assets entrusted to I3 for purposes of development and marketing
Also to be clear, our salaries are all ending.
Also to be clear, our salaries are all ending.
This is being replaced by paid delegates, and the distribution of remaining I3 funds?
You and other developers are critical to the future of bitshares and it is important that you guys dont run out of money and have to go back to working on other projects for a salary. I for one greatly appreciate the risk you are currently taking, and I hope you will be massively rewarded for it in the future. :)
You are talking "EACH" dev gets one delegate, aren't you?Also to be clear, our salaries are all ending.
This is being replaced by paid delegates, and the distribution of remaining I3 funds?
You and other developers are critical to the future of bitshares and it is important that you guys dont run out of money and have to go back to working on other projects for a salary. I for one greatly appreciate the risk you are currently taking, and I hope you will be massively rewarded for it in the future. :)
I don't want to say too much without Dan giving an official answer, but the idea is:
* All core devs stop taking a salary
* All core devs get *one* paid delegate
* All core devs get a bunch of BTS (half via BTSX and half vesting via PTS)
* The rest of the remaining AGS funds are earmarked for stuff like emergency legal defense.
Our task is: Take this chunk of BTS and grow its value. If you can grow BTS to the point where your delegate can sustain your full-time job (so like 4x market cap sustained), good job, keep the rest. If not, you burn through it to survive until either the project dies or doesn't need you anymore.
I have given Valentine, Nathan, Vikram, and Toast each 30K PTS so they have a vested (literally) interest in seeing BTS grow.
I have given Valentine, Nathan, Vikram, and Toast each 30K PTS so they have a vested (literally) interest in seeing BTS grow.
54k USD is pretty fair.
I have given Valentine, Nathan, Vikram, and Toast each 30K PTS so they have a vested (literally) interest in seeing BTS grow.
We are very much into "no contracts" and "trust based" allocation of resources. Each of these guys has proven their loyalty to the project and the greater cause and their passion is undeniable.
You want independent developers making decisions and I have selected these guys as an independent team that I want to have financial independence.
They will be taking paid delegate positions, but I am limiting it to one delegate each which at 30K/year is only 20% of what they could be making and takes nothing into consideration for the extra risks in this industry.
In other words, giving them the funds makes things more secure and further decentralizes the process.
* We are the only people on earth capable of delivering on BTS. If we left right now BTS would die, while we could make a viable competitor.
* We are the only people on earth capable of delivering on BTS. If we left right now BTS would die, while we could make a viable competitor.
Strong words...
He probably means both capable and willing to dedicate to the project... I mean most people will take the security of a nice pay and job security even if they are technically capable to do it.* We are the only people on earth capable of delivering on BTS. If we left right now BTS would die, while we could make a viable competitor.
Strong words...
EDIT: Just to make clear - I'm neutral towards funds redistribution. And this wasn't intended to be offensive. My comment was just for that statement.
* We are the only people on earth capable of delivering on BTS. If we left right now BTS would die, while we could make a viable competitor.
Strong words...
EDIT: Just to make clear - I'm neutral towards funds redistribution. And this wasn't intended to be offensive. My comment was just for that statement.
Also to be clear, our salaries are all ending.
For what it's worth, I support the devs fully. From my time here, they have proven to be extremely dedicated and trustworthy. They are so clearly motivated by more than just money; their mission is to make a mark on human history.
Quoteassets entrusted to I3 for purposes of development and marketing
This is them spending it on development. Contract negotiation is a reality... Maybe you disagree with these particular expenditures. I've disagreed with lots of Dan's in the past.
I'll let Dan explain the details when he gets around to it. In the meantime, consider these two facts that have been brought up a few times:
* I gave up $150k / year at Google to work for a fraction of that salary at enormous risk. The other devs are at least as skilled as I am.
* We are the only people on earth capable of delivering on BTS. If we left right now BTS would die, while we could make a viable competitor.
If you think we aren't actors you want to make into vested interests well in excess of what we could buy from working another job, I suggest you lay out what you would need try to build something without us. I guess your alternate PTS is trying to do this, so far all the people actually building this thing seem to just blow it off.
2) You keep comparing your Google salary to the amount of money you are being granted for work on BTS. This is so utterly and fundamentally flawed it hurts me to have to explain it, but here goes: Your entire BTS grant is paid to you up-front with no performance evaluation, expectation, roadmap, milestones, or other provable/non-provable/binding/non-binding expectation of any kind. Even your vesting PTS does nothing to incentivize any actual work - you will receive the funds regardless of whether you perform or not.
Quoteassets entrusted to I3 for purposes of development and marketing
This is them spending it on development. Contract negotiation is a reality... Maybe you disagree with these particular expenditures. I've disagreed with lots of Dan's in the past.
I'll let Dan explain the details when he gets around to it. In the meantime, consider these two facts that have been brought up a few times:
* I gave up $150k / year at Google to work for a fraction of that salary at enormous risk. The other devs are at least as skilled as I am.
* We are the only people on earth capable of delivering on BTS. If we left right now BTS would die, while we could make a viable competitor.
If you think we aren't actors you want to make into vested interests well in excess of what we could buy from working another job, I suggest you lay out what you would need try to build something without us. I guess your alternate PTS is trying to do this, so far all the people actually building this thing seem to just blow it off.
Hey toast, thanks for the reply and no thanks for the hostility. Here's why I made the post, most of which you did not address:
1) I've been asking for this information for weeks with no response - there was no community input or explanation.
2) You keep comparing your Google salary to the amount of money you are being granted for work on BTS. This is so utterly and fundamentally flawed it hurts me to have to explain it, but here goes: Your entire BTS grant is paid to you up-front with no performance evaluation, expectation, roadmap, milestones, or other provable/non-provable/binding/non-binding expectation of any kind. Even your vesting PTS does nothing to incentivize any actual work - you will receive the funds regardless of whether you perform or not.
Forgive me for being skeptical, but I've been around the block a few times. There are at least a dozen different ways this could have been implemented with some accountability baked in (multi-sig oversight for example). Less importantly, there at least a dozen different ways this could have been communicated, explained, and discussed openly before "granting" donated funds with no strings attached and me finding out about it through the blockchain despite asking openly for weeks.
