Happy to see the effort getting steam!

I've thought about how to handle delegates some more, and I came to the conclusion that the risk of collusion isn't as great as I feared. Once I realised that delegates should be seen more as employees, rather than leaders/VIPs, my paranoia about the whole thing devolving into a political shitshow has been alleviated. Stakeholders will vote for people who do their job (and it's quite easy to prove that you have done your job in a transparent manner in crypto), and they'll ignore people who cause drama to gain attention and support, and they will most DEFINITELY instantly throw out anyone who is proven to be dishonest. Because of this I don't see the need to be a first mover in politicizing the process (or collude to avoid others colluding as it would be), and my initial thoughts that maintaining neutrality will be impossible in the long run might be mistaken.

I still think you should be funded directly by the DAC. No need to gather donations when you are doing work that is easily quantifiable and can easily be proven to be profitable for the DAC. Like I said, I'd be willing to loan as much as you need to fund the effort now, and once BTS is set up, you can just announce with your delegate applications that your pay rate is higher to pay back a loan, and once its paid back you can simply decrease the pay rate to your normal pay rate, as long as we do it transparently, I don't think it will cause any controversy. I'll be willing to take on the risk that you don't get elected delegates - I don't think theres ANY chance the DAC will choose not to pay for community management and stakeholder communication. If the DAC is dumb enough to think that we don't need paid people to handle these things then my loan can be considered a donation.

IMO everyone who is in this who are currently working a job that isn't highly specialized or highly paid, your skills will be put to better use working full time for the DAC because you are one of the few people in the world who actually understand what this thing is and that makes every second you're working for the DAC much more valuable than working for anything else.

Quote from: Rune on October 22, 2014, 10:37:18 pm

Every employee of bitshares will be a delegate. That includes BM, Stan, toast, hopefully Brian and anyone else that is paid a salary by us shareholders. They all have a set pay rate for their delegate, and when they first apply to become a delegate, we shareholders vote them in if we think their salary is fair vs their contribution. We will have some common framework for transparency, I imagine it's gonna be something like they have to make a report of their work each week. Kinda like the current bbx hangouts, but for every employee individually and with a lot more detail. Shareholders can then vote for or against the delegates they like, and if someone uncovers any evidence of a delegate not doing their job properly, they can mount a campaign to get them thrown out.

This sort of flat structure seems incredibly inefficient. Hierarchies are useful. In my view we should keep the delegate count at 101 and separate out their roles from all other business supporting the DAC. They should only be trusted to be a decentralized group of vetted individuals (or small organization) capable of running the servers and with their interests aligned with BTS so that they can keep the consensus engine running. When we have a reliable consensus engine, we can then use generic shareholder voting to decide on all other DAC matters. This includes paying the income to the companies/organizations/individuals that will work for the interest of the DAC. These companies can have whatever organization they need to be efficient, but will obviously need to satisfy certain transparency requirements to the shareholders so that the shareholders can decide whether to keep paying them money. The shareholder voting can also be used decide on other important matters of the DAC other than who to pay money. One of the most important decisions is on whether to activate hard fork features (which bytemaster recently described in another thread). But there can be far more agile decisions (no 75% super majority needed) made for lesser issues by the shareholders directly.

Just because every employee is a delegate doesn't mean they cannot have organizational structure. The delegate slate feature allows a team leader to nominate the other delegates on his team, and they can in turn nominate people even further below them. The way I imagine it will end up looking is that we will have these huge nested delegate hierarchies for the different development projects and marketing and other functions. What makes this system so insane is that it has the ability to basically scale infinitely and every new employee will have the ability to organize itself transparently and frictionlessly into the grander hierarchy. As the DAC grows, the speed at which new people are hired will increase exponentially as long as there is an equal influx of active stakeholders who vote actively in whatever little niche they have an interest.

The ability for the system to self organize with no barriers to entry and perfectly aligning economic incentives is going to cause the speed of growth to be completely absurd. It's mind blowing.

Quote from: zhangweis on October 22, 2014, 08:31:25 pm

2 billion bts * (1+20%) = 2.4 billion. 2.4 billion * 10% / 365 = 657,534 bts

That makes about 650,000 bts a day. To me, this has much much bigger impact than PTS, AGS, DNS merge.

