0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: xeroc on November 01, 2014, 12:44:23 pmWith turing apps you can have a app exchange your bts to bitusd and burn the rest ..But then what happens if there are no shorts at the feed price? I guess it could be done but it would just require some more advanced logic. The thing about this I think would be most important is that voters need to be able to easily and transparently determine exactly how much money a given delegate will make, and this needs to be apparent in the same place where they cast their votes (so it should be retrievable from the blockchain)In the short run I don't think it is vital to have salary pegging in some form, but in the long run it would definitely help a lot with governance. The biggest temptation a delegate will have is probably "forgetting" to reduce their own salary after a BTS rally.
With turing apps you can have a app exchange your bts to bitusd and burn the rest ..
Quote from: Stan on October 31, 2014, 02:34:53 amQuote from: starspirit on October 31, 2014, 01:48:13 amInstead of capping the inflation per delegate, why don't we cap the total inflation across all delegates? That way a single delegate can earn a lot more if the community accepts it.This would certainly help to keep the number of independent signers closer to 101. Otherwise we might find ourselves driven toward 25 4-node employees until our market cap quadruples.Yes. Then go just one step further and replace the pay rate percentage with a BitUSD salary as described in the proposal here and further elaborated here.
Quote from: starspirit on October 31, 2014, 01:48:13 amInstead of capping the inflation per delegate, why don't we cap the total inflation across all delegates? That way a single delegate can earn a lot more if the community accepts it.This would certainly help to keep the number of independent signers closer to 101. Otherwise we might find ourselves driven toward 25 4-node employees until our market cap quadruples.
Instead of capping the inflation per delegate, why don't we cap the total inflation across all delegates? That way a single delegate can earn a lot more if the community accepts it.
It is far more important to find like-minded developers than super star developers. Amir is not like minded, he hates profit motive and company metaphor. BTC devs have a different philosophy, so we must be careful.
Quote from: Stan on October 31, 2014, 02:34:53 amQuote from: starspirit on October 31, 2014, 01:48:13 amInstead of capping the inflation per delegate, why don't we cap the total inflation across all delegates? That way a single delegate can earn a lot more if the community accepts it.This would certainly help to keep the number of independent signers closer to 101. Otherwise we might find ourselves driven toward 25 4-node employees until our market cap quadruples.The question is "how". We have to incentivize voting in our ecosystem (imho). We also have to incentivize investors learning about the actual investment, both on a technological level and an economical level, so they can make the best possible decisions for everyone involved.Perhaps voter turnout should be rewarded...Perhaps people could designate votes in certain areas of expertise to people they trust to have similar philosophical inclinations and those who vote for them get the rewards that those for whom they vote would have received. In this way, if an expert begins voting in ways that hurt the shareholders, the shareholders who trusted them will cease to designate them with their vote...thus impacting the expert directly.
At 2 cents a share, a 100% paid delegate makes ~$30k USD a year. As Rune said, this isn't enough to poach someone.If the market cap went up a lot, one delegate would be plenty, but for now, we could potentially see a developer that we wanted create multiple delegates, and voters who wanted to hire them would vote for all their delegates.
Perhaps people could designate votes in certain areas of expertise to people they trust to have similar philosophical inclinations and those who vote for them get the rewards that those for whom they vote would have received. In this way, if an expert begins voting in ways that hurt the shareholders, the shareholders who trusted them will cease to designate them with their vote...thus impacting the expert directly.
I disagree.. I'm a good developer but yet I still prefer Nxt.. precisely because I understand it.Nxt is truly decentralized and has a very secure core algorithm providing 90% protection. Something that Bitshares cannot match, precisely because of the delegate system.
Quote from: Rune on October 31, 2014, 01:04:00 amQuote from: starspirit on October 31, 2014, 12:45:01 amQuote from: Ander on October 31, 2014, 12:00:30 amQuote from: starspirit on October 30, 2014, 11:42:51 pmDoesn't inflation allow delegates to get paid more if they can make a case as to how that will contribute to the community?There is a max amount per delegate, to make sure that the overall inflation level is capped at a reasonable amount.If voters want to hire someone for more than that amount, they would need to create multiple delegates and get all of them voted in.What dollar figure does that max amount equate to for a single delegate at this market cap?around 2.5k USD per monthInstead of capping the inflation per delegate, why don't we cap the total inflation across all delegates? That way a single delegate can earn a lot more if the community accepts it.
