BitShares Forum
Main => Stakeholder Proposals => Topic started by: xeroc on December 28, 2015, 07:30:12 am
-
Hey friends and shareholders,
since it happened to me to be a proxy, I would like to keep you informed about proxy decisions in this thread.
For those that have net set me as their proxy and are wondering why I vote for my own worker proposal:
7 Days ago I have contacted all shareholders that have me set as their proxy and sent them the following
message (hosted at github.com/xeroc/worker-proposal):
Dear Shareholder,
you receive this message because you have set the account "xeroc" as your voting
proxy in BitShares.
First, of all, I would like to thank you for the confidence and trust you have
in me.
However, I see the need to inform you about the decision I made to vote for my
own worker proposal going forward. You can find the details of it in
[github](https://github.com/xeroc/worker-proposals). In summary, the current
proposal would pay me roughly 3000€ for 20h/week of work during January and
February. After that time, a new proposal will be made with similar pay (Euro
denominated) to keep my BitShares related work funded. It is of great importance
to me to let you know about this conflicting interests!
To give you enough time to reconsider and change your voting proxy, I will *not*
vote for my proposal until Monday next week (28th of December).
Sincerely Yours
-- Fabian Schuh a.k.a. xeroc
---
This message has been signed with PGP. The cryptographic signature can be found
in this git repository and you can verify it with `gpg --verify followers.md.sig`.
Today is 28th of December and as such, I will set my vote accordingly.
If you have me set as your proxy and do NOT agree with this you can still remove me as your proxy because my
vote will only be counted by the end of the day (maintenance interval).
-
Good move.. very responsible! +5%
-
Please consider voting against this proposal since it's wrong:
1.14.8 Bitshares UI Project Manager
-
I have changed my votes for committee members to show support for those that actively participate in the fee schedule discussion behind the scenes.
That said, I am quite disappointed by those that I voted down that they have not voiced their opinion neither via telegram, nor via forum, or github.
Furthermore, since @alt seems to be quite aggressive when it comes to paying for workers, I am now rejecting refund/burn workers to so that we can keep the development going.
@alt, keep in mind that your current vote for my worker will result in me having to get a regular job which will certainly take 40h+/week.
With that, I will not be able to contribute to BitShares as I do now (if at all).
-
I have changed my votes for committee members to show support for those that actively participate in the fee schedule discussion behind the scenes.
That said, I am quite disappointed by those that I voted down that they have not voiced their opinion neither via telegram, nor via forum, or github.
Furthermore, since @alt seems to be quite aggressive when it comes to paying for workers, I am now rejecting refund/burn workers to so that we can keep the development going.
@alt, keep in mind that your current vote for my worker will result in me having to get a regular job which will certainly take 40h+/week.
With that, I will not be able to contribute to BitShares as I do now (if at all).
@xeroc Please vote for the refund or burn workers.
IT'S DANGEROUS NOW.
By now, the refund worker which got highest votes is refund400k (113,325,926 BTS), which means any whale or group of whales or group of proxies who have more than 113K voting power is able to vote in a worker and steal funds from the reserve pool IMMEDIATELY. There is a flaw in the worker system, see https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565. We(proxies and stake holders) can't all keep watching the worker list 24 hours.
-
Would you create an proposal to create an Ethereum Smartcoin?
Actually I would like to see all Top10 cryptos based on volume as Smartcoins on the DEX.
We need to position the DEX as a real alternative.
-
Would you create an proposal to create an Ethereum Smartcoin?
Actually I would like to see all Top10 cryptos based on volume as Smartcoins on the DEX.
We need to position the DEX as a real alternative.
I don't think we have the liquidity to create AND trade ETH smartcoins in BTS just yet ..
-
Would you create an proposal to create an Ethereum Smartcoin?
Actually I would like to see all Top10 cryptos based on volume as Smartcoins on the DEX.
We need to position the DEX as a real alternative.
I don't think we have the liquidity to create AND trade ETH smartcoins in BTS just yet ..
I do think an ETH sidechain is the best approach. Before that, we already have exchange issued IOUs.
-
Hello @xeroc .. I think we should vote to refund @jonnybitcoin $2.8k for the social media accounts... these channels should then be handed over to the committe.
-
Hello @xeroc .. I think we should vote to refund @JonnyBitcoin $2.8k for the social media accounts... these channels should then be handed over to the committe.
@hcf27 Proxies can vote if there is a worker created.
-
Hello @xeroc .. I think we should vote to refund @JonnyBitcoin $2.8k for the social media accounts... these channels should then be handed over to the committe.
@hcf27 Proxies can vote if there is a worker created.
Yes, worker will be created soon on this issue
-
Update:
- Approved the bitARS worker since they seem to work hard to get an ARS smartcoin and only ask for the asset creation fee. It would have been slightly better if they used a multisignature account, but I trust elmato
-
Update:
- Approved the bitARS worker since they seem to work hard to get an ARS smartcoin and only ask for the asset creation fee. It would have been slightly better if they used a multisignature account, but I trust elmato
I urge against doing so. It is not a matter of trust but a matter of doing it right. IMHO, this has to be done right and the account should _at least_ be a multisig one with a number of independent and respected community members holding the keys.
-
Update:
- Approved the bitARS worker since they seem to work hard to get an ARS smartcoin and only ask for the asset creation fee. It would have been slightly better if they used a multisignature account, but I trust elmato
I urge against doing so. It is not a matter of trust but a matter of doing it right. IMHO, this has to be done right and the account should _at least_ be a multisig one with a number of independent and respected community members holding the keys.
Agreed.
-
Update:
- Approved the bitARS worker since they seem to work hard to get an ARS smartcoin and only ask for the asset creation fee. It would have been slightly better if they used a multisignature account, but I trust elmato
I urge against doing so. It is not a matter of trust but a matter of doing it right. IMHO, this has to be done right and the account should _at least_ be a multisig one with a number of independent and respected community members holding the keys.
Agreed.
@ElMato: To fix this, we could ask you to add the committee-account as a secondary account to your active AND owner key of the `elmato` account. Give your own keys and committee-account a weight of 1 and set a threshold of two .. After payout (e.g. the creation of the asset), the committee can then approve its own removal from your account permissions.
It has another advantage, namely, the whole committee can review the creation of the smartcoin and identify issuers prior to its creation.
Would that work for you? It seems you could get more approval if you do it that way.
-
Update:
- Approved the bitARS worker since they seem to work hard to get an ARS smartcoin and only ask for the asset creation fee. It would have been slightly better if they used a multisignature account, but I trust elmato
I urge against doing so. It is not a matter of trust but a matter of doing it right. IMHO, this has to be done right and the account should _at least_ be a multisig one with a number of independent and respected community members holding the keys.
Agreed.
@ElMato: To fix this, we could ask you to add the committee-account as a secondary account to your active AND owner key of the `elmato` account. Give your own keys and committee-account a weight of 1 and set a threshold of two .. After payout (e.g. the creation of the asset), the committee can then approve its own removal from your account permissions.
It has another advantage, namely, the whole committee can review the creation of the smartcoin and identify issuers prior to its creation.
Would that work for you? It seems you could get more approval if you do it that way.
We knew there was a trust issue involved if we created the worker, this is why we wanted the Committe to create it for us.
It does seem logical to have created the worker from a multisig account, however this was not brought forward (at least to me) and therefore we delegated @ElMato to do the task since we thought he was the oldest and best known member of our team (he also runs an active witness node).
Having said this, I don´t think there will be a problem in giving committe-account permissions until the asset is created and transferred, I will speak with the team and with @ElMato to get this done as soon as possible.
-
Update:
- Approved the bitARS worker since they seem to work hard to get an ARS smartcoin and only ask for the asset creation fee. It would have been slightly better if they used a multisignature account, but I trust elmato
I urge against doing so. It is not a matter of trust but a matter of doing it right. IMHO, this has to be done right and the account should _at least_ be a multisig one with a number of independent and respected community members holding the keys.
Agreed.
@ElMato: To fix this, we could ask you to add the committee-account as a secondary account to your active AND owner key of the `elmato` account. Give your own keys and committee-account a weight of 1 and set a threshold of two .. After payout (e.g. the creation of the asset), the committee can then approve its own removal from your account permissions.
It has another advantage, namely, the whole committee can review the creation of the smartcoin and identify issuers prior to its creation.
Would that work for you? It seems you could get more approval if you do it that way.
We knew there was a trust issue involved if we created the worker, this is why we wanted the Committe to create it for us.
