Here's a more comprehensive list of hardfork items, together with their current state, estimated work size, and approval status. I'm open to suggestions regarding the size, it's just a rough guesstimate.

Issue	PR	Name	BSIP	State	Size	Approved	Remarks
216	340	Process to Reset a SmartCoin after a Blackswan Event	0018	Review	L	1.14.56
154		Letting settlement_price expire would allow to reuse symbols for prediction markets	0017	Planned	L	N
	23	Issue: Early withdrawal claims		Review	S	N
143	348	Require voted entities to exist		Review	S	N
338		Margin call order fills at price of matching limit_order but not at a price related to itself or settlement_price		Requested	M	N
342		Rounding issue when matching orders		Requested	M	N
343		Inconsistent sorting of call orders between matching against a limit order and a force settle order		Requested	M	N
353	369	Computation of number of committee members is wrong		Review	S	N
22		[Feature Suggestion] No Fee on User Side with Whitelisted UIA		Requested	S/M	N
59		Audit charging of per-kilobyte fees		Requested	L	N
169		Asset can be registered with null core exchange rate, but not updated		Requested	S	N
138		[Proposal Improvements] Add fee paying account to `available_active_approvals`		Requested	?	N
173		Code review of [BSIP10] percentage based transfer fee	0010	Review	L	1.14.29
186	612 *	Implement simple rate limited free transaction feature		Review	L	N?	https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21462.30.html
267		implement rotating standby witnesses		Requested	M?	N
170		new_options should be optional in asset_update_operation		Requested	M?	N
199		[Request] Require owner key for change of asset-issuer		Requested	M	N
197		Account_update_operation requires both owner authorities and active authorities when owner presents		Requested	S	N
269		Fix recursive account permissions		Requested	S	N
202		Hard fork request: correct wrong voting proxy settings		Requested	S	N
125		When signing a block that updates the signing witness's signing key, use correct signing key		Requested	S	N
210		Authorities on custom_operation are not checked correctly		Review	?	N	See https://github.com/FollowMyVote/graphene/commit/373700e717b2353eb485316f4bc93ab0d2468e05
188		New OP for issuer to reclaim fee pool funds		Requested	M	N
146		proposal_delete_operation issues		Requested	S	N
214		Unable to propose a proposal with an `approve_proposal` operation		Requested	S	N
		Introducing expiring votes for Witnesses, Committie members & Proxies within the Bitshares network	0022	Discussion	M?	N

I was surprised to find that we have quite a few things in the queue that are already implemented. Apparently some things have been more or less forgotten and need to be updated and reviewed in-depth. We should focus on those, IMO, and possibly add a few of the 'S' items as well.

Do you mean "do we need the review" or do you mean "do we need percentage-based transfer fees"?
AFAICS the latter has already been decided by the shareholders, and regarding the former I would say that yes, a review is needed before we merge the code.

Quote from: alt on August 11, 2017, 01:01:04 am

I can't find clear target for this worker.
what I concern about the wallet include:
1. efficient.
currently only 100 client support with a 32G mem VPS node.
will this wallet support at least 10K users in the future?
don't told me this is backend guy's work.
if so, you should find partner who can improve backend, and work together.
as share holder, we need a complete solution, not some lego toy.
2. user friendly.
this is very difficult to verify.
but what make user friendly very difficult  because of most ui developer can't follow the wallet.
because the UI code mixed up with  many blockchain code.
will you make the UI completely independency from the blockchain tec?
3. more function
I have no idea why we need a seperate exploere like cryptofresh.com
all we need can implement in the wallet.
can you expand more function in the wallet? what's the plan?

1.Thats a backend issue so to resolve that we have to depend on Alfredo Garcia and the others working on the backend. That's also the case for @bitcrab concerns about GUI performance and api calls:its a backend issue.
2.The code is bog standard react + flux, with most of the blockchain code already split into a separate library (bitsharesjs)
3. A block explorer needs data that's not available from the witness_node, so replacing cryptofresh.com would require a whole new backend layer.
The current explorer parts could certainly improved however.