Its 2021:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply
Great... an enshrined constitution that stipulates an dilution rate strictly less than BTC's inflation rate would "tie our hands" and should be carefully considered, but from a marketing perspective there is a strong case.
Interesting idea. I can see both sides of this discussion.
a) Fixed dilution limits future unknowns.
b) Fixed dilution gives investors peace of mind.
I can't decide.
We should probably write our declaration of independence as well.
Interesting idea. I can see both sides of this discussion.
a) Fixed dilution limits future unknowns.
b) Fixed dilution gives investors peace of mind.
I can't decide.
+5% :P
Interesting idea. I can see both sides of this discussion.
a) Fixed dilution limits future unknowns.
b) Fixed dilution gives investors peace of mind.
I can't decide.
+5% :P
Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.
Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.
I agree.
I think that modifying a constituiton is "hard but not impossible".
It should be hard enough that people have confidence that it should probably not happen, except in an extreme emergency where everyone agrees it must happen.
Extreme emergency or extreme opportunity.... I think we can put this kind of thing up to a vote that requires 75% stakeholder approval and allows stakeholder to buy/sell their approval would do the trick.
Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.
I agree.
I think that modifying a constituiton is "hard but not impossible".
It should be hard enough that people have confidence that it should probably not happen, except in an extreme emergency where everyone agrees it must happen.
Extreme emergency or extreme opportunity.... I think we can put this kind of thing up to a vote that requires 75% stakeholder approval and allows stakeholder to buy/sell their approval would do the trick.
TL;DR: Too much change too fast.. dilution and playing with the incentives of those that have previously invested in AGS and PTS is not cool.
Changing things on the fly does not work with cryptocurrencies, as people like to know what they are investing in, the long term goals of the project, and that those goals won't constantly change on a whim. By changing so many things so drastically and quickly, I am sure we have lost some big stake holders that are now uncertain of Bitshares' future and the success of some of the recent changes. For instance, dilution is a word that carries a very negative connotation in the cryptocurrency community. Also, you guys are playing with the incentives of AGS/PTS/BTS on the fly and that is not cool.. it provides uncertainty to investors and scares people away and the market is reflecting that. I am sure there will be some big PTS holders that show up over the next few weeks that don't follow Bitshares day-to-day. They will be irate when they realize that a final snapshot was taken and that their PTS holdings are now worthless. People "in the know" will come out OK as they can still sell their PTS for Bitcoins at a reasonable exchange rate, but the people that are not will not come out as good as the others.
I think combining DACs was a good move, but when you start playing with the incentives of AGS/PTS/BTS and the incentive structure of DACs themselves (dilution) on the fly, that is not cool. So, although I agree with the main philosophy of the merger, I believe the way it has been carried out was sub optimal. I suggest the Bitshares community take a long hard look in the mirror at this point in time. Write Bitshares' goals and the vision of the project, and then etch that vision in stone. Only change economic incentives of a cryptocurrency when absolutely necessary (preferably never) to the success of the project.
The essential problem with dilution is that it is a coercive tax, and the antithesis of voluntary action, especially for smaller stakeholders. I would prefer a constitution built around freedom.
Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.
I agree.
I think that modifying a constituiton is "hard but not impossible".
It should be hard enough that people have confidence that it should probably not happen, except in an extreme emergency where everyone agrees it must happen.
Extreme emergency or extreme opportunity.... I think we can put this kind of thing up to a vote that requires 75% stakeholder approval and allows stakeholder to buy/sell their approval would do the trick.
The essential problem with dilution is that it is a coercive tax, and the antithesis of voluntary action, especially for smaller stakeholders. I would prefer a constitution built around freedom.
Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.
I agree.
I think that modifying a constituiton is "hard but not impossible".
It should be hard enough that people have confidence that it should probably not happen, except in an extreme emergency where everyone agrees it must happen.
Extreme emergency or extreme opportunity.... I think we can put this kind of thing up to a vote that requires 75% stakeholder approval and allows stakeholder to buy/sell their approval would do the trick.
