Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
this is awesomeI found the allocation is little bit fewer than agsexplorer's result. (about 0.12%) Can you check it?
Only PTS addresses here https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nmushegian/snapshots/master/TESTNOTE.1-distribution.json?
ctrl+f '"1' gives 4000+ results
I'm refusing to take any pay until we get a reasonable number of 0% delegates and use proposals to figure out how to direct inflation.My interpretation of what Toast is saying is in part that the "governance" of the DAC isn't working as efficiently as it could be and that can hurt value. For instance, he's been pushing the importance of "proposals" or other stake weighted polling for a while (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14043.0). I tend to agree and have argued that good stake polling is pretty crucial.
I think some people were turned off by the "merger" not so much because the idea of a merger was bad but simply because it appeared that Dan had the power to unilaterally change the rules and create more shares. If the same decision was made after a fairly perceived stake weighted poll was conducted the whole thing may have been perceived differently. Same goes for conflating delegates with workers; there is FUD in regards to how easily dilution happens. I've tended to think having a high bar of 50% approval of active shares for dilution would be perceived better even if it took a lot of work to get there, especially because dilution was controversial and not in the original design.
Wasn't that the bread and butter of the "Killer VOTE DAC"? A built in blockchain voting mechanism? Perhaps what was sold to everyone as the "DAC killer" should've been developed first. That way everyone could have immediately seen what was being sold to us through a merger was in fact legit and worth it. Now all we got is a "Crutch DAC" missing one of its legs (DNS) and it's spinal cord (VOTE supposedly).
You should take your pay. You earned it.Or why not 1000. This way the dev's can make $5K+ per month instead of the current $1100/mo. This was the entire reason for increasing delegate pay in the first place. $1100 per month is not a living wage in any 1st world country.
There is no possible way this could make the market cap fall anymore right? I mean the current depressed price and unpairing from btc had nothing to do with devs selling their bts income. This way the devs get more money and everyone else can continue to wait. But at least the devs wont walk away.
I know this is one of your jab posts but,
$1100/month is a good combination of not depressing the market cap *too much*, and motivating the developers to work hard to increase the market cap so they can earn the money deserve.
Also is there any real risk of the core developers walking away now? They all just received 5million BTS each, which could be worth loads IFF the product is polished and actually gets used.
The risk of developers walking has nothing do with getting paid enough and everything to do with minimizing the chance that BM accidentally destroys any wealth we create again. I'm refusing to take any pay until we get a reasonable number of 0% delegates and use proposals to figure out how to direct inflation.
Although,
It looks like you have withdrawn 366,941 BTS out of a total 367,895 BTS paid to your 100% delegate. Can you clarify what you mean? http://bitsharesblocks.com/delegates/delegate?name=dev0.nikolai
Or why not 1000. This way the dev's can make $5K+ per month instead of the current $1100/mo. This was the entire reason for increasing delegate pay in the first place. $1100 per month is not a living wage in any 1st world country.
There is no possible way this could make the market cap fall anymore right? I mean the current depressed price and unpairing from btc had nothing to do with devs selling their bts income. This way the devs get more money and everyone else can continue to wait. But at least the devs wont walk away.
I know this is one of your jab posts but,
$1100/month is a good combination of not depressing the market cap *too much*, and motivating the developers to work hard to increase the market cap so they can earn the money deserve.
Also is there any real risk of the core developers walking away now? They all just received 5million BTS each, which could be worth loads IFF the product is polished and actually gets used.
So wait. Did we just lose one of our lead developers? And did one of our (ex) lead developers just call our main advantage over other crypto-startups 'a hack', and a lose-lose?
DPoS' future will be a political one. I am glad to see Toast reaching out to let people know what's going on.
Not sure what was meant by delegates being called a hack though. If we don't have elected delegates we have ripple... which is worse.