It does seem logical to have created the worker from a multisig account, however this was not brought forward (at least to me) and therefore we delegated @ElMato to do the task since we thought he was the oldest and best known member of our team (he also runs an active witness node).
Having said this, I don´t think there will be a problem in giving committe-account permissions until the asset is created and transferred, I will speak with the team and with @ElMato to get this done as soon as possible.
@xeroc, done.
elmato account now has:
committee-account added to owner authority, threshold 2.
committee-account added to active authority, threshold 1 (for some reason the change didn't go through, so there is a proposed transaction to change the threshold for the committee to approve)
http://cryptofresh.com/tx/38d1fecba84685ea9938668b37909753a9177567
-
Update:
- Approved the bitARS worker since they seem to work hard to get an ARS smartcoin and only ask for the asset creation fee. It would have been slightly better if they used a multisignature account, but I trust elmato
I urge against doing so. It is not a matter of trust but a matter of doing it right. IMHO, this has to be done right and the account should _at least_ be a multisig one with a number of independent and respected community members holding the keys.
Agreed.
@ElMato: To fix this, we could ask you to add the committee-account as a secondary account to your active AND owner key of the `elmato` account. Give your own keys and committee-account a weight of 1 and set a threshold of two .. After payout (e.g. the creation of the asset), the committee can then approve its own removal from your account permissions.
It has another advantage, namely, the whole committee can review the creation of the smartcoin and identify issuers prior to its creation.
Would that work for you? It seems you could get more approval if you do it that way.
Better use another account. `elmato` is an active witness, adding committee-account to the permission list will cause trouble in case when need to change signing key or something.
-
out of the current committee, two have never joined any discussion or tried to contact the rest of the committee.
If you can come up with good proposals for committee member, I would love to support some fresh air in the committee.
In the meantime I will keep my voting for people that are at least active in discussions.
Hence: If you feel fit for a committee position and would like to participate in decision finding, please create a committee proposal and let me know
-
Xeroc you are really needed in this.community...as Iam new here.....can you explain to me with this proposal to pay you where the funds come from?
I really think you are very important to this project n deserv to be rewarded n we cant stop
-
Xeroc you are really needed in this.community...as Iam new here.....can you explain to me with this proposal to pay you where the funds come from?
I really think you are very important to this project n deserv to be rewarded n we cant stop
Thanks. I am still part of this community and still put a lot of time into improving the BitShares ecosystem.
Anyway, this thread is for me being a "proxy", which doesn't pay me anything. The proxy account is called "xeroc" and is only used to delegate voting power to me.
The worker (called "pay.xeroc") is probably what you mean. It is payed by BitShares' reserves (http://cryptofresh.com/reserve). It is essentially identical to non-mines bitcoins. Just that the shareholders decide who gets how many.
-
I dont know how to see if bts is a profitable company....probably not but if people start using it will........
Is it unrealistic to ask like 1000 for maintenance, support, etc.... N work on improvment, features, like stealth have a target, goal, dates, budgets.....
I dont think is fair you work for free.....maybe there is a midterm btween love belief n food on the table
-
Quick update: since @Chris4210 (which I met personally in Amsterdam) stood up to become a committee member, I replaced mindphlux in my approval list by Chris' committee account.
Further, since I see the need for high quality UN-BRANDED informational video material, I approved @Chronos worker proposal.
-
Quick update: since @Chris4210 (which I met personally in Amsterdam) stood up to become a committee member, I replaced mindphlux in my approval list by Chris' committee account.
Further, since I see the need for high quality UN-BRANDED informational video material, I approved @Chronos worker proposal.
thank you Xeroc for your support!
-
I have decided to NOT approve the bitCNY-settlement worker for these reasons:
- On many places, we have advertised a settlement at 100% the price feed, not 99%
- We do not know if an offset will improve the peg (though we won't know until we try - we can try with a new asset like TCNY though)
- IMHO shorters shouldn't make a profit from settlement as their position doesn't change
- shorters instead DO make a profit from selling borrowed bitassets into the market at a premium
- settlement should be considered a rare operation and instead of asking for a "variable fee" (settlement offset), settlements could be discouraged by an increased flat fee on settlement (fess go to BTS shareholders)
Please note: Even if I disapprove the worker, I do have to follow the shareholders' vote on the worker. If the worker finds/keeps sufficient approval until its expiration, I will still need to approve the committee-proposal!
-
I have decided to NOT approve the bitCNY-settlement worker for these reasons:
Thanks!
Please note: Even if I disapprove the worker, I do have to follow the shareholders' vote on the worker. If the worker finds/keeps sufficient approval until its expiration, I will still need to approve the committee-proposal!
Huh? Since when has a worker proposal been binding for committee members?
I'd thought in our governance model committee members form their own opinion and vote accordingly on committee proposals. Shareholders vote indirectly on proposals by voting on committee members who support their own opinion.
Edit: please keep in mind that the worker proposal would be rejected if you were voting for the refund worker. Your voting for the refund worker would of course have the side effect of pushing other worker proposals out. Which proves that the results for worker voting are not meaningful for making policy decisions.
-
Edit: please keep in mind that the worker proposal would be rejected if you were voting for the refund worker. Your voting for the refund worker would of course have the side effect of pushing other worker proposals out. Which proves that the results for worker voting are not meaningful for making policy decisions.
I created a "no changes to CNY settlement" worker to collect votes that are against the proposal: "1.14.40"
That way, I don't need to approve the burn/refund worker
-
Since I currently can't find the required time to upgrade the docs and to also reduce the dilution slightly, I have decided to vote down my own "documentation/support" worker.
-
+1
Glad to see that Integrity still has a meaning!
-
Update: I have added my support to @svk's new worker. He has done a tremendous work with the GUI already and I am looking forward to see many more great improvements!
-
I have decided to NOT approve the bitCNY-settlement worker for these reasons:
Since this is your proxy thread not your committee thread - will you unvote those committee members currently voting for the proposal?
If I read the numbers correctly your indirect vote for the proposal as a proxy currently has much higher weight than your committee vote alone would have.
-
There are a few reasons to not un-approve those committee members that support bitcrab's proposal:
* Lack of alternatives: There simply are not many people around that want to be a committee member just now and I don't want to have people in the committee that don't even participate in the forums or slack
* Dictatorship: With the 150M voting power my proxy currently has, I need to be more careful about what I do. This is still a decentralized decision finding process and I have cast my voted already to not support the proposal. That does not imply that I do not support the committee members.
Your post makes me think about whether it makes sense to step down as a committee member as it leaves me at a conflict of interest (as you can see)
Anyway, thanks for being so direct!
-
The reason you have so much support @xeroc is because you're too honest! Your proxy power is awfully overwhelming, yet I don't fear for the network. Thanks for your hard work to support Bitshares.
By the way:* Lack of alternatives: There simply are not many people around that want to be a committee member
I'm happy to act as committee member (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22529.0.html) if everyone thinks that would be helpful. As you can see, I meet the first qualification: active on the forums. :)
-
well done xeroc, n well balanced, thats why people support you....you are not my proxy but I feel confidence in your role. congratulations!
-
There are a few reasons to not un-approve those committee members that support bitcrab's proposal:
* Lack of alternatives: There simply are not many people around that want to be a committee member just now and I don't want to have people in the committee that don't even participate in the forums or slack
* Dictatorship: With the 150M voting power my proxy currently has, I need to be more careful about what I do. This is still a decentralized decision finding process and I have cast my voted already to not support the proposal. That does not imply that I do not support the committee members.
Your post makes me think about whether it makes sense to step down as a committee member as it leaves me at a conflict of interest (as you can see)
Anyway, thanks for being so direct!
You are one of the most active committee members and have a deep passion to see bitshares succeed. Please stay that way and not be distracted by the other thought.
-
There are a few reasons to not un-approve those committee members that support bitcrab's proposal:
* Dictatorship: With the 150M voting power my proxy currently has, I need to be more careful about what I do. This is still a decentralized decision finding process and I have cast my voted already to not support the proposal. That does not imply that I do not support the committee members.
I understand your dilemma, although I disagree on your conclusion. But it's your decision, of course.
Your post makes me think about whether it makes sense to step down as a committee member as it leaves me at a conflict of interest (as you can see)
Please don't. You're probably *the* most important community member right now. We need you in the committee.
If you can't resolve that conflict of interest, stop being a proxy. :-)
-
If you can't resolve that conflict of interest, stop being a proxy. :-)
In fact I never asked to be a proxy .. I merely opened up this thread because people set me as their proxy and I though I should at least properly document my decisions.