Well, btc currently has about 10% dilution but it's also decreasing along the time.

If we have to pay high to delegates at the moment, at least we should decrease the rate along the time.

Now this is very interesting. Could somebody please explain what exactly delegates are able to do. They will be able to "print shares".

 

Quote from: Rune on October 22, 2014, 08:47:39 pm

Dilution will only EVER be given to delegates that are profitable. If 650000 BTS is diluted each day, that means we are making back even more than that. The only risk is that the DAC fails to provide a framework that is transparent enough to allow stakeholders to accurately determine whether a delegate is profitable or not, or that the voting culture becomes corrupted by politics and delegate looting becomes possible.

How is this going to work exactly. Could somebody please explain assuming I have hear it for the first time.

I guess there still isn't really a full understanding of how exactly it will play out, but here's what I think:

Every employee of bitshares will be a delegate. That includes BM, Stan, toast, hopefully Brian and anyone else that is paid a salary by us shareholders. They all have a set pay rate for their delegate, and when they first apply to become a delegate, we shareholders vote them in if we think their salary is fair vs their contribution. We will have some common framework for transparency, I imagine it's gonna be something like they have to make a report of their work each week. Kinda like the current bbx hangouts, but for every employee individually and with a lot more detail. Shareholders can then vote for or against the delegates they like, and if someone uncovers any evidence of a delegate not doing their job properly, they can mount a campaign to get them thrown out.

Quote from: gamey on October 22, 2014, 06:23:52 pm

Quote from: crypto_prometheus_81 on October 22, 2014, 04:39:22 pm

Quote from: Rune on October 22, 2014, 01:30:20 pm

You act like being an early adopter is a privilege, that you deserve everything you can get your hands on. Let me tell you it is not. It is a gift, maybe the greatest gift anyone has ever received - and it is time that you take on the responsibility that goes along with it.

I think we are seeing "true colors" from a lot of people, out on display for all the community to see. Who can handle the intensity of the reality of what needs to be done? I am most impressed by the ones that haveaccepted this reality, even though it may have meant a temporary personal "loss". My observation is that those who hold most tightly to their "expectations", are the ones who cry the loudest when they find out the world does not revolve around them.

I'm getting sick of Rune's thinly hidden cheerleading.  The account is not even a month old and this person is condescending to people who have been around far longer, done far more, and bought into something completely different.

He is telling us same cheerleading we heard before he was even around.

It was not an honor or a privilege to have been early investors.  We did this by making the correct decisions.  Make those correct decisions required labor and intelligence.  We worked for it.  You probably came around after seeing BTSX on coinmarketcap.  So save your bullshit for others.

As for everything else it seems fairly close to a done deal.  I'm not happy, but mainly it is over the cultural shift.  It is likely required and likely a good thing.  I just don't understand what exactly these "mergers" mean or what exactly they imply and it is a source of my irritation. The value equation is very complicated and depends on a lot of small factors which have been vague and scattered about.

In the end I'd ask people to start being nicer.  I'm sure Dan never really wanted it to turn out like this, and it really is as much a proactive move as reactive I believe.  Yesterday I had a lot little jabs and snide posts.  It is hard not to be that way.  For me this pivot makes it harder to be a rah-rah fanboy as my vision isn't as much aligned with this single DAC centric one.  I'd imagine it is like being a sports fan (whatever thats like) and seeing your whole team just die on the field.  Ok.. not really.. I'm kidding.. Seriously though I will try to be more positive.  We'll see where she goes as I can't see any other project as worthy of my time.  :|

If you look at the history Rune was in forefront pushing for the merger in the VOTE thread that started all this (I think Rune made the proposal before BM did).  Now that he has what he wants he's trying to get everyone to shut up and just go along as quietly as possible.  To help facilitate this he just has to shake the pompoms a few times to get the crowd going.

On top of that in the confusion he's now also proposing a system where an elite few get access to secret forums for all the inside details from the devs.  At what stake threshold to gain access does he propose, close to around the amount of stake he controls...

It's just a bunch of manipulative bullshit, never let a good crisis go to waste and all that.

Like everyone else, at the very least I've not been bored haha.

