0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
less than 8 days left for the AGS snapshot .. maybe we should organize some crypto marketing to get PTS rise a little ... or maybe not
Quote from: xeroc on September 29, 2014, 06:43:48 amThe shares of the music DAC (called Notes) will be issued out with 45% going to BitShares PTS holders, 45% going to BitShares AGS holders and 10% going to the BitShares Music Foundation. yhea!tonyk rules !!!
The shares of the music DAC (called Notes) will be issued out with 45% going to BitShares PTS holders, 45% going to BitShares AGS holders and 10% going to the BitShares Music Foundation. yhea!
I hear your concerns. I will start a new discussion on another proposed way to do it which I think would be best for everyone involved in the DAC. Let me start typing! gimme an few minutes (:
Quote from: arhag on September 29, 2014, 04:59:25 amI like using dilution to fund these important expenses (development, marketing, legal, etc.), but I really dislike bytemaster's solution to this.Quote from: cob on September 29, 2014, 03:59:43 amThis new version, which will be spearheaded and tested by BitShares Music, will allow delegates to make more than just the transaction fees, they will be able to do additional rounds of funding, as long as the shareholders agree and vote for it.As long as they vote for it indirectly. I've discussed my concerns with this method here. I think dilution is a big deal that we shouldn't just allow to happen because a delegate was voted up to top 101 ranks. This should be a decision that I believe requires majority shareholder consensus. Also, I don't like that the delegates get to decide how to distribute the funds. I think it is best to keep the role of the delegates as minimal as possible: just what is necessary to keep the network running, votes updated, and generally maintaining consensus in the blockchain. We should just vote for delegates that we trust enough to keep the network operating and to not collude to break the consensus, do double-spends, etc. Even trusting them with price feeds is pushing the limit but is acceptable for now. I believe everything else, particularly deciding how to use funds for the betterment of the DAC and ecosystem, should be delegated to other entities (decided through proposals that are ratified by shareholder vote) who are specialized to handle that role. So, I would like to see the ability for the shareholders to vote directly on proposals and require majority consensus anytime we change the rules of how quickly the money supply can be inflated (or even if we want to print a lump sum of stake to cover unexpected expenses, e.g. legal costs). Other proposals, such as how and who to distribute this printed money to, could be changed with less than majority consensus if desired in order to avoid gridlock on quickly making important decisions. I agree 100% with this. I really don't have the feeling that this system is ready and it could put the whole Music DAC at risk.I outlined my position in more detail https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9452.msg122943#msg122943A system like this needs a lot more discussion before it is ready for use in "the wild".
I like using dilution to fund these important expenses (development, marketing, legal, etc.), but I really dislike bytemaster's solution to this.Quote from: cob on September 29, 2014, 03:59:43 amThis new version, which will be spearheaded and tested by BitShares Music, will allow delegates to make more than just the transaction fees, they will be able to do additional rounds of funding, as long as the shareholders agree and vote for it.As long as they vote for it indirectly. I've discussed my concerns with this method here. I think dilution is a big deal that we shouldn't just allow to happen because a delegate was voted up to top 101 ranks. This should be a decision that I believe requires majority shareholder consensus. Also, I don't like that the delegates get to decide how to distribute the funds. I think it is best to keep the role of the delegates as minimal as possible: just what is necessary to keep the network running, votes updated, and generally maintaining consensus in the blockchain. We should just vote for delegates that we trust enough to keep the network operating and to not collude to break the consensus, do double-spends, etc. Even trusting them with price feeds is pushing the limit but is acceptable for now. I believe everything else, particularly deciding how to use funds for the betterment of the DAC and ecosystem, should be delegated to other entities (decided through proposals that are ratified by shareholder vote) who are specialized to handle that role. So, I would like to see the ability for the shareholders to vote directly on proposals and require majority consensus anytime we change the rules of how quickly the money supply can be inflated (or even if we want to print a lump sum of stake to cover unexpected expenses, e.g. legal costs). Other proposals, such as how and who to distribute this printed money to, could be changed with less than majority consensus if desired in order to avoid gridlock on quickly making important decisions.
This new version, which will be spearheaded and tested by BitShares Music, will allow delegates to make more than just the transaction fees, they will be able to do additional rounds of funding, as long as the shareholders agree and vote for it.