406
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Sponsorship on spanish crypto podcast
« on: October 31, 2018, 08:44:26 am »
Which is your most popular show so far?
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.
407
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] gdex-witnness
« on: October 31, 2018, 08:03:38 am »
What are your thoughts on enforcing not a 1:1 peg, but one with a constant premium? There have been discussions on it in telegram and I tend to agree that a small constant positive premium will behave more stable than 1:1.
In your algorithm that would correlate to something like
In your algorithm that would correlate to something like
Code: [Select]
...
target_premium = 0.5%; // arbitrary number, chosen here to reflect the lower bound of allowed premium to be 0
get Pdex, Pf, premium;
premium = premium - target_premium;
...
408
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] - BitShares Sponsorship of Decentralized conference
« on: October 30, 2018, 07:34:49 am »Another update folks!
The 4th invitation slot goes to MichaelX who will be joining us in Athens.
I think this will be a fairly good mix after all.
a committee member
a major proxy
the core team coordinator
and the voted spokesperson
I can confidently say we'll all do our best to represent BitShares and spread the word as much as we possibly can while there.
That is really an awesome group, thanks to all willing to participate and represent the community!
Do you know if they do recording of the talks?
409
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Marketing efforts for Bitshares
« on: October 25, 2018, 10:52:40 am »
Yes, marketing!
In the past OpenLedger has advertised with incorrect statements, I would like to propose some kind of review system for anything published. This review should not be about layouting or formatting, but merely about the content facts.
In the past OpenLedger has advertised with incorrect statements, I would like to propose some kind of review system for anything published. This review should not be about layouting or formatting, but merely about the content facts.
411
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] - A bounty based smartcoin marketing campaign
« on: October 23, 2018, 11:18:21 am »
Lobbying is especially important right now, thank you for that initiative!
Questions on some details:
Questions on some details:
- Can the Bitshares Committee please confirm taking on this responsibility? Lot's of unpaid reviewing might be necessary
- What happens if not all 9M BTS will be paid out?
- I assume the daily pay will go to the comittee-account. Will there be a transparent accounting platform now that the comittee wants to have two workers?
412
General Discussion / Re: Important and urgent appeal to the witnesses and members of the Committee!!!
« on: October 21, 2018, 06:18:36 pm »
Thank you for opening this very interesting question. The BitShares Blockchain would be able to handle that case, but there is no authority in place to decide that IMO.
Let me explain a bit:
Even if the supposed receiver and the sender both confirm what their intention was, there is no proof that the actual receiver is not a 3rd party that is merely inactive and that both of you try to screw over.
This is now of course exaggerated and I am not trying to insinuate anything, but you see my point hopefully. I could see a stronger claim with, let's say couple months wait time.
Like CustomMiner and abit said it is technically possible but has never been done. Your proof does not provide a 100% guarantee, and who takes the liability if anything were to happen? Are you willing to fully identify yourself and reimburse the actual receiver if he ever were to surface? You still have the question who you would identify yourself to, and how a reimbursement like that would be decided. I don't think it's the committee that should do that.
An entity with such an authority could be, or even must be created via a votes worker proposal IMO.
Let me explain a bit:
Even if the supposed receiver and the sender both confirm what their intention was, there is no proof that the actual receiver is not a 3rd party that is merely inactive and that both of you try to screw over.
This is now of course exaggerated and I am not trying to insinuate anything, but you see my point hopefully. I could see a stronger claim with, let's say couple months wait time.
Like CustomMiner and abit said it is technically possible but has never been done. Your proof does not provide a 100% guarantee, and who takes the liability if anything were to happen? Are you willing to fully identify yourself and reimburse the actual receiver if he ever were to surface? You still have the question who you would identify yourself to, and how a reimbursement like that would be decided. I don't think it's the committee that should do that.
An entity with such an authority could be, or even must be created via a votes worker proposal IMO.
413
General Discussion / Re: BitShares UI release candidate
« on: October 19, 2018, 10:14:53 am »
Next release candidate is delayed. In the meantime:
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@sschiessl/the-bitshares-ui-calling-for-native-speakers-paid-translation-job-20181019t101305283z-post
The UI is now integrated with Transifex (again). I'm calling out to all native speakers to help translate remaining keys.
The Transifex project can be found here:
https://www.transifex.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui-1/
Payment for translations is possible through the UI worker within this issue. Please comment if you want to pick up a language:
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/issues/1705
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@sschiessl/the-bitshares-ui-calling-for-native-speakers-paid-translation-job-20181019t101305283z-post
The UI is now integrated with Transifex (again). I'm calling out to all native speakers to help translate remaining keys.
