brand is good to have and it is essential for us to succeed against our competitors.  It takes a lot more thoughts and planning before it can happen.

I've used the word "rebranding" in this sense: the process of changing a product's purpose or target market .
If AM/LTM is no longer an attractive choice for non-advanced user, for me that's a substantial change in AM/LTM purpose and target market.

I am not xeroc and I cannot know his intent.  But in general, each individual has a preference for a communication channel to achieve a specific purpose.  It could be different channels for different purposes.  Whether it is for a real-time discussion, co-ordination or organisation, I think we should let the individual decide what is most suitable for their own needs.

My assumption is that most of your communication stems from the fact that you differ in opinions and try to convince each other. For me, this part of the process belongs to the forum and you should be exposed to full public scrutiny while arguing your cases. All other communication can be wherever you want.

I know that as a proxy I could access your communication if I wanted.
But I also want the best minds on our forum to be able to comment on your arguments, as it often happens that other people expose things I could have missed myself.

[bitcrab]

transparency does not mean any discussion should happen in forum, inner discussion are also needed.

[jakub]

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.

[cube]

OK, this looks a fine plan.
So would you refer me to the forum thread which inspired the committee to work on rebranding the referral program?

(By "rebranding the referral program" ...)

Is there a brand to begin with?  AFAIK, as BM took pain to explain, bts2 began as an experiment. Its self-governing structure with committee and proxies only started to function recently.  I did not see any attempt in branding bts2, let alone RP.  Or am I missing something?  If there is no brand to begin with, there is certainly no rebranding.

ps: A good brand is good to have and it is essential for us to succeed against our competitors.  It takes a lot more thoughts and planning before it can happen.

Why Telegram and not this forum?
Just for your convenience?
Well, if that's the case IMO transparency should take precedence over your convenience.

Telegram should be used only for technical stuff and to facilitate coordination.
Or we should all move to Telegram.

I am not xeroc and I cannot know his intent.  But in general, each individual has a preference for a communication channel to achieve a specific purpose.  It could be different channels for different purposes.  Whether it is for a real-time discussion, co-ordination or organisation, I think we should let the individual decide what is most suitable for their own needs.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Perhaps I didn't deliver the message as clearly as hoped.

1. Committee ISN'T making decisions outside of the forum. As I said in the update, we have been in the forum engaged in numerous threads taking in feedback from the community about everything. Several committee members have posted about what they thought about things and have gotten feedback from the community.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I rather be MORE thoughtful in my approach. I actually am not happy with the way matters recently came up and how I responded to them. It might have been due to the approach taken, but it created a situation that made the community look like it was in civil war.. and I look back now and see how I got caught up in some of that in a way that is not conducive to consultation and unity. I can only hope perhaps some of the other committee members have learned the same lessons.

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?

I agree that the best minds do need to be on the committee. Question remains what they should be. I remember way back when we launched everyone had the perception that the best minds were DEVs, and that devs should make up the committee. So many people never stepped up. Finally  we got 'doers' getting into the committee.. people who see something needs to be done and take action. Great! So now we want 'the best'... well the community has voted for those whom are willing to take public beratings like this available for vote. So long as berating is the standard though, don't expect 'the best minds' to want to be involved. We will have to settle for the emotionally mature.


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. 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.

I think a lot of what this post is about is the very reason why I am not as 'actively engaged' in the forum as you defined it. Some of the foregone conclusions and feelings you have reached on where things are at and what is happening I think are a direct result of reading too much into a few random commentaries from some members of the committee and taking it as decisions when really they might have just been thoughts they had at that time, or even just their own positions/opinions. Perhaps even due to language barriers because more than half of the committee are Chinese/Asian.

We are doing everything based on shareholder feedback.

I will state it again since my update in Mumble didn't seem to come across clearly enough.

Next week sometime, we will be releasing an update from the committee *on the forum* on a new fee schedule that takes a holistic long term approach to ALL fees in Bitshares.