Anyhow, if the voting power of my proxy continues to rise I will sooner or later need to ask people to not use me as proxy any longer. My soft limit would be when I can replace the last 3 witnesses. The hard limit would be 30% of the witnesses .. let's hope we don't get there, but if we do, there are other means to prevent centralization ..
-
update
- I have approved the bts-munich web-reward worker (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22828.0/all.html)
They deserve some initial funding to continue their efforts. There has already been done some work towards a refreshed webpage.
- added nexus-dev witness
Trusted Ethereum company with many tech enthusiasts from the BitShares space working with them. I believe @Riverhead runs this witness for them.
- readded bitcrab to the committee
.. since he appears to be more active in the community again.
-
- added nexus-dev witness
Trusted Ethereum company with many tech enthusiasts from the BitShares space working with them. I believe @Riverhead runs this witness for them.
IMO in the interest of decentralization you shouldn't be voting for both riverhead and nexus-dev, if both are run by the same person.
-
- added nexus-dev witness
Trusted Ethereum company with many tech enthusiasts from the BitShares space working with them. I believe @Riverhead runs this witness for them.
IMO in the interest of decentralization you shouldn't be voting for both riverhead and nexus-dev, if both are run by the same person.
A valid point for consideration to anyone that sets Xeroc as their proxy. They have leveraged my experience running a Steem witness to bootstrap their witness candidate. They are in the process of procuring hardware and I'll be handing it off at that point. I'll update this thread when that happens.
-
Is there any chance our witness "witness.still“ can get your support?
Our proposal is here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23336.0.html
-
Hey xeroc
have just given you proxy voting on my account
think you have the right approach though this is a lot of swahili to me
Trusting in your integrity!
Wishing you a fair wind!
peccavi1
Hey friends and shareholders,
since it happened to me to be a proxy, I would like to keep you informed about proxy decisions in this thread.
For those that have net set me as their proxy and are wondering why I vote for my own worker proposal:
7 Days ago I have contacted all shareholders that have me set as their proxy and sent them the following
message (hosted at github.com/xeroc/worker-proposal):
Dear Shareholder,
you receive this message because you have set the account "xeroc" as your voting
proxy in BitShares.
First, of all, I would like to thank you for the confidence and trust you have
in me.
However, I see the need to inform you about the decision I made to vote for my
own worker proposal going forward. You can find the details of it in
[github](https://github.com/xeroc/worker-proposals). In summary, the current
proposal would pay me roughly 3000€ for 20h/week of work during January and
February. After that time, a new proposal will be made with similar pay (Euro
denominated) to keep my BitShares related work funded. It is of great importance
to me to let you know about this conflicting interests!
To give you enough time to reconsider and change your voting proxy, I will *not*
vote for my proposal until Monday next week (28th of December).
Sincerely Yours
-- Fabian Schuh a.k.a. xeroc
---
This message has been signed with PGP. The cryptographic signature can be found
in this git repository and you can verify it with `gpg --verify followers.md.sig`.
Today is 28th of December and as such, I will set my vote accordingly.
If you have me set as your proxy and do NOT agree with this you can still remove me as your proxy because my
vote will only be counted by the end of the day (maintenance interval).
-
Thanks for your trust.
Indeed there is a lot of technology, politics and business involved in running a huge network like bitshares and i expect it to grow massively in 2017.
Hoping to serve your needs well..
-
To let you know, I have
* approved svk's worker as I know he is doing awesome work and the UI needs to improve constantly to keep an edge over competitors
* disapproved soledger's worker as I haven't heard or seen anything for a couple of weeks
-
You can vote for my witness [xn-delegate], thanks.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23687.0.html (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23687.0.html)
-
Thanks for your trust.
Indeed there is a lot of technology, politics and business involved in running a huge network like bitshares and i expect it to grow massively in 2017.
Hoping to serve your needs well..
Really appreciate your job & integrity and share your expectations !
-
Even though I dislike approving an unknown developer as a worker for BitShares core code, I am willing to see and give Alfredo Garcia a chance to proof himself.
I'll revisit my choice in a few weeks
-
Even though I dislike approving an unknown developer as a worker for BitShares core code, I am willing to see and give Alfredo Garcia a chance to proof himself.
I'll revisit my choice in a few weeks
blockpay is supervising and paying for half of the worker... I think that's a good enough incentive to give him a chance :)
-
Even though I dislike approving an unknown developer as a worker for BitShares core code, I am willing to see and give Alfredo Garcia a chance to proof himself.
I'll revisit my choice in a few weeks
blockpay is supervising and paying for half of the worker... I think that's a good enough incentive to give him a chance :)
I agree with both of these comments.
Thank you xeroc for continuing to be involved and for your optimistic attitude towards the platform. You sir are a powerhouse!
Also glad to see Riverhead's involvement as nexus-dev. Riverhead is yet another solid and long standing member of this community I am very happy to see return in any capacity.
-
Even though I dislike approving an unknown developer as a worker for BitShares core code, I am willing to see and give Alfredo Garcia a chance to proof himself.
I'll revisit my choice in a few weeks
blockpay is supervising and paying for half of the worker... I think that's a good enough incentive to give him a chance :)
I agree with both of these comments.
Thank you xeroc for continuing to be involved and for your optimistic attitude towards the platform. You sir are a powerhouse!
Also glad to see Riverhead's involvement as nexus-dev. Riverhead is yet another solid and long standing member of this community I am very happy to see return in any capacity.
Agreed. Xeroc is the bees knees.
(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-this-man-is-the-bee-s-knees-arthur-he-is-the-wasp-s-nipples-he-is-i-would-go-so-far-douglas-adams-40-98-67.jpg)
-
I just voted against the worker that proposes to increase the payment for witnesses.
In my opinion, the witnesses job is producing blocks and providing a reliable feed. The "problems" raised with "inaccurate" feeds have mostly been resolved. witnesses that still produce inaccurate feeds should be replaced by those that are willing to work for the current pay.
If things go wild, I would rather move feed production away from witnesses towards a set of paid (through workers) producers which however comes with other disadvantages.
-
I just voted against the worker that proposes to increase the payment for witnesses.
In my opinion, the witnesses job is producing blocks and providing a reliable feed. The "problems" raised with "inaccurate" feeds have mostly been resolved. witnesses that still produce inaccurate feeds should be replaced by those that are willing to work for the current pay.
If things go wild, I would rather move feed production away from witnesses towards a set of paid (through workers) producers which however comes with other disadvantages.
So I guess the feedback you were looking from witnesses as to what they will do with the increase didn't come or was unacceptable in your perspective. You just posted that request 2 days ago, which isn't a lot of time. Your impression may come from other sources that this forum, like Telegram.
I'm curious as to why you believe the feed accuracy issue has been "resolved" given the eastern perspective. I've been reading this forum every day for a couple of weeks now but that isn't my impression.
I'm open to new info. Perhaps I missed an important input, for example on Telegram which I can't keep up with on the ...DEX channel.
If that is the case, it would be great to see a summary of such important info from Telegram that's being factored into these decisions.
-
So I guess the feedback you were looking from witnesses as to what they will do with the increase didn't come or was unacceptable in your perspective.
I did read feedback from a couple witnesses here in the forums and on telegram but there are still plenty of witnesses I haven't even seen in months let alone reading anything from them.
If we get those voted out and can instead vote in some fresh and motivated people, then I will re-evaluate.
I'm curious as to why you believe the feed accuracy issue has been "resolved" given the eastern perspective. I've been reading this forum every day for a couple of weeks now but that isn't my impression.
I'm open to new info. Perhaps I missed an important input, for example on Telegram which I can't keep up with on the ...DEX channel.
My impression was that most witnesses updated their feed script to reflect the price according to the wishes of the chinese community (i.e. neglect western BTC trading pairs and focus on the chinese-based BTC price).
Are there still witnesses producing "massively" inaccurate price feeds?
-
So I guess the feedback you were looking from witnesses as to what they will do with the increase didn't come or was unacceptable in your perspective.
I did read feedback from a couple witnesses here in the forums and on telegram but there are still plenty of witnesses I haven't even seen in months let alone reading anything from them.
If we get those voted out and can instead vote in some fresh and motivated people, then I will re-evaluate.
I'm curious as to why you believe the feed accuracy issue has been "resolved" given the eastern perspective. I've been reading this forum every day for a couple of weeks now but that isn't my impression.
I'm open to new info. Perhaps I missed an important input, for example on Telegram which I can't keep up with on the ...DEX channel.