Edit: Here's a likely scenario. I'm a dev. I take a few hundred thousand dollars and continue to work on BTS occasionally, but also take a full-time paid position as a Google engineer. No expectations, no accountability, no recourse of any kind.
2) You keep comparing your Google salary to the amount of money you are being granted for work on BTS. This is so utterly and fundamentally flawed it hurts me to have to explain it, but here goes: Your entire BTS grant is paid to you up-front with no performance evaluation, expectation, roadmap, milestones, or other provable/non-provable/binding/non-binding expectation of any kind. Even your vesting PTS does nothing to incentivize any actual work - you will receive the funds regardless of whether you perform or not.
This is very incorrect. From Toast's standpoint, his comparison is totally valid. You've just stated that he can still be paid and do little. You make this statement while ignoring all the stuff he'd lose if he just took the money and split. His public reputation which over his career would be worth far more than this goofy grant.
Alphabar, it is talk like this that makes me not care to support your PTS project. Your reasoning is quite flawed.
2) You keep comparing your Google salary to the amount of money you are being granted for work on BTS. This is so utterly and fundamentally flawed it hurts me to have to explain it, but here goes: Your entire BTS grant is paid to you up-front with no performance evaluation, expectation, roadmap, milestones, or other provable/non-provable/binding/non-binding expectation of any kind. Even your vesting PTS does nothing to incentivize any actual work - you will receive the funds regardless of whether you perform or not.
This is very incorrect. From Toast's standpoint, his comparison is totally valid. You've just stated that he can still be paid and do little. You make this statement while ignoring all the stuff he'd lose if he just took the money and split. His public reputation which over his career would be worth far more than this goofy grant.
Ok, so you think reputation is enough. I disagree. But for the sake of argument explain to me how this entire system would not be radically improved by using multi-sigature oversight of one or more third parties?
I donated because I trusted the people to whom I was donating sufficiently to risk my donation. So far I'm very pleased with what they've accomplished with it, and it seems like they're on track to continue that. I think they've also been and continue to be very transparent.
It's regrettable if no one else would be able to use the toolkit at all, but it's to be expected that the team that developed it thus far would have a considerable head start in its use. If the entire team were abducted by aliens, I suspect the toolkit would be used by others, but it might be years before another team gathered comparable network effect and community to what the current team has now.
Ok, so you think reputation is enough. I disagree. But for the sake of argument explain to me how this entire system would not be radically improved by using multi-sigature oversight of one or more third parties?
And then we have countless debates on who this third party should be. Using Toast as an example.. In CS I doubt you'd ever come across someone as accomplished academically in any normal developer circles. (And this comes from someone who has a BSCS at a decent school but pretty much believes 'it just means I'm not a retard') So I think his reputation is actually quite valuable, especially since crypto isn't going away.
Personally, I am just happy the guy is working for Bitshares. I don't want some him reporting to some dipshit, I'd rather he just use his passion to move the project forward.
If there is a problem with incentives being screwed up, I'd look elsewhere. I wish I had their job for the utter-coolness of it all.
So.. No. I don't think layering rules of multi-sig accounts and all this would really help anything along. It might just as well do the opposite. Part of the reason I don't work full time is because I've never worked with developers/under managers that I felt were as smart or smarter than me. Which is all I ask. So if I was to take your system and apply it to me, I wouldn't be surprised if the consequences aren't negative.
Isn't the idea of voting for a delegate, what would incentivize good contributions going forward? I mean if a delegate doesn't perform they're out.
I donated because I trusted the people to whom I was donating sufficiently to risk my donation. So far I'm very pleased with what they've accomplished with it, and it seems like they're on track to continue that. I think they've also been and continue to be very transparent.
It's regrettable if no one else would be able to use the toolkit at all, but it's to be expected that the team that developed it thus far would have a considerable head start in its use. If the entire team were abducted by aliens, I suspect the toolkit would be used by others, but it might be years before another team gathered comparable network effect and community to what the current team has now.
Why would you insist on giving away the funds when you could very easily implement some oversight and accountability. Do we prefer blind trust over accountability? It would be trivially simple to implement some oversight with multi-sig.
I donated because I trusted the people to whom I was donating sufficiently to risk my donation. So far I'm very pleased with what they've accomplished with it, and it seems like they're on track to continue that. I think they've also been and continue to be very transparent.
It's regrettable if no one else would be able to use the toolkit at all, but it's to be expected that the team that developed it thus far would have a considerable head start in its use. If the entire team were abducted by aliens, I suspect the toolkit would be used by others, but it might be years before another team gathered comparable network effect and community to what the current team has now.
Why would you insist on giving away the funds when you could very easily implement some oversight and accountability. Do we prefer blind trust over accountability? It would be trivially simple to implement some oversight with multi-sig.
Trusting a few people to act independently is much more efficient than forming a multisig oversight committee, if the independent actors are actually worthy of trust. This isn't blind trust. Some of us have been around here for quite a while now and have reason to trust these people. If I required or even wanted such oversight, why would I have donated before it was there? Do you really think people just assumed it would be added in later, even though they didn't trust the people who would have to add it? O.o
Isn't the idea of voting for a delegate, what would incentivize good contributions going forward? I mean if a delegate doesn't perform they're out.
Yes, and what about the 6 or 7 figure sum that was literally just given away? We just eat the loss and move on? Why not implement simple accountability??? If only we had a trustless mechanism for doing this...
The funds were donated to BM. Technically it might have been I3 or whatever, but in the end people gave their money to BM as gifts to do whatever he wanted with - because he indicated he wanted to use it for realizing his grand DAC vision. As far as I've seen they were literally gifts to him and he could pocket it all and there'd be no legal recourse. Now he is giving these funds on in ways he thinks are the most beneficial for realizing his DAC vision etc. We BTS owners do not have a say in how they're used, because the money was never an investment. They were given based on trust (blind trust, in fact), and since theres been no indication of a breach of trust so far, I don't see a reason to complain - or at least feel like there's been a breach of trust.