We have WORKED HARD on coming up with this schedule based on all the the input from various discussions here on the forum and among committee members.. whom all proxy voters are welcome to sit in on and watch and discuss with if they like. Xeroc for weeks now has been engaging in discussions with the committee as a proxy only. He spent 3 solid days helping to organize a proposal so that we could come together in a more meaningful discourse and analysis of every fee in Bitshares. It was only in the last few days he finally joined the committee. (Welcome once again @xeroc ).

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.

From all of that the Committee will WORK HARD AGAIN to come to a final consensus based on everything and then put a proposal together that may or may not be voted in by all committee members.

If the community members don't like how that vote is going, the community always has the option to vote out those committee members and make their votes no longer count. So if you think TPP is being rammed down your throat after all of that, good news, you can just vote out your gov before it even happens... assuming that is what shareholders want. After this much due-diligence and careful consideration of everything though, I don't see that likely to happen.

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.

All that said.. I like to just share a link to an interesting story about Uber. It really illustrates some points about how a company has to make decisions that sometimes don't look like the best idea from the customers perspective, but is absolutely essential to addressing supply/demand.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/three-things-i-learned-during-4-years-uber-michael-pao

It's a good read with some real world examples based on real world experience.

Hope this helps clarify.

[jakub]

Even though I can't yet reveal the whole fee schedule to you, I hope it makes sense to you.

Why is that?
Keeping things secret in this context makes sense only in one case: if you are negotiating something between yourselves.
All this stuff should be in the public domain since the very beginning.

I think this is a misunderstanding.  Perhaps he is still formulating/enhancing his fee schedule idea. xeroc has not kept any of his idea secret. In fact, he has shared his fee schedule idea in the general bitshares telegram channel.

Why Telegram and not this forum?
Just for your convenience?
Well, if that's the case IMO transparency should take precedence over your convenience.

Telegram should be used only for technical stuff and to facilitate coordination.
Or we should all move to Telegram.

[jakub]

AFAIK, the committee is working like this:

1) A user starts a certain topic on the forum which may need the attention of the committee

2) Feedback are gathered from the forum as more users participate in it

3) Committee members may choose to participate in the on-going discussion

4) Committee members may clarify the concerns or ideas raised in the forum posts and discuss ideas among them with proxies' active participation (in telegram)

5) After a period of time, a level of understanding is established between the users who contributed to the posts, the result usually ends with some gives-and-takes and new ideas

6) The committee attempts to make a proposal which absorbs the essence of (5) and it will be presented to the forum for discussion among the users (especially key players affected by the proposed change). 

7) Feedbacks on the proposal are gathered. 

8.) Fine-tuning/modification to the proposal may be needed. Committee discusses them in telegram,  again with active participation of proxies

9) A fine-tuned proposal (if needed) is made by the committee

10) A process of (7) to (9) is repeated until a final proposal can be made.

11) Committee votes on the final proposal.  At this point, the committee has a deep and clear understanding of the issues at hand and it can vote with confidence.

OK, this looks a fine plan.
So would you refer me to the forum thread which inspired the committee to work on rebranding the referral program?

(By "rebranding the referral program" I mean targeting it to *advanced* users only instead of *frequent* users, by pushing the flat transfer fee so low that buying AM or LTM for non-advanced users makes no sense.)

[cube]

Even though I can't yet reveal the whole fee schedule to you, I hope it makes sense to you.

Why is that?
Keeping things secret in this context makes sense only in one case: if you are negotiating something between yourselves.
All this stuff should be in the public domain since the very beginning.

I think this is a misunderstanding.  Perhaps he is still formulating/enhancing his fee schedule idea. xeroc has not kept any of his idea secret. In fact, he has shared his fee schedule idea in the general bitshares telegram channel.

[jakub]

Even though I can't yet reveal the whole fee schedule to you, I hope it makes sense to you.

Why is that?
Keeping things secret in this context makes sense only in one case: if you are negotiating something between yourselves.
All this stuff should be in the public domain since the very beginning.