A constitution is meant to be social glue. It's in writing and is "official". Eventually people start to almost worship it like a holy book; so I see merit in having our own. As mentioned previously, the first rule should be that changing the constitution requires a 75% supermajority, otherwise inflation is fixed. You get the best of both worlds this way: investor confidence and the ability to tackle both known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
The code is the constitution. Nothing more is needed.
I thought the maximum annual dilution is 8%?
Is the new question: Should that be periodically lowered to stay below bitcoin as bitcoin is lowered via the block reward halving?
To which I say, yes.
The code is the constitution. Nothing more is needed.
I've started a new thread on this, here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10835.0. "Is dilution a coercive tax? - and voluntary alternatives".The essential problem with dilution is that it is a coercive tax, and the antithesis of voluntary action, especially for smaller stakeholders. I would prefer a constitution built around freedom.
Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.
I agree.
I think that modifying a constituiton is "hard but not impossible".
It should be hard enough that people have confidence that it should probably not happen, except in an extreme emergency where everyone agrees it must happen.
Extreme emergency or extreme opportunity.... I think we can put this kind of thing up to a vote that requires 75% stakeholder approval and allows stakeholder to buy/sell their approval would do the trick.
I disagree about it being a coercive tax for the simple reason that you can use BitGold to trade and save in and never have anything taken from anyone combined with the following:
One person has $100 and contributes it to create a company and owns 100%.
A second person has $100 and contributes it to build a company... how much does each person get as far as ownership rights? 50/50... You went from 1 share to 2 shares. Assuming the money was kept in the company the value of each share would be $100. Thus no wealth transfer, no tax, no threat of violence.
Enshrine it the protocol/blockchain since that is the constitution that underpins our community.
This would create investor confidence and is a much simpler message to communicate to cautious outsiders.
If there's a genuine emergency need for funds then hard fork.
I thought the maximum annual dilution is 8%?
The way I calculate it, it is 6.3% right now.
50 bts per block * 6 blocks/min * 60 min/hour * 24 hour/day * 365 day/year = 157,680,000 shares per year.
.15768B / 2.5B = 6.3%
I dont think our schedule needs to be the same halving per 4 years though. A smoother decline would be preferable to a disruption at a certain date.
[A constitution is] also a marketing document outlining the vision, so that people can understand what bitshares is trying to do.
If that is the case this needs to be emphasised! Why did BM say 8% was the maximum today on mumble? People are making valuations and selling based on what they think the inflation will be.
A constitution is meant to be social glue. It's in writing and is "official". Eventually people start to almost worship it like a holy book; so I see merit in having our own. As mentioned previously, the first rule should be that changing the constitution requires a 75% supermajority, otherwise inflation is fixed. You get the best of both worlds this way: investor confidence and the ability to tackle both known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
Agree whole-heartedly.
Cap inflation and require a 75% majority to change it.
Huge boost to investor confidence, including my own.
A written and public constitution with a few simple and hard rules would be a novelty in the crypto space and may garner substantial publicity.
I would highly recommend modelling the language of the constitution on the Declaration of Independence.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.
Man would that resonate... freedom rising from the ashes of a corrupt and crushing system.
The 75% super-majority is also an excellent mechanism for establishing the ground rules while providing a robust mechanism for altering them.The code is the constitution. Nothing more is needed.
Very true...
Perhaps what is needs is a plain-English summary of the main philosophies the code realizes and the basic framework of rules that will require a super-majority to alter.
I still like the DOI tie-in.
Perhaps a Declaration of Economic Independence?
Enshrine it the protocol/blockchain since that is the constitution that underpins our community.
This would create investor confidence and is a much simpler message to communicate to cautious outsiders.
If there's a genuine emergency need for funds then hard fork.
Code cannot describe intent and can have bugs. Code is not accessible by the average man. The code should follow the spirit of the constitution.
Enshrine it the protocol/blockchain since that is the constitution that underpins our community.
This would create investor confidence and is a much simpler message to communicate to cautious outsiders.
If there's a genuine emergency need for funds then hard fork.
Code cannot describe intent and can have bugs. Code is not accessible by the average man. The code should follow the spirit of the constitution.