Personally I still think the rational thing to do would be to buy BTS for all the funds and then burn them, and then just have core developers make 4 delegates to pay their salary. And no, temporarily having 80 delegates would not be insecure. If 81 is insecure then 101 is insecure. In fact, we could have only 25 people all running 4 delegates and our system would still be vastly more decentralized than bitcoin, with the added bonus that we are a 100x smaller target.
Anyway, splitting up and handing out the remaining funds seem like a fair way to handle decentralizing development, if temporary multi-delegates really are such taboo.
I just do not get why?
The guy first obviously did not donated anything to AGS, which is just fine. It is his choice.
Then started arguing that he must get more for keeping his PTS in his pocket as the people who actually gave their money in the form of a donations.
Now comes and says he has to set the rules for the funds that not only do not belong to him now, but were never ever his, even before donating them.
Utter nonsense and arrogance.
Hmmmm.....
I can sympathize with alphabar. he has a point in terms of accountability and transparency. I also support his right to question any move that the dev team makes on behalf of this community even if I don't necessarily agree.
That said, I fully support funding our Devs as much as we can to keep their livelihoods intact and reward them commensurate with their skills. I want our devs and delegates to be paid well in excess of anything they could achieve in the corporate world. As I have stated previously... You pay peanuts, you'll get monkeys.
Hmmmm.....
I can sympathize with alphabar. he has a point in terms of accountability and transparency. I also support his right to question any move that the dev team makes on behalf of this community even if I don't necessarily agree.
That said, I fully support funding our Devs as much as we can to keep their livelihoods intact and reward them commensurate with their skills. I want our devs and delegates to be paid well in excess of anything they could achieve in the corporate world. As I have stated previously... You pay peanuts, you'll get monkeys.
Hmmmm.....
I can sympathize with alphabar. he has a point in terms of accountability and transparency. I also support his right to question any move that the dev team makes on behalf of this community even if I don't necessarily agree.
That said, I fully support funding our Devs as much as we can to keep their livelihoods intact and reward them commensurate with their skills. I want our devs and delegates to be paid well in excess of anything they could achieve in the corporate world. As I have stated previously... You pay peanuts, you'll get monkeys.
I agree with House on this. To build a quality product, you need motivated, properly paid, quality devs and I trust BM to make to correct decisions when choosing and then paying them. Communication always seems to be the issue though. Many think there is too little, but I think there are enough of us that are content with what we are told right now.
Like what?I just do not get why?
The guy first obviously did not donated anything to AGS, which is just fine. It is his choice.
Then started arguing that he must get more for keeping his PTS in his pocket as the people who actually gave their money in the form of a donations.
Now comes and says he has to set the rules for the funds that not only do not belong to him now, but were never ever his, even before donating them.
Utter nonsense and arrogance.
I would expect nothing different from you, Tony. Literally everything I've seen from you on this forum has been either illogical or utterly biased.
Ok, so you think reputation is enough. I disagree. But for the sake of argument explain to me how this entire system would not be radically improved by using multi-sigature oversight of one or more third parties?
And then we have countless debates on who this third party should be. Using Toast as an example.. In CS I doubt you'd ever come across someone as accomplished academically in any normal developer circles. (And this comes from someone who has a BSCS at a decent school but pretty much believes 'it just means I'm not a retard') So I think his reputation is actually quite valuable, especially since crypto isn't going away.
Personally, I am just happy the guy is working for Bitshares. I don't want some him reporting to some dipshit, I'd rather he just use his passion to move the project forward.
If there is a problem with incentives being screwed up, I'd look elsewhere. I wish I had their job for the utter-coolness of it all.
So.. No. I don't think layering rules of multi-sig accounts and all this would really help anything along. It might just as well do the opposite. Part of the reason I don't work full time is because I've never worked with developers/under managers that I felt were as smart or smarter than me. Which is all I ask. So if I was to take your system and apply it to me, I wouldn't be surprised if the consequences aren't negative.
Simple. Let the devs oversee themselves with multi-sig. If one guy tries to literally walk away with the money, the other devs lock him out of his unvested shares.
Ok, so you think reputation is enough. I disagree. But for the sake of argument explain to me how this entire system would not be radically improved by using multi-sigature oversight of one or more third parties?
And then we have countless debates on who this third party should be. Using Toast as an example.. In CS I doubt you'd ever come across someone as accomplished academically in any normal developer circles. (And this comes from someone who has a BSCS at a decent school but pretty much believes 'it just means I'm not a retard') So I think his reputation is actually quite valuable, especially since crypto isn't going away.
Personally, I am just happy the guy is working for Bitshares. I don't want some him reporting to some dipshit, I'd rather he just use his passion to move the project forward.
If there is a problem with incentives being screwed up, I'd look elsewhere. I wish I had their job for the utter-coolness of it all.
So.. No. I don't think layering rules of multi-sig accounts and all this would really help anything along. It might just as well do the opposite. Part of the reason I don't work full time is because I've never worked with developers/under managers that I felt were as smart or smarter than me. Which is all I ask. So if I was to take your system and apply it to me, I wouldn't be surprised if the consequences aren't negative.
Simple. Let the devs oversee themselves with multi-sig. If one guy tries to literally walk away with the money, the other devs lock him out of his unvested shares.
I'm ok with this. I see it as a risk that might be worth the positive PR. I'm interested in multisig for security reasons anyway.
Vesting pay is easy to block with a hard fork too.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Ok, so you think reputation is enough. I disagree. But for the sake of argument explain to me how this entire system would not be radically improved by using multi-sigature oversight of one or more third parties?
And then we have countless debates on who this third party should be. Using Toast as an example.. In CS I doubt you'd ever come across someone as accomplished academically in any normal developer circles. (And this comes from someone who has a BSCS at a decent school but pretty much believes 'it just means I'm not a retard') So I think his reputation is actually quite valuable, especially since crypto isn't going away.
Personally, I am just happy the guy is working for Bitshares. I don't want some him reporting to some dipshit, I'd rather he just use his passion to move the project forward.
