What's more, these workers are extremely corrupt, wasteful and inefficient.

This statement is outright false, cease spreading FUD. As far as I'm aware, none of the recently de-activated (nor currently active) worker proposals are corrupt nor wasteful/inefficient. Don't make accusations without evidence.

From my personal experience, I've found that the core & UI development worker proposals are excellent value for money, they have addressed multiple issues I've reported in a timely manner on github and have aided the resolution of multiple high severity security vulnerabilities reported through hackthedex in the last year.

See large quantity of releases completed thanks to worker proposals:
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/releases
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/releases

Look at the security vulnerabilities which no longer affect you thanks to worker proposals: (More to come)
https://hackthedex.io/#/reports

The cost of worker proposals is appropriate for specialist contractors working with uncertain employment conditions. If you believe you can achieve more work for less money, submit a worker proposal for such work or stop complaining.

I appeal to all of you vote on "redund400k", to reduce this huge expenditure and rescue BTS.

Worker payment is not the source of BTS price downtrend, do not spread fake information.

Rather than scuttling all ongoing worker proposals (massively disrupting BTS development & marketing), you could instead request that the committee re-balances thereferrer:network fee distribution from 80:20 so that the reserve pool funds grow.

By voting for voter400k you choose austerity rather than innovation; austerity as an economic policy fundamentally does not work. By voting for refund400k you send the wrong signal to investors. Furthermore by voting for refund400k you risk the network and your own security as severe security risks reported through the Hackthedex worker may go unresolved.

I think our differences lie mainly in our different positions.
I hold bts, so I want to raise the price, and you are workers, do not own bts, so you do not care about the price.You want to get paid by  worker.

I disagree with your positions entirely, and I've held BTS long term. Worker proposals are not the source of negative price trends, don't spread that misinformation. I've been paid by worker proposals and largely just held the bitUSD since being paid rather than dump it instantly.

supporting the hackthedex worker proposal 👍

This worker is good only if wirex are willing to create a "BitAssets" stablecoin alternative to how much account holder is handling at their end, this will let Wirex users to exchange between BTS and Wirex "BitAssets" stablecoin and withdraw "BitAssets" by cards at any time.

This has to be discussed with Wirex, and the integration for this from their side is not complex.

OTHERWISE IT WILL BE JUST ANOTHER LEGACY COIN FASHION LISTING AT CEX

Meanwhile major amount of BTS are dumped as bounty to get bitCNY listed on CEX? Getting BTS integrated will provide EMEA debit card access which massively simplifies using Bitshares for everyday finances IRL. What you propose is out of scope.

Quote from: xeroc on August 22, 2019, 02:26:01 pm

Quote from: ioBanker on August 20, 2019, 09:34:24 pm

This has to be discussed with Wirex, and the integration for this from their side is not complex.

You may have missed that the real thing here is the legal paper work for being compliant with credit card networks!
It surely not about the technicalities of integrating bitshares.

Also, if you can convince their lawyers that bitAssets are not securities, then that can be done right afterwards.

Before trying to convince their lawyers; we have to design the bitAssets to not get classified as a security.

I suggest to have discussions about the current design and mechanism of profits of the bitAssets then to study how can bitAssets pass the howey test initially before starting promoting bitAssets in a common enterprise that facilitates cards transactions.

Why? The worker proposal states that BTS will be integrated primarily, not the bitassets - thus your concerns are out of scope.

Quote from: bench on August 20, 2019, 09:18:10 am

On the one side 201907-uccs-research-project does create a problem, where there is actually is no problem, but doesn't solve any of our real problems.
The BitShares community is already aware MCR = 1.5 and MSSR = 1.01 is the sweet spot.

A very quick answer: how do you know there is no problem? The community chose the older chain parameters and then crypto winter caused most BitAssets to GS. Since then, you've adjusted the parameters to shift more risk onto BitAsset holders. Why would those new parameters be better?

A question back to you: How do you know that 1.5 and 1.01 are the sweet spot? Why not 1.2 and 1?

If optimal configurations are discovered or BSIPs are proposed from the research then it's totally worth the worker proposal investment. There's quite limited documentation on the effects of smartcoin settings and exotic smartcoins like algorithm based assets.

Quote from: Customminer on August 17, 2019, 03:24:24 pm

Rather than entirely removing the LTM requirement, what about a minimum BTS balance requirement for referral mechanism access?

It still means you need to invest some money before you're possible to earn money. Small marketers won't touch it.

At least 1 BTS would mean they've at least used the platform before they're decided to promote it. Might deter bot sign ups?

I hope that your worker proposal can be reactivated soon, I support your research worker proposal 👍

What's the next rainfalls on staked BTS?

will stakemine support beos in the future?