Okay first of all, we are stakeholders in the same company. Our goal of increasing value should align, and it would make no sense for me to act in a way puts you at a disadvantage, as I'd also be hurting myself. If you think it would be more profitable for us to have several DACs, and that I have hurt you financially then fine you are right to be mad at me, but you have to understand that I did it only with the best intentions of increasing value for everyone (including myself). Ideologically, I would prefer many DACs, but in practice I don't think any other strategy than a superDAC is economically viable. If we did not make the superDAC, someone else would, and their superDAC would outcompete ours. Do you trust that other random community to be as honest as ours? My experience tells me that most other altcoins have pretty horrible pump n dump communities that put profit above everything else compared to this one. Since there is no other way, what I hope to achieve is that our superDAC is created in a way that stays true to the principles of decentralization. I'm of course also very excited to see what it will end up becoming.

Regarding the insider club, you're right that it's a bad thing, but consider that right now the insider club is I3 with no transparency at all. I would prefer to have absolute transparency with nothing being hidden from anyone with no barriers to entry whatsoever, and I hope we can implement that once we have achieved significant network effect. Right now it seems that I3 employees thinks it is vital to keep a lot of information secret to avoid having it stolen by competitors. I trust their judgement in this regard, even if I don't like it, and that is why I proposed the "secret insider club" of large stakeholders to be able to share this sensitive information, so that there at least are people independent from the developers who are able to hear it and report their sentiments to the broader community.

I guess delegates could also be used for this regard, but I suspect that delegates will devolve into politics and we would then be stuck with this secret insider club political elite that I think could go really bad.

The fact that I conveniently decided to put the bar exactly so that I could join the secret insider club was pretty stupid I guess, but in the end it would be up to I3 to decide who to let in on their secrets, and also since I'm the only member of the community that I know for a fact could be trusted to be honest and transparent about relaying what stage these secret projects are at, I just can't help be biased. I know the fact that I trust myself useless for everyone else but I just wanted to voice my thought process. At least I disclosed my share, it would be worse if I conveniently put my proposal at my own share level without disclosing it and then pretended it was for some other reason.

In the end I already own enough shares to become ridiculously wealthy once this blockchain takes off. I could just sit back and do nothing and I'm sure there'd be massive price bubbles regardless, but I feel compelled to argue for as much transparency as possible, and try to push the DAC in the direction that I am convinced is best for everyone. It's quite disheartening to become the target of hostility. That being said I also realize that I'm unfairly lucky to be a purely BTSX investor, and I've been insensitive to the frustrations of those that held other shares, and for that I'm sorry.

Quote from: Rune on October 22, 2014, 07:58:12 pm

Quote from: Stan on October 22, 2014, 07:06:45 pm

Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 22, 2014, 06:55:48 pm

Quote from: Ander on October 22, 2014, 06:51:14 pm

Quote from: Rune on October 22, 2014, 06:44:29 pm

I'm a cheerleader, yes. Not for Dan though, my allegiance lies with blockchain technology and nowhere else. The superDAC happens to be the optimal incarnation of blockchain tech, and Dan is the harbinger that will made it manifest into this world. This is the real beginning of what Satoshi started, and how de we celebrate this event? With forum drama. I just can't help but find it embarrassing.

There is going to be forum drama when some poeple just took a huge loss and others didnt.

Hopefully Bytemaster's new modification will make everyone happy and we can all move forward together.

Huge loss confirmed. On another note, we should end the class system that has emerged in this community.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "class system" but by the end of the year I3 will have approximately zero employees.  Everybody will be going to work for BTS the MegaDAC.  All of us will be employees (or small businesses) the shareholders can fire via the delegate selection mechanism.

I'm not quite sure what it will be like to work for an unmanned company, but that should put us all in about the same class boat.

What is the rationale for having entire companies be delegates? It spreads out risk and makes it more difficult for stakeholders to determine if they can trust them or not. What to do in the situation where 3 people have a delegate together, 2 of them excellent workers and one of them bad?

I see no reason for there to be any middlemen between the work done for the DAC and the payment received for that work. More importantly, if the DAC has already decided that it trusts a person enough to hire him as an employee, it will also trust him enough to run a trusted node in the network. It is irrational to not leverage this trust to increase decentralization by having all employees run delegates.

