I consider this model screwed up.
Let's talk about the very last development.
The *Fisherman* donates to you 1mil PLAY tokens.
You are more than happy to promote him because of that.... And you just do not care if he screwed up the biggest believers in BTS/DPOS.
So, I have to donate the same amount to get the same exposure? I do not care about such system.
I have nobody to screw up for 50 Mill, so I cannot donate 1mill to you;
So I am no good?...
Hope you get it TheNuts...
TK
OMG...tonyK , you still on this topic ?
I hate to break this to you , even if the original plan wasn't going to give share to the Long and Short orders , the 35% for BTS is still the same , just divided by different BTSer . So , if you think someone's benefiting from the original plan , it wasn't fuzz , it was the other BTSer who didn't long and short . The 35% for BTS is still the same amount no matter the plan allocate the 35% to whom.
If somehow it was stealing (which it wasn't) , it was one BTSer to another BTSer , not to fuzz .
So , would you please let Fuzz off the hook ?
Right WildPid,
It is still the same:
Great believers: 0%
Average holders: +500%
AS long as those 2 categories add up to 100% we are fine? NO?
OK if not the stolen funds (or at least 1% of them are donated to fuzz to make this allocation sound GREAAAAT)
PS
Do not play dump WildPig, you know full well what is going on.
Since this is apparently important enough to Tony to hijack this thread with something that is not even on point, let me clear this up.
The funds I was "given" are specifically for a tournament that provides rewards for users to do
outreach (aka work) outside our community to build their own team. This means they have to recruit (aka work) and practice playing a game to have a chance at the final pot.
These funds were
Designated for this kind of thing...so it is not "stealing" from you. Out of all people, Tony, it is actually getting frustrating for you to use that word with me. I have stolen nothing from you---in fact I have worked my ass off for a total of 15 hours already just editing the 2 hangouts between Hackfisher and the community (and been paid nothing for it). It will also require me to likely make a website, embed a twitch.tv stream among other things (all coming out of pocket) to allow people to watch. There is far more to this than meets the eye...so please, please stop calling this stealing or I might actually---finally get pissed off and start using similar wording with you.
P.S. If you would like to
work for a chance at receiving some of these "stolen" funds, please do so and I will gladly help you out. I will also make sure keep the record of events open and transparent for all involved. I will likely be working too much on the behind the scenes to have this opportunity myself, unfortunately, so I suppose those stolen funds will not benefit me in any significant way... :/ Damn I am a bad thief...
ok , dig dirt is a strong word ....It'ts better called "tough audit".
Tough audits are fine. What I'm worried about is seeing a lot of baseless or irrelevant accusations made that waste a lot of time for people. aka politics.
Politics is a central aspect of this system. We either choose that or Rule by Machine. I choose to let it get dirty and force people to evolve to the changing environment as opposed to giving them more of a reason to be "apathetic"...
We have a choice moving forward into the future with this technology---are people going to control it or is it going to control people? I choose the first option.
Before this goes further, Tony was using it as an example of what can happen when you do kickbacks and how things can be misconstrued.
If someone gives Fuzz 1 million play shares (even if fuz turns around and gives them all away) then there is a problem that Fuzz might unfairly stick up for this person. Tony used a real life example I think, but I don't think he is blaming Fuzz for anything directly. It is all an attack on Hackfisher's decision on the nature of the BTS drop.
If I turn around and unfairly stick up for a person, that doesn't keep anyone else from standing up and stating their points...or giving facts that prove me wrong. In fact, the Mumble Server is probably one of the BEST places in this entire ecosystem to bring this stuff up because you can be certain it is me and not some shell account.
Though I understand everyone's concern...these delegate slates are eventually going to give kickbacks (read
incentives) anyway---but most likely they will not be transparent as I am trying to be.
I do NOT have the time to run a damned delegate. I do not have the technical expertise to run it at scale. If I focus my efforts on this, I lose time to do the other stuff I and my team are providing the community--and have been providing since before most people even arrived here.
Before this goes further, Tony was using it as an example of what can happen when you do kickbacks and how things can be misconstrued.
If someone gives Fuzz 1 million play shares (even if fuz turns around and gives them all away) then there is a problem that Fuzz might unfairly stick up for this person. Tony used a real life example I think, but I don't think he is blaming Fuzz for anything directly. It is all an attack on Hackfisher's decision on the nature of the BTS drop.
so , we can change the slate to a different dynamic .
The slate act like a media , no bias what so ever , just take donation , and promote the ideas of the delegates . If a delegate Toast wants to promote , the slate can help him ; If another delegate wants to dig dirt on Toast , the slate can help him to gather down votes to kick Toast out thus the delegate can be moved up by default .
Is this better ? just like all the televisions in political elections .
I don't think you are following the conversation in the same way I am. Tony is arguing against paying people for spots on their slate. Fuz has a point that this will happen behind the scenes anyway in the longrun, so his transparent uhh donation requests do nothing harmful. Everyone else is disliking the precedent set by this which appears to be in agreement with you.
It's easy to solve this problem ... multiple slates , people can choose what slate they want to follow , the one slate owner can be bought and paid for , but there are 50,100+ different slate owners , there will be competition amount slates , force most of the slate owners to do the right thing .
Just like media competition , do you even worry about some "good guy" they said on TV isn't that good at all ? No worries , if the guy wasn't good , other TV media would dig that to make their news .
This is exactly my point right...here ^
However...in order to do this, we need to make it COMPLETELY accessible for anyone to have a delegate slate set up and easily put into their forum signature or embedded on their personal websites.
I recently read a thread on voter apathy:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11379.0 This is precisely the kind of thing that will fix that. We can even have delegate hangouts and enable people like TonyK to do hit-pieces on people (and even get paid for it if community members believe what he is saying is easily backed up by facts!)
But the fact remains. People do not have to vote for this slate...having a slate
diversifies my risk while making it so I do not have to depend on any single person to run a delegate for me (which could also put me in a very bad position), or choose to step away completely (because without doing what I am currently doing, I will have no chance of getting in a delegate spot anyway).
Of course, this does not mean that people HAVE to "pay me" to be on the Mumble Delegate Slot, but if they are genuinely ethical individuals (Riverhead comes to mind) and want their delegate to be seen as one of the EPIC Foundational delegates that supported the open Town Hall format discussions and the vast (freely available--to anyone) Historical Archive of our open source revolution that it will someday represent, then it is a very good investment to donate to the project.
The "tipping" model doesn't work (if you have tipped me, please let me know because I am only aware of 3-4 people over the past year), and the current voting model does not work. I recently turned down a job making twice as much as I currently make but I turned it down because it would leave a pretty terrible void with the current absense of marketing (which is why the Mumble was brought online in the first place---for those who were not here at the time). I love this community and want to help it in any way I can, but I do need to keep the beasts at home at bay and prove that all this effort has started bearing fruit (at some point in the next couple months).
I see no difference in letting someone run a delegate for me or having people donate a slight amount every month (which will likely give me LESS than running my own delegate overall, mind you) and having a delegate slate that rewards those who pass the community's smell test.
If people dislike one of the choices, I have no doubt they will rake and claw against the audio recorder during mumble sessions until they are heard. They will be able to give their reasons (facts) and the community can choose to openly say "i am going to downvote that person". I assure you if this happens and I receive a great deal of this kind of input, then the person will quickly be taken off the slate (why the hell would I keep them on if their being there destroys the trust I have gained?)