Quote from: starspirit on October 31, 2014, 12:45:01 amQuote from: Ander on October 31, 2014, 12:00:30 amQuote from: starspirit on October 30, 2014, 11:42:51 pmDoesn't inflation allow delegates to get paid more if they can make a case as to how that will contribute to the community?There is a max amount per delegate, to make sure that the overall inflation level is capped at a reasonable amount.If voters want to hire someone for more than that amount, they would need to create multiple delegates and get all of them voted in.What dollar figure does that max amount equate to for a single delegate at this market cap?around 2.5k USD per month
Quote from: Ander on October 31, 2014, 12:00:30 amQuote from: starspirit on October 30, 2014, 11:42:51 pmDoesn't inflation allow delegates to get paid more if they can make a case as to how that will contribute to the community?There is a max amount per delegate, to make sure that the overall inflation level is capped at a reasonable amount.If voters want to hire someone for more than that amount, they would need to create multiple delegates and get all of them voted in.What dollar figure does that max amount equate to for a single delegate at this market cap?
Quote from: starspirit on October 30, 2014, 11:42:51 pmDoesn't inflation allow delegates to get paid more if they can make a case as to how that will contribute to the community?There is a max amount per delegate, to make sure that the overall inflation level is capped at a reasonable amount.If voters want to hire someone for more than that amount, they would need to create multiple delegates and get all of them voted in.
Doesn't inflation allow delegates to get paid more if they can make a case as to how that will contribute to the community?
Quote from: julian1 on October 30, 2014, 11:39:54 pmQuote from: Rune on October 30, 2014, 11:33:35 pmQuote from: julian1 on October 30, 2014, 11:28:48 pmI hate the uncertainty inherent in the inflationary model that's been chosen to fund development via giving delegates the power to create new bts. Money creation/quantitative easing etc remains the outstanding problem of fiat currencies especially in less developed countries and this seems like a backwards step.It would be better to carve out an initial fixed stake up-front, and then distribute in some manner (maybe delegates) and let Bitshares live or flounder on that basis of work achievable with those funds.Also, many Open-Source projects attract developer talent on the basis of their inherent perceived value of the project - consider Linux,BSD,XOrg,firefox,GNU,apache etc as obvious and high-profile examples.It's certainly true there's a lot of marketing value in head-hunting sought-after candidates.Having delegates inflate their salary into existence is the exact same as having all shareholders pay equally to funding the delegates. From the point of view of how value moves through the system, there is no difference. This is also why tx fees are destroyed rather than paid out to shareholders - the net effect is the same.It is a mistake to compare it to how governments inflate currencies.The point of working with an initial stake, is that there is a fixed bound to creation. At the moment nobody can say whether Bitshares will be net inflationary or deflationary over the coming decade.Markets punish that type of uncertainty.Every asset is like this. Markets can never know if they will go up or down in the future, everything the market knows is already priced in.
Quote from: Rune on October 30, 2014, 11:33:35 pmQuote from: julian1 on October 30, 2014, 11:28:48 pmI hate the uncertainty inherent in the inflationary model that's been chosen to fund development via giving delegates the power to create new bts. Money creation/quantitative easing etc remains the outstanding problem of fiat currencies especially in less developed countries and this seems like a backwards step.It would be better to carve out an initial fixed stake up-front, and then distribute in some manner (maybe delegates) and let Bitshares live or flounder on that basis of work achievable with those funds.Also, many Open-Source projects attract developer talent on the basis of their inherent perceived value of the project - consider Linux,BSD,XOrg,firefox,GNU,apache etc as obvious and high-profile examples.It's certainly true there's a lot of marketing value in head-hunting sought-after candidates.Having delegates inflate their salary into existence is the exact same as having all shareholders pay equally to funding the delegates. From the point of view of how value moves through the system, there is no difference. This is also why tx fees are destroyed rather than paid out to shareholders - the net effect is the same.It is a mistake to compare it to how governments inflate currencies.The point of working with an initial stake, is that there is a fixed bound to creation. At the moment nobody can say whether Bitshares will be net inflationary or deflationary over the coming decade.Markets punish that type of uncertainty.