My impression was that most witnesses updated their feed script to reflect the price according to the wishes of the chinese community (i.e. neglect western BTC trading pairs and focus on the chinese-based BTC price).
Are there still witnesses producing "massively" inaccurate price feeds?
I wonder if this is still an issue since the China gov audited the china exchanges and found out that they were manipulating the BTC markets and so are forcing them to charge fees for trading now. It would suggest that their price is likely going to be more in line with the North American/Euro prices more so now. I guess we have to wait a bit to see.
-
Dear followers,
I am going to vote for my own worker (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23770.0/all.html) in a few days. If you disagree with paying
this worker, please consider removing me as your proxy. Thank you for considerations.
Regards
-- Fabian
-
Dear followers,
I am going to vote for my own worker (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23770.0/all.html) in a few days. If you disagree with paying
this worker, please consider removing me as your proxy. Thank you for considerations.
Regards
-- Fabian
I see the proposals bitcrab entered to measure stake weighted consensus for increasing witness pay are neck in neck, with "Agree" now slightly in the lead with 27% and "Against" the increase remaining at 24%. The Agree to the increase has risen 7% since yesterday.
After reviewing your worker proposal and seeing the level of pay you're requesting, I'm really surprised you're so bearish on the witness pay issue.
I NOT saying you're not well worth every cent of the $4K monthly pay you're requesting, in fact I also see a benefit to liquidity using your new worker proposal scheme. PLUS I think BitShares will GREATLY benefit from the resulting work on the uptick interface.
Since you are my proxy my formal support is inclusive as well as "verbally" explicit here. I would hope that you will reconsider your position on witness pay. What is the process for that? I know it's up to committee, but is there a regular meeting or call for votes on changes or is it ad-hoc whenever the committee feels a formal vote / parameter change can't wait any longer?
When will an increase in witness pay be formally put to a vote by the committee?
-
I just approved the 0pay worker that votes for an increase of the witness pay to 3 BTS/block
with the reservation that I will disapprove all witnesses that do not provide additional work to fund other that provide additional work to the BTS blockchain (one or the other way)
@witnesses: ball is in your court now! Please show us your passion!
-
Dear Thom,
the worker pay is as high because of it asking for 2.5x the actual pay so that bitUSD can be borrowed if not available to buy. This means the payment will by far not on full end up in my possession.
Also, I don't have any trouble with increasing witness pay and actually just now approved the 3BTS proposal of @bitcrab. The point I was trying to make is that I don't like to throw money at witnesses that
do their job now with the pay they get. If we increase pay, I do expect improvements one or the other way.
Since I realized that I can remove my support also from witnesses if they don't show their passion, I realized I can indeed support an increased payout for witnesses.
Committee has a Telegram group that is used to coordinate. A proposal needs to last a couple days at least which should give every committee member enough time to approve or comment on his disapproval.
If a committee member doesn't vote and doesn't comment, he should be voted down.
For a social perspective, is only possible if one of the vote-workers crosses the burn worker, however, I think we should eventually come up with a more granular social consensus about when a vote-worker is considered "approved" or not ..
Hope that answers your questions.
After reviewing your worker proposal and seeing the level of pay you're requesting, I'm really surprised you're so bearish on the witness pay issue.
I NOT saying you're not well worth every cent of the $4K monthly pay you're requesting, in fact I also see a benefit to liquidity using your new worker proposal scheme. PLUS I think BitShares will GREATLY benefit from the resulting work on the uptick interface.
Since you are my proxy my formal support is inclusive as well as "verbally" explicit here. I would hope that you will reconsider your position on witness pay. What is the process for that? I know it's up to committee, but is there a regular meeting or call for votes on changes or is it ad-hoc whenever the committee feels a formal vote / parameter change can't wait any longer?
When will an increase in witness pay be formally put to a vote by the committee?
-
I have approved this worker:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23785.0.html
While I understand this is "advertisement" and should be covered by the referral program, I also understand that the referral program is a 'long-term' play
and cannot provide liquidity for a short-term advertisement opportunity as presented here!
-
I have approved this worker:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23785.0.html
While I understand this is "advertisement" and should be covered by the referral program, I also understand that the referral program is a 'long-term' play
and cannot provide liquidity for a short-term advertisement opportunity as presented here!
could you wait a bit if possible? There is NO framework to measure success or anything. Let me remind you that bitshares paid chronos $2.4 for ONE (!) youtube view (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23612.msg301050.html#msg301050) at the time of measurement. let's not mindlessly throw money at something like we did in the past
-
I urge every committee member that wants to keep my vote to approve the committee proposal `1.10.1183` which increases the witness pay from 1.5BTS to 3BTS (http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.1183)
as it has been approved by the majority of shareholders.
-
at least you should make sure bue's node is online before you vote for this guy
can you vote him out before you confirm his node is up?
-
at least you should make sure bue's node is online before you vote for this guy
can you vote him out before you confirm his node is up?
You are right, my impression was he would still be interested in being a witness and gave him another chance.
How would you propose that I check his node's availability next time? Aren't "potential" witnesses not supposed to have their machine running in case someone (like me) votes them in?
-
it's your job to make sure his node online if you want to vote for him.
you can touch him through mail/IM , what ever
if you think it's very emergency to vote him in, you need to watch if he's lost block after you vote him in.
6 hours have passed before I post here after you vote him in.
you are the biggest vote proxy, you need more carefully.
usually I only vote for somebody ask for vote in the forum recently.
-
you are the biggest vote proxy, you need more carefully.
Agreed
usually I only vote for somebody ask for vote in the forum recently.
That's what I usually do aswell. Didn't work out too good with the 'public-witness-one', either ..
I will work on some nicer tools to make it easier for me to track misbehaving witnesses.
-
How you like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/sFtoKSF.png)
-
How you like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/sFtoKSF.png)
we need this updated regularly on a website
-
this is one of the reason why I against the worker.
a coder like to do something cool, but we don't need this, we need something satisfied the users.
If we need this tool, we definitely implement it in the web page instead of in the console
-
this is one of the reason why I against the worker.
a coder like to do something cool, but we don't need this, we need something satisfied the users.
If we need this tool, we definitely implement it in the web page instead of in the console
.. and you would do that for free?
You do understand that the console tool is not the main point of my worker but a reference implementation that shows how to use the python library?!
-
this is one of the reason why I against the worker.
a coder like to do something cool, but we don't need this, we need something satisfied the users.
If we need this tool, we definitely implement it in the web page instead of in the console
.. and you would do that for free?
You do understand that the console tool is not the main point of my worker but a reference implementation that shows how to use the python library?!
Alt, have you considered doing a worker proposal to further develop btsbots?
-
no, btsbots.com is a gift to community for free.
and will be maintained as an open source project for free.
I don't have much time to develop it now only because of I have a new project need release in 3 month.it's not about money.
good news is the new project used btsbots's architecture, so some code will merge to btsbots later.
this is one of the reason why I against the worker.
a coder like to do something cool, but we don't need this, we need something satisfied the users.
If we need this tool, we definitely implement it in the web page instead of in the console
.. and you would do that for free?
You do understand that the console tool is not the main point of my worker but a reference implementation that shows how to use the python library?!
Alt, have you considered doing a worker proposal to further develop btsbots?
-
no, btsbots.com is a gift to community for free.
and will be maintained as an open source project for free.
I don't have much time to develop it now only because of I have a new project need release in 3 month.it's not about money.
good news is the new project used btsbots's architecture, so some code will merge to btsbots later.
this is one of the reason why I against the worker.
a coder like to do something cool, but we don't need this, we need something satisfied the users.
If we need this tool, we definitely implement it in the web page instead of in the console
.. and you would do that for free?
You do understand that the console tool is not the main point of my worker but a reference implementation that shows how to use the python library?!
Alt, have you considered doing a worker proposal to further develop btsbots?
A big BTS related project in 3 months time sounds very promising :-) :-)
-
I justed voted for alfredo's worker, as I've seen him do incredible throughout the last months!
-
I justed voted for alfredo's worker, as I've seen him do incredible throughout the last months!
thanks, your support as proxy and individual is very appreciated!
-
For those who wonder why @xeroc have removed votes from quite a few witnesses, here is the reason:
seem I need to go through my witness votes and kick out some of those that aren't as active as they are supposed to be for the amount of money they get.
By reducing the number of active witnesses we also reduce the operational costs of the blockchain ... let's see when people start complaining real hard ..
-
Does that really reduce operational costs? Since block time is constant, I think that would just give more income to remaining witnesses, not reduce cost.