If a desired employee isn't technically able to run a delegate, instead if making exceptions the DAC should simply expend the resources necessary to teach the employee to run the delegate.

The amount of value generated from absolute transparency and absolute stakeholder control should make these two things the highest priority for a DAC, in my opinion.

Well you can certainly vote that way and evangelize your beliefs to others.

I'll give you some simple examples:

Example 1.  While those of our staff who are public facing can develop their own reputation and become independent delegates, what about support staff?  Are business people and accountants and legal support and custodian and IT support folks supposed to occupy individual delegate slots?

Example 2:  As competition heats up, some of the beloved personalities on this forum might want to band together as a delegate team where each of them individually might not carry enough celebrity weight to get elected by themselves.

Example 3:  BitSapphier is the company that maintains this forum.  Its a composite of perhaps several people that work part time to keep things running.

Example 4:  Last I looked ABL and Toast teamed up to be a delegate - Toast handled the technical side and ABL handled the celebrity side.  I expect this to be a common delegate model.

Bottom line, its a competition to put together 101 valuable services for the industry.  Competition breeds excellence and excellence breeds a far better future than burning your minting fees in the fiery Cracks of Mt. Doom.

The way I see it, any person who the DAC trusts enough to make continuous payments to, should have a delegate. There is no reason not to leverage this trust. If there are not enough delegate slots to accommodate all employees, then the total amount of delegate slots could simply be increased, with 101 delegates chosen at random from the total pool of delegates each checkpoint cycle (and payment rate increased accordingly).

I see your point about lawyers and accountants, there are situations where "middle man" payments cannot be avoided. The important thing in this situation, IMO, is to always have a clear ladder of responsibility, with a singular trusted delegate taking on the responsibility of those that are not trusted. I think it would be really bad to have a situation where trust is "spread" over several people, especially if more than one person controls the delegate.

The "forum celebrity" makes sense though. As long as stakeholders are very careful in their voting habits and are very strong in their demands for transparency I guess it might be possible to do safely.

The reason why I'm so anxious to see good voting habits implemented is that I have reached the (daydreaming) conclusion that the first superDAC to gain a significant network effect will eventually come to own all assets on the planet. I don't think it's possible to be too careful considering the potential implications if the voting culture gets corrupted along the way, and that's why I think we need to set a strong example from the very beginning.

Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 22, 2014, 06:55:48 pm

Quote from: Ander on October 22, 2014, 06:51:14 pm

Quote from: Rune on October 22, 2014, 06:44:29 pm

I'm a cheerleader, yes. Not for Dan though, my allegiance lies with blockchain technology and nowhere else. The superDAC happens to be the optimal incarnation of blockchain tech, and Dan is the harbinger that will made it manifest into this world. This is the real beginning of what Satoshi started, and how de we celebrate this event? With forum drama. I just can't help but find it embarrassing.

There is going to be forum drama when some poeple just took a huge loss and others didnt.

Hopefully Bytemaster's new modification will make everyone happy and we can all move forward together.

Huge loss confirmed. On another note, we should end the class system that has emerged in this community.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "class system" but by the end of the year I3 will have approximately zero employees.  Everybody will be going to work for BTS the MegaDAC.  All of us will be employees (or small businesses) the shareholders can fire via the delegate selection mechanism.

I'm not quite sure what it will be like to work for an unmanned company, but that should put us all in about the same class boat.

What is the rationale for having entire companies be delegates? It spreads out risk and makes it more difficult for stakeholders to determine if they can trust them or not. What to do in the situation where 3 people have a delegate together, 2 of them excellent workers and one of them bad?

I see no reason for there to be any middlemen between the work done for the DAC and the payment received for that work. More importantly, if the DAC has already decided that it trusts a person enough to hire him as an employee, it will also trust him enough to run a trusted node in the network. It is irrational to not leverage this trust to increase decentralization by having all employees run delegates.

If a desired employee isn't technically able to run a delegate, instead if making exceptions the DAC should simply expend the resources necessary to teach the employee to run the delegate.

The amount of value generated from absolute transparency and absolute stakeholder control should make these two things the highest priority for a DAC, in my opinion.

That being said, I'm super excited for this. I've been waiting for those freaking side chains for 6 months and now they are finally out. Will be awesome to see what they come up with.