If there is a problem with incentives being screwed up, I'd look elsewhere. I wish I had their job for the utter-coolness of it all.
So.. No. I don't think layering rules of multi-sig accounts and all this would really help anything along. It might just as well do the opposite. Part of the reason I don't work full time is because I've never worked with developers/under managers that I felt were as smart or smarter than me. Which is all I ask. So if I was to take your system and apply it to me, I wouldn't be surprised if the consequences aren't negative.
Simple. Let the devs oversee themselves with multi-sig. If one guy tries to literally walk away with the money, the other devs lock him out of his unvested shares.
I'm ok with this. I see it as a risk that might be worth the positive PR. I'm interested in multisig for security reasons anyway.
Vesting pay is easy to block with a hard fork too.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
I have given Valentine, Nathan, Vikram, and Toast each 30K PTS so they have a vested (literally) interest in seeing BTS grow.
We are very much into "no contracts" and "trust based" allocation of resources. Each of these guys has proven their loyalty to the project and the greater cause and their passion is undeniable.
You want independent developers making decisions and I have selected these guys as an independent team that I want to have financial independence.
They will be taking paid delegate positions, but I am limiting it to one delegate each which at 30K/year is only 20% of what they could be making and takes nothing into consideration for the extra risks in this industry.
In other words, giving them the funds makes things more secure and further decentralizes the process.
HOWEVER ...
The fact that Toast believes this just shows how little I3 delivered on the idea of the "bitshares toolkit". Since forking BTSX wallet is the toolkit and Toast thinks it is in such a state no one could take it over, then IMO it follows that they failed on the bitshares toolkit. This is partially why I want to support Alphabar's attempt even when I am skeptical about other issues surrounding Alphabar-PTS.
For what it's worth, I support the devs fully. From my time here, they have proven to be extremely dedicated and trustworthy. They are so clearly motivated by more than just money; their mission is to make a mark on human history.+5%
I have given Valentine, Nathan, Vikram, and Toast each 30K PTS so they have a vested (literally) interest in seeing BTS grow.
We are very much into "no contracts" and "trust based" allocation of resources. Each of these guys has proven their loyalty to the project and the greater cause and their passion is undeniable.
You want independent developers making decisions and I have selected these guys as an independent team that I want to have financial independence.
They will be taking paid delegate positions, but I am limiting it to one delegate each which at 30K/year is only 20% of what they could be making and takes nothing into consideration for the extra risks in this industry.
In other words, giving them the funds makes things more secure and further decentralizes the process.
but 30K PTS not only means the right to have a vested interest in BTS, but also means the right to obtain shares of 3rd party DACs. The chinese community have noticed this point and thought this would confuse the message to the market. Because anyone can spread words like 'the core devs would have incentives to support 3rd party DAC, rather than BTS'
I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.
^^^ I didn't say that but yes I have had such thoughts. The nested quotes were screwed up in the above message.* We are the only people on earth capable of delivering on BTS. If we left right now BTS would die, while we could make a viable competitor.
HOWEVER ...
The fact that Toast believes this just shows how little I3 delivered on the idea of the "bitshares toolkit". Since forking BTSX wallet is the toolkit and Toast thinks it is in such a state no one could take it over, then IMO it follows that they failed on the bitshares toolkit. This is partially why I want to support Alphabar's attempt even when I am skeptical about other issues surrounding Alphabar-PTS.
Unless of course the goal was to set up the illusion of being an open source project when in reality there was no intention of making the toolkit easy to use for developers that want to fork.
I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.
We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely. Not only that, but we are arguing against using our very own product to make it happen. No rational person could argue that this is unfair. If you're a developer, you get Dan or 2 other devs to sign off on your vest every month. Simple, effective, and completely obvious. Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.
Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.
I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.
We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely. Not only that, but we are arguing against using our very own product to make it happen. No rational person could argue that this is unfair. If you're a developer, you get Dan or 2 other devs to sign off on your vest every month. Simple, effective, and completely obvious. Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.
Outside of your issues with Dan giving grants to developers, "performance-based compensation" has not been "abandoned completely".
I'm really starting to question your motives. You say so many things that it almost seems you're more about the FUD than the truth.
I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.
We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely. Not only that, but we are arguing against using our very own product to make it happen. No rational person could argue that this is unfair. If you're a developer, you get Dan or 2 other devs to sign off on your vest every month. Simple, effective, and completely obvious. Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.
Outside of your issues with Dan giving grants to developers, "performance-based compensation" has not been "abandoned completely".
I'm really starting to question your motives. You say so many things that it almost seems you're more about the FUD than the truth.
I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.
We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely. Not only that, but we are arguing against using our very own product to make it happen. No rational person could argue that this is unfair. If you're a developer, you get Dan or 2 other devs to sign off on your vest every month. Simple, effective, and completely obvious. Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.
Outside of your issues with Dan giving grants to developers, "performance-based compensation" has not been "abandoned completely".
I'm really starting to question your motives. You say so many things that it almost seems you're more about the FUD than the truth.
How can this be FUD? These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...
I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.
We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely. Not only that, but we are arguing against using our very own product to make it happen. No rational person could argue that this is unfair. If you're a developer, you get Dan or 2 other devs to sign off on your vest every month. Simple, effective, and completely obvious. Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.
Outside of your issues with Dan giving grants to developers, "performance-based compensation" has not been "abandoned completely".
I'm really starting to question your motives. You say so many things that it almost seems you're more about the FUD than the truth.
How can this be FUD? These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...
Have it your way. If choosing to view it as a year-end bonus for their roles in implementing the Crypto Product of the Year makes it acceptable in your sight, then having it done in such a way that also incentivizes continued support of the product ought to make you ecstatic. On top of it all there are tax planning aspects and transition to the new developer funding model and the associated renegotiation of their original hiring packages that must be considered. It is not customary to make any such compensation package negotiations public, beyond a simple transparent declaration of what is being done.
We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely.
How can this be FUD? These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...
I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.
We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely. Not only that, but we are arguing against using our very own product to make it happen. No rational person could argue that this is unfair. If you're a developer, you get Dan or 2 other devs to sign off on your vest every month. Simple, effective, and completely obvious. Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.