The Transifex project can be found here:
https://www.transifex.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui-1/
Payment for translations is possible through the UI worker within this issue. Please comment if you want to pick up a language:
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/issues/1705
414
General Discussion / Re: suggestion on a bounty based marketing worker proposal
« on: October 18, 2018, 11:25:37 am »
SmartCoin listing would be awesome, great initiative. I guess this bounty is also meant to cover possible listing fees.
Is this necessary? It mixes responsibilities and I would rather not have that. Additionally, please ensure that the accounting is transparent if the committee has two workers to handle.
30 days is quite short, and the amount of payout is incentive for manipulation. My suggestion would be 90 days.
open market operation fund will release the fund to fill up the gap.
Is this necessary? It mixes responsibilities and I would rather not have that. Additionally, please ensure that the accounting is transparent if the committee has two workers to handle.
There is a 30 days observation period
30 days is quite short, and the amount of payout is incentive for manipulation. My suggestion would be 90 days.
415
General Discussion / Re: Critical Review of bitUSD by an academic at LSE
« on: October 15, 2018, 06:19:36 am »
Is that a public discussion somewhere?
416
Technical Support / Re: 2 Issues - - CER Core Exchange rate) issue !- Market issue
« on: October 14, 2018, 11:46:02 am »418
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Worker proposal: Comprehensive UX/UI update by the ROSSUL and Graphene Lab team
« on: October 02, 2018, 08:32:46 pm »
Voted.
419
General Discussion / Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« on: October 01, 2018, 08:14:20 pm »
This is a lightly modified copy of a post in the other thread, but I think it applies in this context even better.
I believe one of the main concerns is lack of readily available information in the approach, which the (mostly english) community desires. I would also like to see a report in the matter (please don't mention that it's all on chain ...). Without even discussing the content of BSIP42 (and I personally don't oppose it) this is enough for me to think we should take a moment and properly analyze how it affected bitCNY.
For example, provide measures over past weeks since BSIP42 is active (and possibly before that timeframe for a comparison):
and it will show that the values are normalizing over time (which would show that the market accepts the peg, and what the consequences are).
The effectiveness of the BSIP 42 can directly be judged with those measure, furthermore it will be clearer where the premiums are paid now. It will at least paint a much clearer picture for the community.
All those values measures might be clear to you, but not to the common eye.
I believe one of the main concerns is lack of readily available information in the approach, which the (mostly english) community desires. I would also like to see a report in the matter (please don't mention that it's all on chain ...). Without even discussing the content of BSIP42 (and I personally don't oppose it) this is enough for me to think we should take a moment and properly analyze how it affected bitCNY.
For example, provide measures over past weeks since BSIP42 is active (and possibly before that timeframe for a comparison):
- old price feed
- effective values of MCR, MSSR and FSO (consider differences in the feeds)
- effective offboarding ratios when
- selling bitCNY for BTS (and BTS for CNY)
- when settling CNY for BTS (and selling BTS for CNY)
- offboarding directly with bitCNY (aka the peg)
and it will show that the values are normalizing over time (which would show that the market accepts the peg, and what the consequences are).
The effectiveness of the BSIP 42 can directly be judged with those measure, furthermore it will be clearer where the premiums are paid now. It will at least paint a much clearer picture for the community.
All those values measures might be clear to you, but not to the common eye.
420
General Discussion / Re: Consider derailing feed price
« on: October 01, 2018, 11:28:33 am »
I believe one of the main concerns is lack of readily available information in the approach, which the community desires (IMO). I would also like to see a report in the matter (please don't mention that it's all on chain ...). Without even discussing the content of BSIP42 this is enough for me to think we should take a moment, properly analyze how it affected bitCNY, reflect on and then decide how to move forward.
For example, provide measures over past weeks since BSIP42 is active (and possibly before that timeframe for a comparison):
and it will show that the values are normalizing over time (which would show that the market accepts the peg, and what the consequences are).
The effectiveness of the BSIP 42 can directly be judged with those measure, furthermore it will be clearer where the premiums are paid now.
All those values measures might be clear to the initiators of BSIP42, but not to the common eye.
For example, provide measures over past weeks since BSIP42 is active (and possibly before that timeframe for a comparison):
- old price feed
- effective values of MCR, MSSR and FSO (consider differences in the feeds)
- effective offboarding ratios when
- selling bitCNY for BTS (and BTS for CNY)
- when settling CNY for BTS (and selling BTS for CNY)
- offboarding directly with bitCNY (aka the peg)
and it will show that the values are normalizing over time (which would show that the market accepts the peg, and what the consequences are).
The effectiveness of the BSIP 42 can directly be judged with those measure, furthermore it will be clearer where the premiums are paid now.
All those values measures might be clear to the initiators of BSIP42, but not to the common eye.