Not saying this is a bad thing, just pointing it out.
-
Today, I voted for the "spokesperson" proposal as well as for the "compliance" proposal as I see them desperately needed. The people that I work with won't work for free but have the knowledge and desire to bring good to BitShares.
Secondly, i want to clarify that I removed the votes for the BSIP18 worker as well as for the Steemfest worker. The reason is that those are fully funded by now (in bitUSD) through escrow by the bitshares blockchain foundation
The accounting is all public: http://www.bitshares.foundation/accounting
most recent books look like this: (https://i.imgur.com/hdiRkKK.png)
In 30001-bitshares.foundation .. it says that there are 23kUSD in escrow for the bsip18 worker .. and 6.666 USD in escrow for the steemfest worker
-
Anything about this one?
Still waiting for your reply.
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@lzmlam/bts-greater-china-representative-worker-proposal-bilingual
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25196.0.html
-
Anything about this one?
Still waiting for your reply.
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@lzmlam/bts-greater-china-representative-worker-proposal-bilingual
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25196.0.html
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25196.msg312024.html#msg312024
-
I have approved
* 201712-infrastructure, and
* 2017-12-blockchainacademy
We desperately need the first one, and to me, the second one is a bargain considering the changes of getting into university education.
-
I have approved
* 201712-infrastructure, and
* 2017-12-blockchainacademy
We desperately need the first one, and to me, the second one is a bargain considering the changes of getting into university education.
Awesome! +5% +5% +5%
-
Hello, dear xeroc.
We've noticed, that you have unvoted openledger-dc witness. Came here, to check the reason, as well, as checked witness chat and didn't find any explanations. During the last 1.5y our witness was one of the most stable and its support was quite responsive, so is there some serious reasons for taking voice back? At the same time 3 of bottom active witnesses are missing blocks and still active.
Thanks in advance.
-
Hello, dear @xeroc.
We've noticed, that you have unvoted openledger-dc witness. Came here, to check the reason, as well, as checked witness chat and didn't find any explanations. During the last 1.5y our witness was one of the most stable and its support was quite responsive, so is there some serious reasons for taking voice back? At the same time 3 of bottom active witnesses are missing blocks and still active.
Thanks in advance.
Your feeds for CNY were among those that I deemed inaccurate .. chinese community members approached me to tighten up the peg .. all I can do is disapprove workers that are farer away from the actualy price than others ...
If you fix your feeds you can get voted back.
Furthermore, I have approved the BTS liquidity worker that wants to write software for automated trading. Looking forward to see how quickly they can produce high quality code.
Also, I have removed my votes from the blockchain-acedemy worker since it is fully funded now ..
Even though the spokesperson worker is fully funded now as well, I do not remove my votes to keep it up for representative purposes. The BBF will no longer trade those BTS into USD for that worker.
-
Hi xeroc,
I set up a witness node on the testnet (zhaomu-test), can you vote for me so I can start to test the price feed.
And also, can you consider my witness proposal? https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25678.0.html
-
FYI:
I have approve workers:
- Legal Council about BTS and No-action
- BSIP29
-
I've removed my support from committee-member `openledgerdc` since openledger started setting
a default voting proxy for its customers and breaks the long-standing social contract of no-voting
of exchanges with customer funds. This is unfortunate but OpenLedger wasn't able to present
sufficient motivations for this move and after discussion, couldn't be convinced to reconsider this
position.
This is, of course, a personal opinion, but I cannot accept businesses to set default voting behavior
for its customers.
For those wondering, the `bitshareseurope` account which is set as default_proxy account, too, does
not vote.
-
I've removed my support from committee-member `openledgerdc` since openledger started setting
a default voting proxy for its customers and breaks the long-standing social contract of no-voting
of exchanges with customer funds. This is unfortunate but OpenLedger wasn't able to present
sufficient motivations for this move and after discussion, couldn't be convinced to reconsider this
position.
This is, of course, a personal opinion, but I cannot accept businesses to set default voting behavior
for its customers.
For those wondering, the `bitshareseurope` account which is set as default_proxy account, too, does
not vote.
This is good info for me. Not your personal opinion and decision as that is ... well, personal; but on my last worker proposal i asked Ronny if he can vote for it. Never got a response, i will take this opportunity to apologize for that, i didn't know how it was and i saw the account voting before i thought they were a new big proxy and tried to contact them as i did with all the rest.
I was also close to ask you for a vote with bitshareseurope when i realized it was yours, at the end it was not needed but i now know it will not be possible and why.
thank you for the transparency.
-
I've removed my support from committee-member `openledgerdc` since openledger started setting
a default voting proxy for its customers and breaks the long-standing social contract of no-voting
of exchanges with customer funds. This is unfortunate but OpenLedger wasn't able to present
sufficient motivations for this move and after discussion, couldn't be convinced to reconsider this
position.
This is, of course, a personal opinion, but I cannot accept businesses to set default voting behavior
for its customers.
For those wondering, the `bitshareseurope` account which is set as default_proxy account, too, does
not vote.
thanks, great to know how you consider a "company" - the de facto bitshares exchange OpenLedger, and this is not my words, but rather the creator or BitShares who said this. It has to be very clear that we are not an exchange as we have no access to manipulate the transactions on the DEX which is clearly the definition of an exchange, and until now we have offered a valuable service to all bts community where we are until now still at a minus overall for providing gateways allowing people to access a safe haven like bitshares stablecoins or bts itself or same procedure for leaving again. There is no doubt that this is not done out of pure charity, however, it is clear that we are providing a valuable support for the community to evolve and we do it with the face that allows us to constantly act for the benefit of the community.
What you decide to do personally is up to you, and you are right it is definitely personal and it is also personal when I remove my support from your own committee post, thank you for perhaps stating a discussion as to who does what and for the benefits of whom in whatever is done for bitshares, I think it could in fact become an interesting "soap opera" and I could be writing a lot more right now, but choose not to.
And lets be clear, it is only customers if they use the gateways provided by OpenLedger, and with more than 170 000 signups already, it is clear that less than 10 000 of these are in fact active, so what we are in fact providing is a support from the people not trading or even active making use of these accounts where they may have been not used and all for the benefit of bts. And the customers are in fact also the customers of the bts community as it is a service offered to the community and definitely also customers to all the OBITS holders who benefit minimum 50% of all revenues.
-
FYI, I have had multiple discussions with clockwork during the last couple months and respect and
trust him more than enough to approve his newly created committee membership. Looking forward
to rattle those committee members that passed away
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=25980.0
-
I have voted for clockwork's worker since he proved himselve reliable on the testnet
I also intend to approve the committee proposal of xiaoshan
-
Your feeds for CNY were among those that I deemed inaccurate .. chinese community members approached me to tighten up the peg .. all I can do is disapprove workers that are farer away from the actualy price than others ...
If you fix your feeds you can get voted back.
Hello, dear Fabian. From the last time, you've checked our feeds, we made some major updates of feeds scripts, reconsidered reliable sources of prices, so we have much more objective feeds states, than previously. Could you please consider voting again for our witness?
Thanks in advance.
-
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26107.new#new
I will vote for the committee-funding worker so that it can receive funds.
Two weeks after it received funds, I will remove my vote for a subsequent report to convince me it is a good idea.
-
Hello, xeroc：
You can vote for our witness (winex.witness), thank you very much.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=25831.0
-
Please consider vote for Bangzi !!!
Testnet ID: bangzi-test (Only miss 1 block since few days ago)
Bitshares' Witness Proposal:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26459.0
-
I am approving JohnR's proposal to become committee member: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26758.msg319777;topicseen#new
We need to catch up compatition there and I feel that someone with background in economics is the right thing for us nerds to find a way to grow BitShares into an *actual* business.
-
I support the HackTheDex worker:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26806.0
as well as the infrastructure worker:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26778.0
-
Voting for Alfredo's worker to cover the promised amount of payment
-
voting for the subsequent UI worker proposal
-
voting for the subsequent UI worker proposal
Thank you for your support @xeroc.
I've also posted here, https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26858.0, about the renewal of the UI.
-
@bitcrab: I'll have to remove my support for the worker "committee controlled open market operation fund".
The reasons are the *potential* conflict of interst that emerged with SPRING. Given that SPRING is a market
making fund, and the worker is funding another fund for providing liquidity, I believe it is best to not continue
subsidizing open market operations through a worker and leave the bussiness for SPRING (and other for-profit
competitors). This also puts you (@bitcrab) in a much nicer situation as you don't need to justify why you traded
when since you potentially could have SPRING trade against the open market worker.