Outside of your issues with Dan giving grants to developers, "performance-based compensation" has not been "abandoned completely".
I'm really starting to question your motives. You say so many things that it almost seems you're more about the FUD than the truth.
How can this be FUD? These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...
Have it your way. If choosing to view it as a year-end bonus for their roles in implementing the Crypto Product of the Year makes it acceptable in your sight, then having it done in such a way that also incentivizes continued support of the product ought to make you ecstatic. On top of it all there are tax planning aspects and transition to the new developer funding model and the associated renegotiation of their original hiring packages that must be considered. It is not customary to make any such compensation package negotiations public, beyond a simple transparent declaration of what is being done.
These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...
I'm not arguing against transparency or accountability. I'm just pointing out that you constantly phrase things in a misleading manner.
BTW, being the new leader of PTS, when do you plan on giving us your real-life identity ?
These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...
Angel funds are donation and I3 clearly stated many many times that they could use it as they see fit, for some reason you always completely ignore that part in every accusation you make ... talking about biassed
However
Out of all your post in this tread this is something that I agree with and should be pointed out, even though no strings attached to angel funds, clearly communicating how they will be spend I think it is important.Given that they were and are very open to every decision they made ( perhaps too open), I firmly believe they probably were planning to announce it eventually.
I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.
We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely. Not only that, but we are arguing against using our very own product to make it happen. No rational person could argue that this is unfair. If you're a developer, you get Dan or 2 other devs to sign off on your vest every month. Simple, effective, and completely obvious. Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.
Outside of your issues with Dan giving grants to developers, "performance-based compensation" has not been "abandoned completely".
I'm really starting to question your motives. You say so many things that it almost seems you're more about the FUD than the truth.
How can this be FUD? These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...
Have it your way. If choosing to view it as a year-end bonus for their roles in implementing the Crypto Product of the Year makes it acceptable in your sight, then having it done in such a way that also incentivizes continued support of the product ought to make you ecstatic. On top of it all there are tax planning aspects and transition to the new developer funding model and the associated renegotiation of their original hiring packages that must be considered. It is not customary to make any such compensation package negotiations public, beyond a simple transparent declaration of what is being done.
I asked the question many, many times and received no straight answer. What I do know I pieced together based on the blockchain and our private conversations, so there was definitely no "transparent declaration". I still do not know for sure whether the whole fund is going to be divided up, and for what purpose (X% for buying out the original packages, Y% for future dev). I still believe firmly that funds paid for future work should be tied to compensation, and I've proposed a simple method of doing so.
These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...
Angel funds are donation and I3 clearly stated many many times that they could use it as they see fit, for some reason you always completely ignore that part in every accusation you make ... talking about biassed
However
Out of all your post in this tread this is something that I agree with and should be pointed out, even though no strings attached to angel funds, clearly communicating how they will be spend I think it is important.Given that they were and are very open to every decision they made ( perhaps too open), I firmly believe they probably were planning to announce it eventually.
Isn't this entirely clear? To recognize outstanding performance and reinforce the status of four of the industry's most accomplished developers as independent agents, furthering our goals of complete decentralization at the developer level, and strengthening their ability and motivation to live off a single delegate's salary until such time as the market cap quadruples raising those salaries back to their current modest levels?
In the end, we promised to use our best judgement. This is our best judgement.
We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely.Quote from: alphaBar
How can this be FUD? These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...
Read the above quote. The whole dilution system is not "completely abandoning" "performance based compensation". When I talked with you on mumble that one night, you were a lot more select in your wording and came across as quite reasonable. On these forums though, you use every post you can to phrase things in a misleading manner. I mean even Toast said he agreed with you, yet you're still going at it.
I'm not arguing against transparency or accountability. I'm just pointing out that you constantly phrase things in a misleading manner.
It is almost like you wanted us on your side in Mumble, so you sweet talked about your desires and wishes etc. Then on here it is just constantly trying to imply I3 is out to screw us.
BTW, being the new leader of PTS, when do you plan on giving us your real-life identity ?
We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely.Quote from: alphaBar
How can this be FUD? These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...
Read the above quote. The whole dilution system is not "completely abandoning" "performance based compensation". When I talked with you on mumble that one night, you were a lot more select in your wording and came across as quite reasonable. On these forums though, you use every post you can to phrase things in a misleading manner. I mean even Toast said he agreed with you, yet you're still going at it.
I'm not arguing against transparency or accountability. I'm just pointing out that you constantly phrase things in a misleading manner.
It is almost like you wanted us on your side in Mumble, so you sweet talked about your desires and wishes etc. Then on here it is just constantly trying to imply I3 is out to screw us.
BTW, being the new leader of PTS, when do you plan on giving us your real-life identity ?
* Toast agreed with me, but you accused me of spreading FUD. The response was directed to you, not him.
* I'm not implying anything, just making a factual statement that there was no clear public disclosure, the money was moved, and the sparse details that were provided implied that there would be no accountability.
* I am not leading the PTS effort at all. Lots of people smarter than me and whom I have no association with are doing the real work. I'm just a user with an opinion.
* I am not leading the PTS effort at all. Lots of people smarter than me and whom I have no association with are doing the real work. I'm just a user with an opinion.
* Toast agreed with me, but you accused me of spreading FUD. The response was directed to you, not him.I didn't read him accusing you...just pointing to a couple irregularities between your conduct on Mumble as opposed to here on the forums. I can agree with that and in fact you even agreed with it in Mumble! Or...err..rather you agreed that Mumble helped you state your case without sounding so accusatory yourself! ;)
* I'm not implying anything, just making a factual statement that there was no clear public disclosure, the money was moved, and the sparse details that were provided implied that there would be no accountability.What are competing projects doing in this regard? Is payment being disclosed openly for projects like Ethereum, for instance? Truly the only place I am potentially frustrated is with marketing...and I am as patient with this team and fanboyish as they come!
We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely.Quote from: alphaBar
How can this be FUD? These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...