What the code allows people to do speaks for itself. Adding another layer of politics into the system is a weakness. Users of bitassets don't need bitshares to have a constitution, neither do shareholders (they've been fine so far), delegates will each have their own mini-consitution.
Bitshares will end up being governed by the most popular delegates and their constitutions, combined with the code.
Who is this over-arching constitution for? If 3i will become delegates then there is no organisation that is bitshares that has a constitution. There are just delegates, BTS holders and bitasset users connected by financial incentives in a decentralised network.
We hodl these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and Property....
Do we finally have a lady around? That would be cool!We hodl these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and Property....
Could we change the nouns?
Do we finally have a lady around? That would be cool!We hodl these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and Property....
Could we change the nouns?
We hodl these truths to be self evident...
(Even if you didn't, wouldn't you want inclusive language written into your constitution, being as we are in the 21st century?)+5%
We hodl these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and Property....
Could we change the nouns?
We hodl these truths to be self evident...
Hehe.
We hodl these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and Property....
Could we change the nouns?
It would be a non binding expression of core principles and vision. It would not be a set of rules... the rules are enforced by the code and the market.
We hodl these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and Property. That to secure these rights social consensuses are adopted that apply equally to all men and the highest convention is that no man shall do unto another man that which he would not want done unto himself.
We recognize that property rights are essential to the security of life and liberty and that the primary purpose of social consensus systems is to establish property rights that are indisputable or quickly resolved without using the threat force or coercion.
We recognize that no man shall be compelled to join our endeavor and that each man shall have an opportunity to profit from our common venture proportional to their contributions to this venture and that all shall share equally in the costs funded by issuance of new BTS subject to the approval of existing BTS holders.
We recognize that a common stake known as BTS shall be used to track each individuals contribution and that the holders of BTS shall not have the power to redefine property rights in other asset classes. (this gets tricky... but probably needs to be addressed).
Yes, you do. Greetings!Cool .. welcome to the community, have fun ...
Edit: I've agreed with everything else you've done BM, but not this. This will cause a riot in China.
We recognize that no man shall be compelled to join our endeavor and that each man shall have an opportunity to profit from our common venture proportional to their contributions to this venture and that all shall share equally in the costs funded by issuance of new BTS subject to the approval of existing BTS holders.
We haven't really changed directions:
1) I still believe in competing DACs and lowering the barrier to entry.
2) I still believe that 3rd party developers should recognize those who built the software they are using as a foundation.
3) I still believe in the company metaphor for economic development.
4) I still believe in NO CONTRACTS and NO OBLIGATIONS on any party (us or 3rd party developers)
5) I still believe that all DA(CCCCC) metaphors apply and are useful: Currency, Company, Co-Op, Community, Country
6) I still support 3rd party DACs as being good, just so long as I don't have to spend more than an hour or so per week
If that is the case this needs to be emphasised! Why did BM say 8% was the maximum today on mumble? People are making valuations and selling based on what they think the inflation will be.
Because bitcoin is around 8% right now and he was emphasizing that it was lower than that maybe?
Also because math is hard. :D
Enshrining a maximum dilution rate into the code is really doing nothing more than placing a spending limit on government. This spending limit is fundamentally tied to the markets ability to absorb the new shares.
All "Democracies" suffer from the potential of shareholder abuse of power and desire to have unlimited spending ability. Do we trust the shareholders to make good judgements? Do we know enough know to bind them for ever? By what process can we change the rule?
On the other hand who will trust a constitution after our recent moves?
We have already proven the ability to turn on a dime and issue new BTS as necessary.
In the free market, there are no rules except survival of the fittest and most flexible.
Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.
You make some excellent points, but for various reasons you're encountering resistance in this community to using canonizer.com. For me personally I dislike the trans-humanist involvement
I want to understand the Chinese opinion.
I don't want this to be a binding contract, but rather an expression of opinion that most hold in common.