Surely you understand my reasoning.
-
@bitcrab: I'll have to remove my support for the worker "committee controlled open market operation fund".
The reasons are the *potential* conflict of interst that emerged with SPRING. Given that SPRING is a market
making fund, and the worker is funding another fund for providing liquidity, I believe it is best to not continue
subsidizing open market operations through a worker and leave the bussiness for SPRING (and other for-profit
competitors). This also puts you (@bitcrab) in a much nicer situation as you don't need to justify why you traded
when since you potentially could have SPRING trade against the open market worker.
Surely you understand my reasoning.
Let me give some explanation on why we launch SPRING and how we think the relation between SPRING and the open market operation fund(OMO fund).
China community has discussed a lot on how to increase the supply of bitCNY and promote the BTS and smartcoin ecosystem. Actually OMO help, it has income of BTS and bitCNY, bitUSD so it is more able to resist risk than general funds, however, it is small and the accumulation of fund is too slow, this limit it to play the role of a stabilization fund. Considering this, we finally decided to build another privately collected fund to help OMO, and of course, SPRING will make profit in this process, and when OMO grow big and powerful enough, SPRING will switch to focus on some other area, for example, to invest in some ICO project, especially in Graphene ecosystem.
OMO now focus on build a solid price bottom of BTS, now OMO has placed orders of 2M CNY at price 0.8CNY+, tomorrow OMO will added buying orders of 3M in this price level, in my plan, OMO will put orders of 10M in area 0.8-1 CNY, to make 0.8CNY a solid price bottom, and this bottom will slowly go up. Similar in bitUSD market.
OMO’s task is not to make profit, it focus on stabilizing market, it will help the system to resist the risks of black swan etc. and it will convince users to generate bitCNY/bitUSD at some certain price, say, now it’s very safe to borrow bitCNY will setting margin call price at 0.8 CNY.
SPRING play a role different with OMO，it will also provide bitCNY to build solid price bottom together with OMO, but it will also try to buy BTS, say, now SPRING will by BTS at price of about 1.3CNY
I don’t think there are interest conflict between SPRING and OMO, actually they help each other to make a good future of BTS.
SPRING do not have income from system, as OMO did, if SPRING do the job by itself, it will bear more risk than OMO did.
I built one sword to kill the wolf, when I find one is not enough I tried my best to build another one, but when the new one is ready I found the old one lost… this is what I felt when I saw your idea, please do not remove your support, here every trading is transparent and everyone can check what OMO and SPRING did anytime, no place for doing evil.
-
Let me give some explanation on why we launch SPRING and how we think the relation between SPRING and the open market operation fund(OMO fund).
China community has discussed a lot on how to increase the supply of bitCNY and promote the BTS and smartcoin ecosystem. Actually OMO help, it has income of BTS and bitCNY, bitUSD so it is more able to resist risk than general funds, however, it is small and the accumulation of fund is too slow, this limit it to play the role of a stabilization fund. Considering this, we finally decided to build another privately collected fund to help OMO, and of course, SPRING will make profit in this process, and when OMO grow big and powerful enough, SPRING will switch to focus on some other area, for example, to invest in some ICO project, especially in Graphene ecosystem.
OMO now focus on build a solid price bottom of BTS, now OMO has placed orders of 2M CNY at price 0.8CNY+, tomorrow OMO will added buying orders of 3M in this price level, in my plan, OMO will put orders of 10M in area 0.8-1 CNY, to make 0.8CNY a solid price bottom, and this bottom will slowly go up. Similar in bitUSD market.
OMO’s task is not to make profit, it focus on stabilizing market, it will help the system to resist the risks of black swan etc. and it will convince users to generate bitCNY/bitUSD at some certain price, say, now it’s very safe to borrow bitCNY will setting margin call price at 0.8 CNY.
SPRING play a role different with OMO，it will also provide bitCNY to build solid price bottom together with OMO, but it will also try to buy BTS, say, now SPRING will by BTS at price of about 1.3CNY
I don’t think there are interest conflict between SPRING and OMO, actually they help each other to make a good future of BTS.
SPRING do not have income from system, as OMO did, if SPRING do the job by itself, it will bear more risk than OMO did.
I built one sword to kill the wolf, when I find one is not enough I tried my best to build another one, but when the new one is ready I found the old one lost… this is what I felt when I saw your idea, please do not remove your support, here every trading is transparent and everyone can check what OMO and SPRING did anytime, no place for doing evil.
I am truly sorry if this has hit you by surprise and I certainly didn't want to appear evil or undermine your efforts.
Surely, your reasoning is very sound and I would very much like to see both of these efforts continued. I further trust
you to do the right thing all of the time. The reason I removed my support today is because I want to ensure you understand
the **potential** for conflicting interests.
One the one side, we have SPRING, a for-profit trading fund that buys and sells bitCNY, BTS and others.
And on the other side, we have OMO which is a non-profit (or rather for-profits for the DAC) which trades the same markets.
At one point in time, if not already happend, you might end up in the situation where one of those efforts needs bitCNY; and other
may have them to be sold on the market. This could subsidize SPRING, but that is not what OMO was meant to be.
Again, I don't believe this is what happens, or that this potential conflict actually ever will appear, I just would like to express the desire
to sit together and find a different solution that does not (maybe) put you in a difficult situtation.
I have had a comparing situtation with the BBF worker/escrow system that has constant need for bitUSD where someone approached
me and offered quite some bitUSD in the DEX and asked the BBF to fill the order with BTS from the reserves. I had to refuse that because
that is not how BBF deals with the workers and undermines the high standards and transparency there - but this shows clearly that even
with only the BBF workers, there is a huge *potential* for conflicting interest.
That's all I want to ensure. People need to understand the risks and @bitcrab, you need to understand the situation you put yourself into.
That said, I am willing to reapprove this worker again, however, I would like to see if we can find a solution where another independent
party deals with OMO.
-
@xeroc I understand your worry, I think we may begin with the account committee-usdoperator, in the past I myself do the bitUSD transactions within this account because it always need much time to communicate for a multi-sig processing by members from all around the world, if you like, you can organize committee members from bitUSD world to deal with the bitUSD operation within the multisig form.
-
@xeroc I understand your worry, I think we may begin with the account committee-usdoperator, in the past I myself do the bitUSD transactions within this account because it always need much time to communicate for a multi-sig processing by members from all around the world, if you like, you can organize committee members from bitUSD world to deal with the bitUSD operation within the multisig form.
That is an *excellent* idea.
Do you think we can find some trusted individual from the Chinese community to assist with the CNY operators as well?
-
@xeroc I understand your worry, I think we may begin with the account committee-usdoperator, in the past I myself do the bitUSD transactions within this account because it always need much time to communicate for a multi-sig processing by members from all around the world, if you like, you can organize committee members from bitUSD world to deal with the bitUSD operation within the multisig form.
That is an *excellent* idea.
Do you think we can find some trusted individual from the Chinese community to assist with the CNY operators as well?
the committee-cnytrader consists of committee members from China community, I don't think we can find individuals in China who are more trustworthy and understand BTS more deeply than them, if you find anyone of them is not trustworthy, you can suggest to unvote him.
-
@bitcrab
Can those thoughts be molded into a proper formulated worker proposal for OMO that describes the responsibilities?
So far OMO is only creating bitAssets and that's it, correct? That could probably be scheduled to happen at roughly always the same time or similar.
-
the committee-cnytrader consists of committee members from China community, I don't think we can find individuals in China who are more trustworthy and understand BTS more deeply than them, if you find anyone of them is not trustworthy, you can suggest to unvote him.
Oh, i didn't imply that. Thanks for providing more clarity!
Will vote for it again.
-
I am voting for the other infrastructure worker provided by apasia.tech: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26860.msg320421#msg320421
-
I am voting for a new witness: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26881.0
-
What sense does it make to vote back OMO when its still clearly being run by bitcrab ?
The OMO need strict rules and can't be run by bitcrab who is already controlling this large amounts of BTS.
-
Why are you as Proxy and Commitee member being silent to these accusation and questions ?
Don't you feel you should explain why you still keep supporting Bitcrabs WP even there has nothing changed.
There are still no public rules or any transparency ?
Don't you have an obligation as proxy and commitee member to inform your voters why you decide this way ?
He did. Read above:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20792.msg320357#msg320357
-
He didn't since there is still no transparancy,no rules bitcrab is sticking to,high risk getting margin called,interference with
other fund,price manipulation,buying own margin call etc.....
There is nothing about it.