Read the above quote. The whole dilution system is not "completely abandoning" "performance based compensation". When I talked with you on mumble that one night, you were a lot more select in your wording and came across as quite reasonable. On these forums though, you use every post you can to phrase things in a misleading manner. I mean even Toast said he agreed with you, yet you're still going at it.
I'm not arguing against transparency or accountability. I'm just pointing out that you constantly phrase things in a misleading manner.
It is almost like you wanted us on your side in Mumble, so you sweet talked about your desires and wishes etc. Then on here it is just constantly trying to imply I3 is out to screw us.
BTW, being the new leader of PTS, when do you plan on giving us your real-life identity ?
* Toast agreed with me, but you accused me of spreading FUD. The response was directed to you, not him.
* I'm not implying anything, just making a factual statement that there was no clear public disclosure, the money was moved, and the sparse details that were provided implied that there would be no accountability.
* I am not leading the PTS effort at all. Lots of people smarter than me and whom I have no association with are doing the real work. I'm just a user with an opinion.
*Toast agreed with one of your ideas but that is not relevant to my accusation of you FUDing with your wording. Go re-read the thread and people pointed out other things you said. Now you go into obtuse mode and purposefully conflate crap.
*Again, you did imply things. I can go back and quote them. This is what you did in the other thread. We all get angry, but there seems to be more at play here.
*You aren't leading the PTS effort ? You went off setup a new forum. Put up your own money for marketing materials. You come around here making demands of I3 for your version of PTS.
There is another thread on here where we got into it, because you practically demanded that every delegate give everyone their real id. So I think it would be completely reasonable for you to give us your identity given the position you've put yourself in in regards to being the new leader of PTS.
If not then I just sit back and think WTF is going on!?
I don't trust at all this "alphaBar" guy and I don't think I'm the only one here, everyone should be extra careful when dealing with those "new" PTS of his. Unwillingness to identity himself says it all, I can bet that he is just trying to pump the price of PTS after the snapshot so he can dump them at a good price. Also I can see some similarities in his "thinking" with another guy he had here in the forum, it might be just coincidence but I'm just saying...
I find it ridiculous that any time someone asks a critical question they get the feeling as if they just stirred a hornet's nest. I think the questions alpha Bar is asking are healthy let's not alienate critical thinking.
You are making this way more complicated than it really is:
OK, so Dan has just found a stack of green paper while shredding the Invictus paperwork before the inevitable SEC letter arrives:
Dan has only a few options (remember, those SEC letters (IRS audit) will be arriving soon, and he will have to answer it or he will wind up like Peter Schiff’s dad).
I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.
We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely. Not only that, but we are arguing against using our very own product to make it happen. No rational person could argue that this is unfair. If you're a developer, you get Dan or 2 other devs to sign off on your vest every month. Simple, effective, and completely obvious. Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.
Outside of your issues with Dan giving grants to developers, "performance-based compensation" has not been "abandoned completely".
I'm really starting to question your motives. You say so many things that it almost seems you're more about the FUD than the truth.
How can this be FUD? These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...
Have it your way. If choosing to view it as a year-end bonus for their roles in implementing the Crypto Product of the Year makes it acceptable in your sight, then having it done in such a way that also incentivizes continued support of the product ought to make you ecstatic. On top of it all there are tax planning aspects and transition to the new developer funding model and the associated renegotiation of their original hiring packages that must be considered. It is not customary to make any such compensation package negotiations public, beyond a simple transparent declaration of what is being done.
It is very customary in some open projects to have full income transparency. Gotta shift away from the "corporate" mentality.
If I remember correctly in Mozilla peers vote on who gets what % of the bonus and people know each other's compensation. (I've only heard that I haven't actually verified it, so I could be wrong, but I like the idea regardless)
You are making this way more complicated than it really is:
OK, so Dan has just found a stack of green paper while shredding the Invictus paperwork before the inevitable SEC letter arrives:
Dan has only a few options (remember, those SEC letters (IRS audit) will be arriving soon, and he will have to answer it or he will wind up like Peter Schiff’s dad).
Very aware of this, but none of it precludes having some accountability with the funds or at least letting us know in advance. As for the bickering, this is not a political debate and I have no interest in playing politics. If I see something happening that is not in the best interest of the community I will voice my concern, which is what I've done publicly and privately over the past couple of weeks, and to no avail.
You are making this way more complicated than it really is:
OK, so Dan has just found a stack of green paper while shredding the Invictus paperwork before the inevitable SEC letter arrives:
Dan has only a few options (remember, those SEC letters (IRS audit) will be arriving soon, and he will have to answer it or he will wind up like Peter Schiff’s dad).
Now this decision would be easy if BitShares Vote was finished, but it is not yet, therefore, he has only 4 different options:
1. Shred the green paper like counterparty did
2. Keep the money
3. Give the money back to AGS/PTS/BTS holders
4. Give the money to some devs so that he can stay in Vegas while they build Voltron
There are no other options here that will not resemble one of those 4 to the IRS.
What would you do if you were Dan?
And please be honest.
You are either going to keep the money and fight the government, or give it away, along with all the legal liability that it is burdened with.
And since you don’t feel like going to jail and playing shake-weight, who then, would you give it to?
If you can't think of a better answer than Toast and the devs who brought us here, then please sink this thread, and lets please move on to some real issues like the major security flaw that cost our fellow freedom fighter over a million BTS:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10877.0
or how will we be introducing ourselves to the community who is knocking at our door:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=848182.0;all
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11017.0
I don't trust at all this "alphaBar" guy and I don't think I'm the only one here, everyone should be extra careful when dealing with those "new" PTS of his. Unwillingness to identity himself says it all, I can bet that he is just trying to pump the price of PTS after the snapshot so he can dump them at a good price. Also I can see some similarities in his "thinking" with another guy he had here in the forum, it might be just coincidence but I'm just saying...+5%
I don't trust at all this "alphaBar" guy and I don't think I'm the only one here, everyone should be extra careful when dealing with those "new" PTS of his. Unwillingness to identity himself says it all, I can bet that he is just trying to pump the price of PTS after the snapshot so he can dump them at a good price. Also I can see some similarities in his "thinking" with another guy he had here in the forum, it might be just coincidence but I'm just saying...
