Rejected.
If this economy model is so good, why GDEX didn't use it on GDEX? The GDP economy model of GDEX has been failure long long time ago, if this economy model was so good as bitcrab's description, why GDEX didn't spend money to do it in GDEX? it can't make GDEX become more better or greater?
MM spend too much but get very little. The recent MM last a long time, the organizer of MM and committee didn't give the detail data until now, how much did the MM spend totally? how many new users increase? how many daily users have in each trading pairs? how to evaluate these result?
And the fund of last MM didn't have a vote by bts holders, why did the committee spend thess money without the approval of bts holders, the committee should give a explanation.
The source of fund of bsip86 has legal risk, the committee didn't give a explanation to bts holders.
The last MM almost was controlled by the designer of MM,the committee almost didn't have the ability to control the MM.
This BSIP give the committee a very bid power of using fund, this is very dangerous, it will make the transfer of benifit become very easily,and it will be very easily out of control.
The committee always didn't follow the vote result of bts holders, there has a destruction proposal, the committee did not obey this proposal!
反对.
如果这个经济模型这么好,为什么GDEX不自己采用?GDEX的GDP似乎很早就失败了吧,试问,GDEX给GDP赋能了吗?!如果这个经济模型如描述的那么好,难道GDEX不应该自己先采用吗?它难道不能使GDEX变得更好?
交易大赛花费远远大于所得,上一次大赛的时间也不短,大赛组织者与理事会并没有给出具体数据,大赛总花费多少,新用户增量多少?日活人数多少?
而且上一次大赛资金的支出并没有经过bts.持有人投票,理事会需要对此做出说明,理事会依据什么规则花费了这笔资金?
大赛的资金来源BSIP86存有法律问题,理事会并没有对此跟bts持有人做出解释说明.
这个提案给了理事会非常大的资金权力,利益输送变得非常容易, 而且极易失控。
上一个交易大赛已经出现了,设计者控制大赛的情况,理事会几无控制权。
理事会经常不遵守bts持有人的投票结果,现在有一个销毁提案,理事会并没有按照提案内容严格执行。