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.
It was a blatant violation of the social contract. PTS holders are no longer entitled to 10% of future DACs. Can't expect people to just let that go. I agree with the change it was necessary, but it did affect some folks, it will leave a scar regardless.
False. PTS and AGS continue to represent the exact same demographics as always and developers have the same motivation to target them with air drops. We continue to recommend that the community insist on that behavior from developers seeking their support. And PTS and AGS holders also naturally benefit from all efforts to grow the value of BTS.
I find it ridiculous that any time someone asks a critical question they get the feeling as if they just stirred a hornet's nest. I think the questions alpha Bar is asking are healthy let's not alienate critical thinking.I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.
We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely. Not only that, but we are arguing against using our very own product to make it happen. No rational person could argue that this is unfair. If you're a developer, you get Dan or 2 other devs to sign off on your vest every month. Simple, effective, and completely obvious. Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.
Outside of your issues with Dan giving grants to developers, "performance-based compensation" has not been "abandoned completely".
I'm really starting to question your motives. You say so many things that it almost seems you're more about the FUD than the truth.
How can this be FUD? These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...
Have it your way. If choosing to view it as a year-end bonus for their roles in implementing the Crypto Product of the Year makes it acceptable in your sight, then having it done in such a way that also incentivizes continued support of the product ought to make you ecstatic. On top of it all there are tax planning aspects and transition to the new developer funding model and the associated renegotiation of their original hiring packages that must be considered. It is not customary to make any such compensation package negotiations public, beyond a simple transparent declaration of what is being done.
You guys don't understand how Yubikey works. It requires a centralized server that knows the secret and verifies it. Not that it can't be done with crypto, but you will still need to put your trust in a centralized entity. I'd much rather have an app that receives all transaction details over the net and shows it to you on your phone, where you can then decide whether to sign it or not. So even if your PC is compromised you never ever have your private keys exposed on it.
bitmeat, I don't think Yubikey needs a centralized server. It works with KeePass and doesn't require a centralized server, you just had to install a KeePass plugin.
Here is the source to the plugin - http://keepass.info/extensions/v2/otpkeyprov/OtpKeyProv-2.3-Source.zip
Maybe someone could take a look at the source and implement it in Bitshares ... it is written in Visual C#