I have given Valentine, Nathan, Vikram, and Toast each 30K PTS so they have a vested (literally) interest in seeing BTS grow.
We are very much into "no contracts" and "trust based" allocation of resources. Each of these guys has proven their loyalty to the project and the greater cause and their passion is undeniable.
You want independent developers making decisions and I have selected these guys as an independent team that I want to have financial independence.
They will be taking paid delegate positions, but I am limiting it to one delegate each which at 30K/year is only 20% of what they could be making and takes nothing into consideration for the extra risks in this industry.
In other words, giving them the funds makes things more secure and further decentralizes the process.
Accountability yes, but the I3 team doesn't have to post on the forum every time they want to spend a dollar. That would annoy the shit out of everyone. You donated the money because you trusted that they would competently manage it. Those were the terms you agreed to.
I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.
We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely. Not only that, but we are arguing against using our very own product to make it happen. No rational person could argue that this is unfair. If you're a developer, you get Dan or 2 other devs to sign off on your vest every month. Simple, effective, and completely obvious. Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.
Outside of your issues with Dan giving grants to developers, "performance-based compensation" has not been "abandoned completely".
I'm really starting to question your motives. You say so many things that it almost seems you're more about the FUD than the truth.
How can this be FUD? These funds were donated for development andmarketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...
The marketers have been off of payroll as well and their own conditional lump sums arranged by Dan. Before there would have been no way to responsibly pay for additional marketing because I don't trust dan to spend it well.I wish, you and I did not have to ask this question.
I think the real transparency problems come from the fact that I don't think you guys appreciate how quickly we would have to switch to dilution to pay in any case.
I haven't looked at the spreadsheets for a while - how much money do you think was in the AGS fund before and after this lastest expenditure?
I don't trust at all this "alphaBar" guy and I don't think I'm the only one here, everyone should be extra careful when dealing with those "new" PTS of his. Unwillingness to identity himself says it all, I can bet that he is just trying to pump the price of PTS after the snapshot so he can dump them at a good price. Also I can see some similarities in his "thinking" with another guy he had here in the forum, it might be just coincidence but I'm just saying...+5%
You are not the only one not trusting alphaBar.
The marketers have been off of payroll as well and their own conditional lump sums arranged by Dan. Before there would have been no way to responsibly pay for additional marketing because I don't trust dan to spend it well.I wish, you and I did not have to ask this question.
I think the real transparency problems come from the fact that I don't think you guys appreciate how quickly we would have to switch to dilution to pay in any case.
I haven't looked at the spreadsheets for a while - how much money do you think was in the AGS fund before and after this lastest expenditure?
So how much?
I never asked for anyone's time, money, or their especially their trust. My arguments stand on their own. Let's not use strawman arguments about accounting for "every dollar" that is spent. I never suggested that. I simply stated that (i) a clear disclosure of what is happening with the funds and (ii) ongoing accountability is necessary to prevent FUD. And yes, I am upset that I was asking nicely, privately and publicly, for the past couple of weeks and got no clear response. Then I saw it on the blockchain and here we are. In fact, we still don't know what the plan is for the funds (in aggregate, not dollar-for-dollar)...
I never asked for anyone's time, money, or their especially their trust. My arguments stand on their own. Let's not use strawman arguments about accounting for "every dollar" that is spent. I never suggested that. I simply stated that (i) a clear disclosure of what is happening with the funds and (ii) ongoing accountability is necessary to prevent FUD. And yes, I am upset that I was asking nicely, privately and publicly, for the past couple of weeks and got no clear response. Then I saw it on the blockchain and here we are. In fact, we still don't know what the plan is for the funds (in aggregate, not dollar-for-dollar)...
I would prefer they keep it a secret. *I know, ME...the hater of ALL SECRETS! :P*
Why? Because sometimes we have to trust these Brilliant guys to recognize moments in time when divulging their plans could potentially clue competitors in on strategies being used. Let's remember in this space that there are many competitors who would gladly (and have gladly) taken it upon themselves to use the openness of this community and the dev team against us. I personally have become a bit impatient with watching our investment capital be burned to enable innovations just to have a competitor listen to our hangouts or read some of Dan's posts...and then copy/claim the innovation as their own. I understand your frustrations though....as at heart I am one of the people who this "secrecy" stuff seems to hit hardest--at least on most levels. Let's say I've been largely forced by reality to start evolving those opinions.
I never asked for anyone's time, money, or their especially their trust. My arguments stand on their own. Let's not use strawman arguments about accounting for "every dollar" that is spent. I never suggested that. I simply stated that (i) a clear disclosure of what is happening with the funds and (ii) ongoing accountability is necessary to prevent FUD. And yes, I am upset that I was asking nicely, privately and publicly, for the past couple of weeks and got no clear response. Then I saw it on the blockchain and here we are. In fact, we still don't know what the plan is for the funds (in aggregate, not dollar-for-dollar)...
I would prefer they keep it a secret. *I know, ME...the hater of ALL SECRETS! :P*
Why? Because sometimes we have to trust these Brilliant guys to recognize moments in time when divulging their plans could potentially clue competitors in on strategies being used. Let's remember in this space that there are many competitors who would gladly (and have gladly) taken it upon themselves to use the openness of this community and the dev team against us. I personally have become a bit impatient with watching our investment capital be burned to enable innovations just to have a competitor listen to our hangouts or read some of Dan's posts...and then copy/claim the innovation as their own. I understand your frustrations though....as at heart I am one of the people who this "secrecy" stuff seems to hit hardest--at least on most levels. Let's say I've been largely forced by reality to start evolving those opinions.
Nailed it. +5%
+5%I never asked for anyone's time, money, or their especially their trust. My arguments stand on their own. Let's not use strawman arguments about accounting for "every dollar" that is spent. I never suggested that. I simply stated that (i) a clear disclosure of what is happening with the funds and (ii) ongoing accountability is necessary to prevent FUD. And yes, I am upset that I was asking nicely, privately and publicly, for the past couple of weeks and got no clear response. Then I saw it on the blockchain and here we are. In fact, we still don't know what the plan is for the funds (in aggregate, not dollar-for-dollar)...