Asking myself why its so difficult for bitcrab to give away control of the commitee cnytrader account were abit made a great post how this can be solved .
The international community said at the beginning bitcrab is the wrong person holding that account based on his margin history and they were right.
He pushed the commitee accounts under a Ratio of 2 which is unacceptable and without any consensus of the community.
He had only the consensus of ebit and jademont who should be also responsable for not upholding the consensus
I believe thanks to bitcrab that CNY exists and has liquidity in the first place.
-
Couple things today:
1.)
Voted for witness btspp-witness: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26903.new#new
2.)
A rather long topic: CNY MSSR.
TL;DR; I removed my vote from gdex-witness, magicwallet.witness, and witness.yao.
I'd like to go a little into the details here: Certainly I would like this move to be temporary. The people behind those witnesses are good people and they are constantly delivering!
It is important to me to acknowledge the fact that it took me a day to come to a conclusion on how to deal with this situation. Unfortunately, I have not seen proper
discussion around the change of MSSR prior to these witnesses changing the parameter. Even though I understand that these have much more experience with the CNY
market (they brought in the volume to begin with) and thus should be given some "freedom" to experiment with their asset, I would have preferred to use current market conditions
to improve the governance system by establishing some processes instead of going forward with only a part of the community. The english speaking part of the community hasn't
been given notice and thus wasn't able to contribute to this rather important discussions - we are all sitting in the same boat.
Those wanting to look deeper into the topic should read through here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26928.0;all
I'd like to emphasis again that I would love to put back the votes for those witnesses as they are delivering excellent work to the entire community. Let's learn how to deal with this together!
-
Another update:
I just voted for the Trusty community wallet worker: 1.14.117
They have provided quite some cool product already and have proven themselves before even asking for compensation!
-
Given that there now is a bsip for MSSR and further discussion going on I believe it is the right step to reapprove
witnesses gdex-witness, magicwallet.witness, and witness.yao.
-
使锚定资产更精确是BTS理事会的主要努力方向
1BITCNY=1CNY AND 1BITUSD=1USD
The feed model does have a lot of things to adjust, and everyone is exploring.
Making the anchor assets more precise is the main direction of the BTS Council.
1BITCNY=1CNY AND 1BITUSD=1USD
-
Recently, I have been studying the BTS problem, constantly looking through the forum posts, constantly thinking, thinking more and more clearly, gradually found that the BTS problem is not very big, in fact, it is very simple, but we lost ourselves.
Feeding price should answer how much BTS price is more reasonable, feeding price should actually be determined according to the demand of bitcny. The demand of bitcny determines the price of BTS, not the price of BTS determines the demand of BITCNY. If this relationship is straightened out, then the problem can be solved simply by determining the feeding price according to the market demand for bitcny.
In fact, the future market for bitcny is very big demand, so we just need to constantly adjust the BTS feeding according to demand. How to judge the demand for bitcny, the market will give us the answer, the drum charge rate, the exchange of bitcny trading prices can be referred to.
The problem is that the demand for bitcny is not effectively transmitted to the feed price. Our feed price only collects the price of the exchange. It is not that the exchange controls the feed price, but that we do not determine the reasonable feed price according to the demand of bitcny in time.
We just have to hold on to the market demand for smart money and let the market decide the price of BTS. Using the invisible hand, the charge rate, to dynamically adjust the feeding to improve anchoring accuracy, let 1 bitcny = 1 cny, and BTS succeeds.
-
Voting for 1.14.120 - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26941.msg321098#msg321098
-
What was your voting for BSIP42 ?
-
Hello, xeroc
Our products have made new progress, mobile wallet has been in operation and promotion.
Token ++ （www.tokenxx.com）is another multi-chain wallet developed by our team . We put multi-chain wallet and Bitshares trading systems together , this application integrates a comprehensive multi-chain wallet and Bitshares exchange and polymerization application platform. We do not want to design and develop a purely individual Bitshares mobile wallet, but in combination with Token ++, combined advantages of each part, strong to open up an incremental market for Bitshares.
Let me introduce our Token++ product. It is a wallet that manage multiple currencies by using a set of mnemonics.,and the data won't go through the server, security and decentralization. At present, the wallet has docked eight main chains such as BTC, ETH, ETC, LTC, ETF, QTUM, DOGE, NULS. We have been promoting the trading function of BitShares based on the promotion of wallets. Currently the wallet supports Chinese and English switching.
Wallet assets can quickly enter the BitShares exchange,and can also quickly withdraw coins to the wallet address, this kind of operation can be convenient for users.
We hope to promote the efficient and stable trading function of BitShares to more blockchain users, let more people understand and use BitShares trading function.
(https://www.tokenxx.com/static/images/20180918141849a.png)
(https://www.tokenxx.com/static/images/20180918141856a.png)
(https://www.tokenxx.com/static/images/20180918141902a.png)
(https://www.tokenxx.com/static/images/20180918141910a.png)
Please vote for Winex.witness node, thank you ！ :)
Our witness proposal : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=25831.0
Our website : www.winex.pro www.tokenxx.com
API Node ： wss://ws.winex.pro
Witness account : winex.witness
-
What was your voting for BSIP42 ?
He's currently voting FOR the proposal. http://cryptofresh.com/ballots
-
Is it true that you were weeks before informed about the plan to remove global settlement and didn't talked about it to the community ?
That you guys are deciding it in a small circle ?
-
Is it true that you were weeks before informed about the plan to remove global settlement and didn't talked about it to the community ?
That you guys are deciding it in a small circle ?
I told you (in a PM) the same story I tell everyone: if they want my vote they need to ask in public. I dont do backdoor deals and you very well know that, unless you forgot.
Furthermore, please show me where i made a comment about removal of global settlement other than in this post. The topic was raised to me 4 days ago and I have not taken any time to even built an opinion about it as i am on vacation and do not read up on everyones opinion.
My opinion about Bsip42 has been expressed here in the forums. You can find it in my posting history. If you dont know how, please ask the community, they'll gladly point it out to you.
In the meantime, i am back to vacation.
-
I'm asking cause another comitee member claimed something diffrent on telegram
-
Xeroc, I hope you enjoy your vacation.
Thul3, in a DM to me as well you quoted an anonymous 'witness'. For the benefit of everyone in the community I suggest you be more specific with your assertions. Most on the committee are hard working people who want the best for BTS. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and it's hard to get far without knowing more details.
-
Have a great vacation XEROC!
-
I have just voted for @roelandp's worker for sponsorship of steemfest3. This far, I am not sure I can make it there, but from previous experience, I am convinced steemfest3 will be a wonderful event.
-
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27194.0
-
At this point, I decided to withdraw my support from witnesses to that feed BSIP42 to bitUSD. This will happen later this week so there is sufficient time for witnesses to
evaluate their individual situation.
(https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27203.msg322845#msg322845)
My thinking is quite easy, I (as a proxy) gave an approval to BSIP42 in the premise that it would be limited to bitCNY for now (in fact I wanted it to named explicitly in the BSIP - which unfortunately didn't happen).
The reason is that I can only acknowledge the fact that the Chinese community apparently wants to experiment with bitCNY which is "their native token" - they know their own markets much better than I do
and I have mostly seen support for BSIP42 from the chinese community so far.
bitUSD is a different beast though. There are many opponents (me included) about running BSIP42 on bitUSD. Not only because there is no real on-off-ramp for bitUSD into fiat USD but also because
it is a less liquid market. I am not convinced it would work well there.
Also, BSIP42, to me is a short term "patch" at best. It forces a price onto the markets instead of providing incentives to the market. Knowing how nuBits failed with such an approach
I would argue that we should do better.
That said, i still support the BSIP42 worker because it want the Chinese community to continue their experiment on bitCNY and chose to instead withdraw my vote
from witnesses that push BSIP42 onto bitUSD.
How to go forward (IMHO):
While BSIP42 is a rather harsh approach that seems to work well (for bitCNY), I would try another experiment and allow witnesses to leverage the "maintainance
collateral ratio" (MCR). In my (and other people's) mind, when there is a premium, we see too little supply and reducing the MCR would allow
"cheaper" creation of bitUSD. While if there is a negative premium, there is oversupply and the MCR could be raised to reduce the supply (potentially through
margin calls).
The only drawbacks I currently see are:
- shorters need to watch their collateral more actively because their position could be called even if the price is not moving
- there is a backend issue that currently prevents this approaach from being effective/fair
The fact that MCR cannot be lower than 100.1% is _NOT_ a drawback because bitassets are supposed to always be backed
by at least 100% reserves. Removing settlement would not make sense here. Removing black swan/global settlement would
not be required (make sense) either.