Constitution should be no more than 4 sentences
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Constitution should be no more than 4 sentences
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
People, People, People…
Constitution technology is more than 200 years old. All you would get from that is a polarized, deadlocked, bickering 2 party congress that can’t do anything. How much time would it take to build a constitution which would have enough consensus? Who is going to write it? How much consensus is enough? How could we rigorously measure how much more consensus we had achieved by any proposed changes? If we only lose 25%, is that enough? Many have expressed doubts about us being able to even write such a contract, and I am in that camp (unless maybe we used Canonizer.com). Even then it would take years. I love it when The bytemaster talks about no contracts!! Another of his brilliant ideas. But a constitution is just a contract that will start polarizing everyone, which will hobble us, and make us very vulnerable to an intelligent community without such unintelligent bureaucratic red tape.
If nobody is thinking anything like the above, what, exactly are you afraid of?
Constitution should be no more than 4 sentences
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If that is true, you can canonize that, and start to build consensus to see just how much consensus there already exists for your 4 lines. Or, just post the 4 lines here, and I can canonize it for you, along with what I do and don't agree with, so everyone else (that isn't afraid of the MORMONS) can do that same, and so we can start knowing, concisely and quantitatively, exactly what everyone may still disagree with, and what modification will be required to get unanimous expert consensus.
People have all sorts of different beliefs, and why shouldn't anyone be welcome to this community? A constitution could weed out people of a common viewpoint, but would it not be better to embrace everybody and let the best belief systems compete for value in the community?People, People, People…
Constitution technology is more than 200 years old. All you would get from that is a polarized, deadlocked, bickering 2 party congress that can’t do anything. How much time would it take to build a constitution which would have enough consensus? Who is going to write it? How much consensus is enough? How could we rigorously measure how much more consensus we had achieved by any proposed changes? If we only lose 25%, is that enough? Many have expressed doubts about us being able to even write such a contract, and I am in that camp (unless maybe we used Canonizer.com). Even then it would take years. I love it when The bytemaster talks about no contracts!! Another of his brilliant ideas. But a constitution is just a contract that will start polarizing everyone, which will hobble us, and make us very vulnerable to an intelligent community without such unintelligent bureaucratic red tape.
I agree with you. We need to have a dynamically generated smart social consensus instead of a "constitution". We need a constitution which constructs itself based on how we vote. There is no benefit to relying on the methods of old when we don't even have the same limitations.
It is very polarizing and that is why I'm against doing a constitution right now. First you need Bitshares VOTE before you can even attempt something like a constitution. Then you need in my opinion algorithmic voting with CP-nets.
We simply do not know what works, what doesn't, and the data should shape our principles rather than setting stuff in stone before we even know ourselves and our preferences. It's just too soon.
Some stuff we can look at the data and say we believe would be the social consensus. Data shows we believe in it even without a vote but as far as preferences I think they should be asked. A CP-net (conditional preference network) should allow for feedback on the level of preferences. Many preferences are conditional, principles can be set if you simply gather preferences and let the system adapt to preferences.
For example when we have data which allows the DAC to know what everyone wants, how everyone thinks about different issues, then we will know exactly what principles pull us together.
I would say it's obvious we all like technology but we aren't all transhumanists. I would say we all value freedom but we don't agree on what that is. We may or may not believe in socialism but we all seem to believe in either private property or personal property.
But right now it's just too soon to come up with a constitution. We don't know for sure what everyone beliefs and until we collect the data and analyze it then it's not right to speak for everyone. When people can vote on every sentence in the constitution then you can think about doing it collaboratively.
I think if we have a constitution it's better to put it in code. Until that time the closest thing we have to it is the social contract.
Constitution should be no more than 4 sentences
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think there should be a political litmus test for becoming a delegate. It's like saying in order to get a job you have to pass a political test or belief in these principles. I don't think it will have a positive effect.
Instead if there are principles then put that in the design of the source code. Express your political principles in the code itself but don't make a constitution. If something isn't allowed then simply express your principles as a delegate and that you refuse to code or contribute to anything which goes against your principles.
Every delegate should be able to express their own principles or non at all. The majority of delegates will just be people who can get stuff done or who know people.