Quote from: julian1 on October 30, 2014, 11:28:48 pmI hate the uncertainty inherent in the inflationary model that's been chosen to fund development via giving delegates the power to create new bts. Money creation/quantitative easing etc remains the outstanding problem of fiat currencies especially in less developed countries and this seems like a backwards step.It would be better to carve out an initial fixed stake up-front, and then distribute in some manner (maybe delegates) and let Bitshares live or flounder on that basis of work achievable with those funds.Also, many Open-Source projects attract developer talent on the basis of their inherent perceived value of the project - consider Linux,BSD,XOrg,firefox,GNU,apache etc as obvious and high-profile examples.It's certainly true there's a lot of marketing value in head-hunting sought-after candidates.Having delegates inflate their salary into existence is the exact same as having all shareholders pay equally to funding the delegates. From the point of view of how value moves through the system, there is no difference. This is also why tx fees are destroyed rather than paid out to shareholders - the net effect is the same.It is a mistake to compare it to how governments inflate currencies.
I hate the uncertainty inherent in the inflationary model that's been chosen to fund development via giving delegates the power to create new bts. Money creation/quantitative easing etc remains the outstanding problem of fiat currencies especially in less developed countries and this seems like a backwards step.It would be better to carve out an initial fixed stake up-front, and then distribute in some manner (maybe delegates) and let Bitshares live or flounder on that basis of work achievable with those funds.Also, many Open-Source projects attract developer talent on the basis of their inherent perceived value of the project - consider Linux,BSD,XOrg,firefox,GNU,apache etc as obvious and high-profile examples.It's certainly true there's a lot of marketing value in head-hunting sought-after candidates.
Also, many Open-Source projects attract developer talent on the basis of their inherent perceived value of the project - consider Linux,BSD,XOrg,firefox,GNU,apache etc as obvious and high-profile examples.It's certainly true there's a lot of marketing value in head-hunting sought-after candidates.
I want to make clear that by using terms such as "superstar devs" for current outside talent, I'm not actually grading them in a professional manner. I'm not trying to imply, e.g., that they are better than the current team. With the amount of cheerleading I've done for BM and BTS' technical superiority in general, it should be clear that I deeply respect the current team.I'm talking purely in marketing terms, and in terms of longterm stakeholder confidence. The bitcoin community considers amir a superstar, and many will take it very, VERY seriously if he joins us.The eventual coalescation of the entire crypto industry into a giant collaboration on improving BTS will basically be a developer reorganization into the framework that the current team has already built. The current team will most likely become the new industry-wide superstar, and enjoy the reverence people like Gavin and Gmaxwell currently receive.
Quote from: luckybit on October 30, 2014, 10:45:45 pm but a new developer with no community trust or experience should not be given more pay than anyone else with no community trust or experience.Agreed. I doubt that anyone the community didnt trust would be elected, especially to multiple paid delegates. Delegates will have to earn our votes.
but a new developer with no community trust or experience should not be given more pay than anyone else with no community trust or experience.
Quote from: luckybit on October 30, 2014, 11:07:08 pmBy the way, while I respect Amir Taaki a lot as a human being why would you want to target the most controversial developer in the entire industry?Amir Taaki is a superstar, and will attract LOADS of attention. In addition to that then, as you say, he is an extremely capable developer and that's enough to make me not give a damn about his personal opinions. The way I see it dark wallet is basically a non-profit attempt at turning bitcoin into bitshares anyway, so he's already got the vision.
By the way, while I respect Amir Taaki a lot as a human being why would you want to target the most controversial developer in the entire industry?
Pay them to do WHAT? Just cause they are a "top developer". Do you have a project plan? Work breakdown structure?, milestones?, roadmap? You seem to just want to "hire" people and give money to people without clearly identified objectives or measures.
Quote from: arhag on October 30, 2014, 10:57:03 pmQuote from: toast on October 30, 2014, 10:53:39 pmA recent topic of discussion around the office is that usually when people leave good jobs and take lower pay and higher risk, they are compensated with leveraged rewards (equity).What advantage does a developer have working for lower pay on BitShares (getting paid in BTS) versus working for higher pay elsewhere and using a part of their income to buy the BTS? It is an open market.There is no advantage. That's the point. One better materialize soon.
Quote from: toast on October 30, 2014, 10:53:39 pmA recent topic of discussion around the office is that usually when people leave good jobs and take lower pay and higher risk, they are compensated with leveraged rewards (equity).What advantage does a developer have working for lower pay on BitShares (getting paid in BTS) versus working for higher pay elsewhere and using a part of their income to buy the BTS? It is an open market.
A recent topic of discussion around the office is that usually when people leave good jobs and take lower pay and higher risk, they are compensated with leveraged rewards (equity).