[cube]

AFAIK, the committee is working like this:

1) A user starts a certain topic on the forum which may need the attention of the committee

2) Feedback are gathered from the forum as more users participate in it

3) Committee members may choose to participate in the on-going discussion

4) Committee members may clarify the concerns or ideas raised in the forum posts and discuss ideas among them with proxies' active participation (in telegram)

5) After a period of time, a level of understanding is established between the users who contributed to the posts, the result usually ends with some gives-and-takes and new ideas

6) The committee attempts to make a proposal which absorbs the essence of (5) and it will be presented to the forum for discussion among the users (especially key players affected by the proposed change). 

7) Feedbacks on the proposal are gathered. 

8.) Fine-tuning/modification to the proposal may be needed. Committee discusses them in telegram,  again with active participation of proxies

9) A fine-tuned proposal (if needed) is made by the committee

10) A process of (7) to (9) is repeated until a final proposal can be made.

11) Committee votes on the final proposal.  At this point, the committee has a deep and clear understanding of the issues at hand and it can vote with confidence.

[jakub]

How about posting all of the committees telegram chat logs on the forum.

But why not discuss it here, on the forum, so that if a committee member says something I do not agree with, I can point it out and make him defend his case?
I don't want to be a passive reader. I don't have time for this.

This forum is the public arena where you have to be able to stand your ground, if you play a political role like this.
If you cannot produce concise and clear arguments on the forum, you should not be a committee member in the first place.

[jakub]

Most proxies are invited to the Telegram channel. So there is enough transparency imo.

IM is a good tool for discussing.

Committee hasn't made any decision on changing something, just proposals for changing something.

I know. Fortunately it's not able to make any decision.

But for me this situation is very strange.
The committee works on details which I'll will not even look into because I do not agree with the underlying assumptions.
Why don't we discuss assumptions first and then work on the numbers?

@Akado has made a very good point a few days ago, that at this stage liquidity is the key, not the transfer fees.
I agree with him and I'll not allow to touch the transfer fees (thus substantially change the business rules) unless somebody makes a solid argument that it makes sense.

And I have a feeling that the committee, instead of trying to make this argument, went straight to work on details, as if this argument had been made.

Leave out the transfer fee from the current committee work, and I'll have no objections whatsoever.
But do not try to obfuscate the transfer fee cut with tweaking of hundreds of other fees.
Otherwise I'll have no choice but to reject all those valuable tweaks just because I do not agree with just one: the transfer fee cut.

[JonnyB]

How about posting all of the committees telegram chat logs on the forum.

[abit]

Most proxies are invited to the Telegram channel. So there is enough transparency imo.

IM is a good tool for discussing.

Committee hasn't made any decision on changing something, just proposals for changing something.

[jakub]

There are two major things I don't like:

(1) The committee is making discussions outside this forum
I understand that the Telegram tool is a useful tool for efficient coordination when a multi-sig account is involved, but really that's all it should be used for.

All strategy discussions should be here, on the forum, transparent to every shareholder.
Do you change you opinions so fast that you need a real-time tool to communicate?

Or are you negotiating some kind of deal between each other? If that's the case, this is *not* what the committee is supposed to be IMO.
It feels like TPP - "you folks just back off, and wait till we are finished negotiating between ourselves".
WTF is this?

It was quite funny when @BunkerChain Labs told us in the last Mumble that the "committee is working hard and soon will be able to show the result of its work".
I think you completely misunderstand the role of the committee.
If are on the committee, you should be engaged in the discussions here on the forum and be able to defend your case here on the forum so we can know what your motivations and arguments are.

And you should be actively contributing to all threads that affect anything related to pricing strategy and at least try to construct sensible arguments.
You seem to be absolutely detached from the forum.

IMO this forum is our Parliament, *not* the committee.
Either you are able to argue your case or you get voted out. That's it.
We need our best minds to be on the committee, instead of turning it into some sort of private club where internal deals are made.


(2)  The committee assumes some important decisions has already been made
Why is the committee working on minute details of a new fee schedule *AS IF* the decision about rebranding the referral program has already been made?

Isn't this the most rational course of actions:
(1) First reach a consensus about the need to rebrand the referral program at this stage (i.e. before the liquidity issue is sorted out).
(2) *If* most shareholders agree with this new approach to the RP,  then start working on a detailed implementation.

Otherwise you are wasting your time *or* you assume the big decision has already been made.