Exactly, and the first crypto currency community that can amplify the wisdom of the entire herd, and get the entire herd to change directions on a dime, without significant losses of the sheep, no matter how dumb, will blow any contract or “constitution” based bureaucracy away, with a leader making decisions before knowing how many of his heard will follow him.
Exactly, we need to have a way to rigorously measure, concisely and quantitatively, how many people are willing to support any particular action.
And we need to be able to dynamically change what we are proposing in an efficient and easy way, which will ensure everyone is still on board, until we get things at least near unanimous, so we don’t lose anyone.
On the other hand who will trust a constitution after our recent moves? We have already proven the ability to turn on a dime and issue new BTS as necessary. In the free market there are no rules except survival of the fittest and most flexible.Who would trust such a constitution is not the only issue as it seems that you guys don't want to be hamstrung by promises for the future.
I am in strong favor of controlled by a law or constitution that should be stable as possible as it can be, instead of relying on so called "trusted" people who have more power than others and harness the power to implement "better and flexible" policy.
I actually don't trust the "trusted" authoritative people.
I am in strong favor of controlled by a law or constitution that should be stable as possible as it can be, instead of relying on so called "trusted" people who have more power than others and harness the power to implement "better and flexible" policy.
I actually don't trust the "trusted" authoritative people.
And we need to be able to dynamically change what we are proposing in an efficient and easy way, which will ensure everyone is still on board, until we get things at least near unanimous, so we don’t lose anyone.This is the tricky part, at least for me. Could you please explain in plain language how exactly it could work?
Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.
@Brent.Allsop: Please explain the Registration form. Why is "Legal Middle Name" the only required field, and not, say, "Nickname"?
Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.
+5% +5% +5%
The only purpose of a "constitution" is to define an initial social consensus to let stakeholders self-select into it. BTS ownership is already well-defined but its goals are not clear yet. Once a DAC is being traded, the will of its majority stakeholders can change and that will change the actions of the DAC. You can choose to still claim there's a constitution to help explain what the expected behavior of the DAC is based on its current shareholders, but the technology does not recognize it.
The BTS blockchain is used to secure one consensus measure: percent ownership. The only purpose of a "constitution" is to define an initial social consensus to let stakeholders self-select into it. BTS ownership is already well-defined but its goals are not clear yet. Once a DAC is being traded, the will of its majority stakeholders can change and that will change the actions of the DAC. You can choose to still claim there's a constitution to help explain what the expected behavior of the DAC is based on its current shareholders, but the technology does not recognize it.
I think I will write a personal constitution that is not binding on anyone nor the BitShares project so that people know what my values are.
I don't think BitShares needs a constitution other than the code as adopted by delegates.
+5%I think I will write a personal constitution that is not binding on anyone nor the BitShares project so that people know what my values are.
I don't think BitShares needs a constitution other than the code as adopted by delegates.
Glad to hear it. +5%
I think I will write a personal constitution that is not binding on anyone nor the BitShares project so that people know what my values are.
I don't think BitShares needs a constitution other than the code as adopted by delegates.
I think I will write a personal constitution that is not binding on anyone nor the BitShares project so that people know what my values are.+5%
I don't think BitShares needs a constitution other than the code as adopted by delegates.
assume a marketcap of 2Bn - why would we need 8% dilution in this marketcap? would be 160 million for the employeed people.
in the near future maybe it is possible to change the dilution model to take the needed value from the stakeholders direct.
you hold 1.000.000 million BTS and the employeed people need 5% this year to work for us, so we take 50.000 BTS from this owner (as an example for all owners) so he will hold 950.000.000 BTS in the end of the year.
i know this is not common, but maybe the stakeholders will watch the employeed people closer and will higher and fire faster.
assume a marketcap of 2Bn - why would we need 8% dilution in this marketcap? would be 160 million for the employeed people.
in the near future maybe it is possible to change the dilution model to take the needed value from the stakeholders direct.
you hold 1.000.000 million BTS and the employeed people need 5% this year to work for us, so we take 50.000 BTS from this owner (as an example for all owners) so he will hold 950.000.000 BTS in the end of the year.
i know this is not common, but maybe the stakeholders will watch the employeed people closer and will higher and fire faster.