I would prefer they keep it a secret. *I know, ME...the hater of ALL SECRETS! :P*
Why? Because sometimes we have to trust these Brilliant guys to recognize moments in time when divulging their plans could potentially clue competitors in on strategies being used. Let's remember in this space that there are many competitors who would gladly (and have gladly) taken it upon themselves to use the openness of this community and the dev team against us. I personally have become a bit impatient with watching our investment capital be burned to enable innovations just to have a competitor listen to our hangouts or read some of Dan's posts...and then copy/claim the innovation as their own. I understand your frustrations though....as at heart I am one of the people who this "secrecy" stuff seems to hit hardest--at least on most levels. Let's say I've been largely forced by reality to start evolving those opinions.
Nailed it. +5%
Yes, me too. Even once the delegates are the only institution left in BitShares, it won't be completely run by democracy and consensus. Sure, the voters can vote out anyone they choose at any point, so that is the ultimate control. But a gigantic town hall is a wasteful way to make every single decision. I want someone to make decisive choices, not check with me about when they should eat breakfast or use the potty. I strongly favor a representative model or even a trustee model. Ask for my vote, I'll trust you to handle the responsibility and do your job for a term, you make the decisions and communicate to me regularly, and when it comes time, I'll decide if you're doing the job I elected you to do.
Accountability yes, but the I3 team doesn't have to post on the forum every time they want to spend a dollar. That would annoy the shit out of everyone. You donated the money because you trusted that they would competently manage it. Those were the terms you agreed to.
Exactly +5%
The marketers have been off of payroll as well and their own conditional lump sums arranged by Dan. Before there would have been no way to responsibly pay for additional marketing because I don't trust dan to spend it well.
I think the real transparency problems come from the fact that I don't think you guys appreciate how quickly we would have to switch to dilution to pay in any case.
I haven't looked at the spreadsheets for a while - how much money do you think was in the AGS fund before and after this lastest expenditure?
The marketers have been off of payroll as well and their own conditional lump sums arranged by Dan. Before there would have been no way to responsibly pay for additional marketing because I don't trust dan to spend it well.
I think the real transparency problems come from the fact that I don't think you guys appreciate how quickly we would have to switch to dilution to pay in any case.
I haven't looked at the spreadsheets for a while - how much money do you think was in the AGS fund before and after this lastest expenditure?
I'm 100% sure that the market cap would be about the same as it is right now even if we had ZERO marketing expenditures.
I never asked for anyone's time, money, or their especially their trust. My arguments stand on their own. Let's not use strawman arguments about accounting for "every dollar" that is spent. I never suggested that. I simply stated that (i) a clear disclosure of what is happening with the funds and (ii) ongoing accountability is necessary to prevent FUD. And yes, I am upset that I was asking nicely, privately and publicly, for the past couple of weeks and got no clear response. Then I saw it on the blockchain and here we are. In fact, we still don't know what the plan is for the funds (in aggregate, not dollar-for-dollar)...
I would prefer they keep it a secret. *I know, ME...the hater of ALL SECRETS! :P*
Why? Because sometimes we have to trust these Brilliant guys to recognize moments in time when divulging their plans could potentially clue competitors in on strategies being used. Let's remember in this space that there are many competitors who would gladly (and have gladly) taken it upon themselves to use the openness of this community and the dev team against us. I personally have become a bit impatient with watching our investment capital be burned to enable innovations just to have a competitor listen to our hangouts or read some of Dan's posts...and then copy/claim the innovation as their own. I understand your frustrations though....as at heart I am one of the people who this "secrecy" stuff seems to hit hardest--at least on most levels. Let's say I've been largely forced by reality to start evolving those opinions.
I completely agree with giving those that work for the DAC a (big) stake in it so they don't have to do other undesirable "deals" to make a buck!Quoteassets entrusted to I3 for purposes of development and marketing
This is them spending it on development. Contract negotiation is a reality... Maybe you disagree with these particular expenditures. I've disagreed with lots of Dan's in the past.
I'll let Dan explain the details when he gets around to it. In the meantime, consider these two facts that have been brought up a few times:
* I gave up $150k / year at Google to work for a fraction of that salary at enormous risk. The other devs are at least as skilled as I am.
* We are the only people on earth capable of delivering on BTS. If we left right now BTS would die, while we could make a viable competitor.
If you think we aren't actors you want to make into vested interests well in excess of what we could buy from working another job, I suggest you lay out what you would need try to build something without us. I guess your alternate PTS is trying to do this, so far all the people actually building this thing seem to just blow it off.
I'm 100% sure that the market cap would be about the same as it is right now even if we had ZERO marketing expenditures.
Have we actually had much in the way of marketing expenditures so far? I doubt it.
Also, yes the market cap would be the same right now if there was no marketing team, because the marketing campaign hasn't even started yet. All that has happened so far is that they have been developing the campaign.
Once the marketing campaign actually happens, we can begin to see if it was effective. Later on we will either be able to say that the marketing was great, or that it was a waste of money. For now, it hasn't even launched yet.
Page Marketing is working only on an incentive bonus agreement tied to achieving specific measurable objectives.
Page Marketing is working only on an incentive bonus agreement tied to achieving specific measurable objectives.
We appreciate the understanding many have shown on this thread.
We try to be as transparent as possible, but please realize that we are operating under the assumption that sooner or later every three-letter agency in the world is certain to audit us with a fine tooth comb. We have consulted with five international legal or accounting firms about how to be ready for that rectal exam, and we intend to be.
But every single post we make restricts our freedom to respond to newly-discovered regulations and newly-invented interpretations of those regulations published by The Powers That Be. These regulations Do Not Compile. There is no easy closed-form solution guaranteed not to be arbitrarily overridden in opposite directions by different agencies.
So while our natural instinct is to be transparent to a fault, our highly qualified counsel has advised us to put a cork in it.
If you feel we are blatantly ignoring your requests for Too Much Information, you are very perceptive. :)