The idea is, that nothing changes for people who don't care for it. You don't have to participate at all, and bts as you know it will continue w/ the exact same function that you know and love. This is simply a referral mechanism.
interesting. "Eliminate the need to pay any marketing delegates through dilution." <---this says otherwise in my mind and I know of people who are considered marketing delegates who are doing some pretty cool stuff. Robrigo and Matt608 come to mind at present, who run local meetup groups. BitScape and Roadscape who are currently on the Peer-to-Peer road trip to make a BitShares MiniDocumentary. Are you saying that Eliminating the need to pay these people would change nothing?
A factory owner in say China says to his workers…. From now on I am paying you all in bitCNY. I have purchased a bitshres ATM and placed it in the lobby so everyone can redeem their pay for cash when ever they want. The factory owner makes money on the ATM spreads, and the fees generated by his employees for 20 years, but that that will take too long. He holds a meeting for his employees and explains the Earner status option. His profits from the signups pay for the ATM in the first week and he now has an army of employees who are out introducing bitshares to local merchants so they can spend their wages their and so they can earn commissions.
how? it doesn't change anything about DPoS. Saying it "is as far away from the original philosophy" is quite theatrical.
I don't understand why you think my opinion is theatrical, but you are welcome to your opinion! Forcing people to use bitCNY feels a little bit like a departure from voluntarily usage.
Should I not post my concerns here? Oh and btw...I DID recognize that this would be very effective in another post here...so don't think I'm just trying to rag on the idea! I'm actually very glad to have Max thinking about these things! Plus he is good at it!
Not only have I agreed with the value of a system that does this, I have directed everyone to see a system that is very similar and would not look like a pyramid scheme because it cuts the "pyramid" at 3 deep. If we are worried about negative PR (which lord knows these days we apparently are walking on egg-shells), then we should be very careful how "competitors" might use this against us. Of course, if it is effective then I say let them say whatever they want....
Wait for what? This is about as grassroots/organic as you can get. To me, saying that, is the equivalent of saying don't build a bitshares website because we want to wait for some grassroots, or don't tell your neighbors about bitshares because we're waiting on grassroots, don't do meetups or advertise yet... just wait for the grassroots.
See above. Like Max said, he invites open discussion! Just because I have an opinion doesn't mean it is right. It also doesn't mean I'm going to be afraid to state it. I'd rather state it and be wrong than not state it and be right---my history in BitShares has taught me that lesson more than once now. My primary concern is the incentive for Large Organizations like mentioned above forcing people to use our system so they can get a cut for 20 years. This just screams at me *danger*
Again I don't think this changes anything remotely core w/ DPoS.
I don't think the delegate is necessary.
The 20 years can be debated, throw some numbers around, see what happens. Someone mentioned perhaps a $1 per year up to $20 for 20 years, I thought that was interesting.
I have thrown some numbers around (but you have ignored them for some reason...can i ask why?) 3-5 years seems to be plenty.
... why not 250 mil, or 500 mil, or 2 mil, 10 mil, ... RndNum()
Max's contract is that he gets a % of BitShare's marketcap increases everytime the marketcap doubles. Unfortunately, when Max signed this contract our marketcap was probably somewhere around 60 million, which would mean that he will only get paid when BitShares' marketcap is 120 million. @Max if this is incorrect please let me know.
This means that literally everything Max has been doing has been completely out of pocket. Considering his contract was not an indefinite one (it will end at some point), if the marketcap does not go up by that time he will have lost money for working for the BitShares blockchain for the duration of the contract. I do not know all the details of said contract, so I can't be certain all the way, but the reason I mentioned this was because the more I think about it, the more I feel bad for the situation Max is in. Max is part of our community, and I care about our community. That is the basis for what I said.
I don't think this divides anyone working on the project over incentives. Nobody would be forced to use it. Everyone could use it if they so desired. How is that dividing.
We all have access to the same platform, we are all able to do anything any other user is able to. The incentives are the same for everyone. (with the exception of someone who simply does not have access to that kind of start-up capital [$20] ) This is like saying adding a mail client in bitshares unnecessarily divides the community because we should all use the memo field and wall burn to keep us all on the same page.
If Max has a contract like the one above, and other delegates are marketing BitShares based off of a completely different incentive structure...it necessarily changes the dynamics so Max has to consider options that are quite a bit more controversial than the marketing delegates do. This in my mind actually puts
Max in a worse position than those running delegates without contracts like Max's. If you have two people doing the same job with completely different incentives, I don't see how there can be complete harmony. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm open to suggestions...
This is as grass roots as it gets. Nothing will happen if nobody decides to use it.
No reason to stop getting merchants to sign on, keep doing that.
"constructed without the knowledge or input of the community" -- This is nothing official, its just an idea. We are here now talking about it in the "community"... Welcome.
I am not altogether against this and it is awesome Max is the kind of person who is open to hearing opinions. I am actually giving them in hopes of trying to help all parties walk away happy. My biggest concern is the idea that someone should earn tx fees from a person for 20 years if they referred them. That is a very
very long time. Of course, Max's point here is pretty valid:
You put a pile of bananas in the middle of the room the monkeys will grab for them.. you could create a lot of excitement off the back of it. What's to lose?
,and Solavei's model:
seems to really make it possible to "ethically" keep that payout flowing indefinitely (as opposed to 3, 5, 10, 20 years...etc) and really quells some of my original fears...which is why I pointed it out earlier.