We need to see the controls for dilution and delegate's work processes. My hunch is it all ties back to VOTE. But in the mean time, not knowing how much we'll be diluted, and to what gain, is the investor's greatest area of uncertainty.
So many people want to be delegates, and it scares shareholders that there could be 101 delegates diluting the system. There is no clear and standardized way to track these individuals. And even then, will enough people actually recast their votes to get the over promising, under producing delegates out?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
assume a marketcap of 2Bn - why would we need 8% dilution in this marketcap? would be 160 million for the employeed people.
in the near future maybe it is possible to change the dilution model to take the needed value from the stakeholders direct.
you hold 1.000.000 million BTS and the employeed people need 5% this year to work for us, so we take 50.000 BTS from this owner (as an example for all owners) so he will hold 950.000.000 BTS in the end of the year.
i know this is not common, but maybe the stakeholders will watch the employeed people closer and will higher and fire faster.
We need to see the controls for dilution and delegate's work processes. My hunch is it all ties back to VOTE. But in the mean time, not knowing how much we'll be diluted, and to what gain, is the investor's greatest area of uncertainty.
So many people want to be delegates, and it scares shareholders that there could be 101 delegates diluting the system. There is no clear and standardized way to track these individuals. And even then, will enough people actually recast their votes to get the over promising, under producing delegates out?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Imo, there's also a centralisation of active voting stake problem. BTC38 controls at least 10% which is more than enough to strongly influence delegate selection.
Once you add in dilution + TITAN, BTS requires a lot of trust in a centralised exchange ??? which kind of defeats the point imo.
assume a marketcap of 2Bn - why would we need 8% dilution in this marketcap? would be 160 million for the employeed people.
in the near future maybe it is possible to change the dilution model to take the needed value from the stakeholders direct.
you hold 1.000.000 million BTS and the employeed people need 5% this year to work for us, so we take 50.000 BTS from this owner (as an example for all owners) so he will hold 950.000.000 BTS in the end of the year.
i know this is not common, but maybe the stakeholders will watch the employeed people closer and will higher and fire faster.
We need to see the controls for dilution and delegate's work processes. My hunch is it all ties back to VOTE. But in the mean time, not knowing how much we'll be diluted, and to what gain, is the investor's greatest area of uncertainty.
So many people want to be delegates, and it scares shareholders that there could be 101 delegates diluting the system. There is no clear and standardized way to track these individuals. And even then, will enough people actually recast their votes to get the over promising, under producing delegates out?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Imo, there's also a centralisation of active voting stake problem. BTC38 controls at least 10% which is more than enough to strongly influence delegate selection.
Once you add in dilution + TITAN, BTS requires a lot of trust in a centralised exchange ??? which kind of defeats the point imo.
Agree. The system needs more distributed control. What will the solution be?
The only solution I can come up with is that there will be incentives to keep value inside the system by offering rewards for voting.
Are there any other ways to get stake into the system and away from btc38/bter
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think I will write a personal constitution that is not binding on anyone nor the BitShares project so that people know what my values are.
I don't think BitShares needs a constitution other than the code as adopted by delegates.
I think I am too opinionated to campaign in a political setting anyways. I don't want to feel like I need to bite my tongue just so that I won't be voted out as I felt when I was a delegate.
Are there any other ways to get stake into the system and away from btc38/bter
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
On the 5th of November we shall forever remember the day we formed a decentralized autonomous community of members!
I wonder if the future will ever view this DAC Day in which 101 delegates signed a new constitution like we view US Independence Day in which 56 delegates signed the Declaration....
@Brent.Allsop: Please explain the Registration form. Why is "Legal Middle Name" the only required field, and not, say, "Nickname"?
@Brent.Allsop: Please explain the Registration form. Why is "Legal Middle Name" the only required field, and not, say, "Nickname"?
I have fixed this issue by updating the descriptive text, so would be interested in feedback regarding if my fix is adequate.
Thanks for the feedback.