Quote from: Rune on October 30, 2014, 10:50:54 pmI agree that we should avoid centralisation, however in this case it is for a VERY good reason = getting the top talent, which is the most important thing for a company in the tech industry.This is one of the few reasons why I strongly support a separation between delegates that run the consensus engine and workers who get paid to further the interests of the DAC. Mixing the two leads to many problems. The only problem is that implementing the separate workers concept requires more code to be written (also it requires stakeholders to come to a consensus on the BitUSD salary of each worker as a collective).
I agree that we should avoid centralisation, however in this case it is for a VERY good reason = getting the top talent, which is the most important thing for a company in the tech industry.
"waiting a few months" for the market cap to go up so we can hire people with a single delegate is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. The thing that will most likely cause our market cap to explode in the first place will be that we're getting the top talent. If we can't starting getting the top talent instantly, we can't grow our market cap exponentially within a few months.
I disagree. Why promote centralization for no good reason?If delegates are paid for by dilution then there is plenty of incentive for developers.What about non-developers? They are important too.
Until BTS' market cap has swallowed all other crypto currencies the pay a BTS delegate can offer is still not competitive. I think the way we will take bitcoins market cap is by headhunting all their developers, it will cause so much controversy and attention in the community that they will be unable to avoid researching and finally understanding us. In fact, I think simply annoucing to the industry that we're going to hire all the good developers in the space, will render them unable to ignore us. If they understand the economics involved, and understand we will always be able to pay a higher fair market rate for a good developer (since we will get their skills applied fully to improve the blockchain, AND we will gain publicity from the move), then they will understand the inevitability of our dominance.IMO it is plausible to get the entire crypto market cap in 3 months if we all work together in this mass decentralized headhunting of top talent. Every holder of coins will intuitively know that their coins aren't worth more than the developers currently maintaining and improving them. If they see the talent siphoning off, their demand will follow. Or even better, they will rage on whine publicly on forums about us, causing us to gain even more attention. However we cannot really begin this if top developers have to make due with 50 BTS per block. I like the 50 BTS cap, but I think it is vital we can offer a competitive pay to _anyone_ who shows interest (and is worth it), and we should be ready to offer even, say, Gavin 20% more than his current salary if he joins us. Imagine what would happen to our market cap if Gavin publicly announced he would step down from the BF and join bitshares as a delegate. Even if we had to pay him something outrageous like 80k per month it would still be an insanely good investment, and if it later turned out he simply wasn't that good a developer we could vote him out again. The DAC should be able to do anything that it determines is profitable.But before we can get started with it, we/I need the forums blessing that we/I can go offer developers more than 2,5k in salary without causing a shitstorm here if they sign up for more than two delegates (the pay I "offer" will just be an example in my opening spiel when trying to headhunt them). In fact even if I don't get the "blessing" I will still do it, but then I'll just have the shitstorm happen now rather than in the delegate-developers application thread. Once people see the massive market cap increase some celebrity developer signing up would cause, I think all the concerns about multiple delegates will disappear. In fact just the effect of them signing up might on its own be enough to render the need for several delegates unnecessary. Still we need to be prepared to be flexible.I personally plan to target Amir Taaki first, as I think out of all people he's probably the one who deserves to work directly for the blockchain the most. Also he's currently being slapped in the face with the hard reality that bitcoin development isn't sustainable on a daily basis, and will understand the value proposition of BTS quickly.
Let me try to simplify it into core concept points.1) Algorithmic hiring via smart contracts: This means the shareholders define a "policy" and this "policy" has an objective which must be met in order for an entity matching the "attributes" to receive the "automatic votes" to be made a delegate.2) Attributes: This includes the criteria that the policy is looking for. So if the criteria is referrals as part of a marketing smart contract then the contract will only say the attributes are met when and if they surpass a certain amount of referrals to win the votes as a reward.3) Hired: This is what occurs whenever the attributes are reached and the terms of the contract are met. This means any random person could refer a bunch of people and the moment they pass the threshold within a specific time period (or unlimited time period) then they are approved by the contract. Once this happens the contract gives them all the automatic votes necessary to make them into a delegate.I hope these concept points are enough to make it understood what I mean. The result of these ideas should be a system where we give out votes to smart contracts instead of delegates. The smart contracts would then give out votes to whichever delegates match our criteria and automatically fire those delegates by removing votes when they don't meet the terms of the contract.