To further improve bitassets, I would recommend to lose then limits of the "short protection ratio" in case a call position goes
below a collateral ratio of .. say 130% to force the margin call to buy into the entire market not just up to 10%. This would be an
additional penalty to those that don't even bother keeping their collateral ratio sane.
-
How to go forward (IMHO):
While BSIP42 is a rather harsh approach that seems to work well (for bitCNY), I would try another experiment and allow witnesses to leverage the "maintainance
collateral ratio" (MCR). In my (and other people's) mind, when there is a premium, we see too little supply and reducing the MCR would allow
"cheaper" creation of bitUSD. While if there is a negative premium, there is oversupply and the MCR could be raised to reduce the supply (potentially through
margin calls).
The only drawbacks I currently see are:
- shorters need to watch their collateral more actively because their position could be called even if the price is not moving
- there is a backend issue that currently prevents this approaach from being effective/fair
I don't think this is a good idea to allow witnesses to leverage the "maintainance collateral ratio" (MCR), it can't help the bitassets to grow and the wintnesses didn't have the ability to guess the market any time，no one can.
Leveraging the MCR is very dangerous like the feed BSIP42.
We have the force settlement, why not to use it flexible?
The 110% MSSR is the main problem for the bitassets, not the MCR.
The feed BSIP42 is adjustting the MSSR dynamically indeed, not the MCR like said.
If we didn't have a new method to solve and prevent the black swan, some changes is very dangerous and immature.
If we didn't have a new method to make sure feed price reaction the real market price or Fair Price, some changes is very dangerous and immature too.
-
I will be short:
I started to feed BSIP42 on BitUSD mostly because majority of witnesses started to do the same. Few hours ago in the witness chat Bitcrab told everyone that they will start removing votes for witnesses that do not support BSIP42 starting with spring-team, but in reality their votes do not match the BSIP42 BitUSD witnesses.
My personal stand: I am AGAINST BSIP42 on BitUSD clearly puts BitUSD holders at an disadvantage and effectively wipes out their ability to convert their BitUSD to BTS and a true face value. BitUSD creators have their call price always ABOVE the current market price (black swan if they don't sell?)
My stand as a witness: On Friday I will go with whatever the community decides. But for now since spring-team already removed a vote from my witness, I will remove BSIP42 from BitUSD and support xeroc's stand.
-
I don't think this is a good idea to allow witnesses to leverage the "maintainance collateral ratio" (MCR), it can't help the bitassets to grow and the wintnesses didn't have the ability to guess the market any time，no one can.
I disagree, or at least, I cannot agree. No one ever tried experimenting with the MCR, so we simply do not know
if it will work or not. I believe it is worth a try and can help reduce the premium.
Leveraging the MCR is very dangerous like the feed BSIP42.
It is only dangerous to those that are short and do not monitor their position, as it should be.
We have the force settlement, why not to use it flexible?
Not sure what you mean with "flexible". If you are proposing to add another "price" just for settlement, then
I believe you haven't thought through the consequences with respect to arbitrage that could exploit two
different price feeds. If you mean something else, please elaborate.
The 110% MSSR is the main problem for the bitassets, not the MCR.
I respectfully disagree. The MSSR is meant to protect shorts from paying to much in the
case they get margin called. This limit is supposed to be effective in illiquid markets.
bitCNY:BTS is far from illiquit and MSSR should IMHO not be the major problem. Those
not maintaining their collateral are the problem and they risk paying a premium.
In crypto, paying a premium of 10% pay not be "sufficient" incentive to maintain the ratio
hence why I propose to remove the MSSR entirely for positions that literally *fail* to
maintain the ratio @ less than 150% (or so).
The feed BSIP42 is adjustting the MSSR dynamically indeed, not the MCR like said.
I don't see how changing MSSR affects anything ..
If we didn't have a new method to solve and prevent the black swan, some changes is very dangerous and immature.
We do have BSIP18 - preventing black swan is not an option unless you accept running fractional reserver, which i do not.
If we didn't have a new method to make sure feed price reaction the real market price or Fair Price, some changes is very dangerous and immature too.
Yes, I want the price feed to be "closer" to the fair price and I want the traded price to be closer to the real price too (low premiums) and ideally, all of that with
a small spread.
Ultimately, there are two goals bitassets tried to achieve and have promised in the last years:
1) settlement at a fair price ("fair" as in 5% 'fee' but at least a transparent price)
2) full collateralization (as in >100% - maybe even signifiantly more than >100)
I do see a need to reduce the costs for generating supply so that shorters can sell into the market and reduce the premium - hence reduced MCR. *OF COURSE*, the MCR shouldn't be lowered too much.
All I am saying is that I want another experiment ..
-
I disagree, or at least, I cannot agree. No one ever tried experimenting with the MCR, so we simply do not know
if it will work or not. I believe it is worth a try and can help reduce the premium.
The MSSR lead the premium，not the MCR，if you change MSSR to 105% or 103%, you will find a different premium.
It is only dangerous to those that are short and do not monitor their position, as it should be.
It is dangerous to the whole bitasset, not only the short, it's not a experiment.
Not sure what you mean with "flexible". If you are proposing to add another "price" just for settlement, then
I believe you haven't thought through the consequences with respect to arbitrage that could exploit two
different price feeds. If you mean something else, please elaborate.
no, the feed price didn't change , just reaction the fair price. we can design a quick force settlement fuction to instead of the margin call for to the shorter which below 175%, and make a dynamically force settlement offset(like min -2%) to the shorter which below 175%.
I respectfully disagree. The MSSR is meant to protect shorts from paying to much in the
case they get margin called. This limit is supposed to be effective in illiquid markets.
bitCNY:BTS is far from illiquit and MSSR should IMHO not be the major problem. Those
not maintaining their collateral are the problem and they risk paying a premium.
In crypto, paying a premium of 10% pay not be "sufficient" incentive to maintain the ratio
hence why I propose to remove the MSSR entirely for positions that literally *fail* to
maintain the ratio @ less than 150% (or so).
The 110% MSSR is destroy the depth of the market, and Serious squeeze the market，make the premium up to 15%.
i don't want to argue about it, as it happened again and again in the market.
I don't see how changing MSSR affects anything ..
you can find the relation of the price of BITNCY/bts and the bitcny feed price/MSSR, and something will clearly.
We do have BSIP18 - preventing black swan is not an option unless you accept running fractional reserver, which i do not.
BSIP18 is not a good method, you can check the BITMEX Perpetual Contracts.
https://www.bitmex.com/app/perpetualContractsGuide
If we didn't have a new method to change MSSR, the DEX price can't be as a feed price, beacause the dex price always been squeezed by the MSSR.
and the The feed BSIP42 has some effect，but it adjust dynamically too high.
-
Provided that the UI team is looking for help with UX/UI and they now have a leason, I am in support for the Rossul worker: 1.14.124 https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2018-09-rossul-ui
-
At this point, I decided to withdraw my support from witnesses to that feed BSIP42 to bitUSD. This will happen later this week so there is sufficient time for witnesses to
evaluate their individual situation.
My thinking is quite easy, I (as a proxy) gave an approval to BSIP42 in the premise that it would be limited to bitCNY for now (in fact I wanted it to named explicitly in the BSIP - which unfortunately didn't happen).
The reason is that I can only acknowledge the fact that the Chinese community apparently wants to experiment with bitCNY which is "their native token" - they know their own markets much better than I do
and I have mostly seen support for BSIP42 from the chinese community so far.
bitUSD is a different beast though. There are many opponents (me included) about running BSIP42 on bitUSD. Not only because there is no real on-off-ramp for bitUSD into fiat USD but also because
it is a less liquid market. I am not convinced it would work well there.
Also, BSIP42, to me is a short term "patch" at best. It forces a price onto the markets instead of providing incentives to the market. Knowing how nuBits failed with such an approach
I would argue that we should do better.
NuBits has failed due to its pure botting framework which highly exposes to risks when trend changes. We're far different.
BSIP42 DOES provide incentives to the market. When bitUSD is at premium, settlement price is adjusted to higher (note: all price in my comment is X bitUSD per BTS) than trading price, borrowers are encouraged to borrow more bitUSD and sell into existence thus helps the peg, because it's less likely to be margin called. It's not setting trading price, instead, trading is free.
That said, i still support the BSIP42 worker because it want the Chinese community to continue their experiment on bitCNY and chose to instead withdraw my vote
from witnesses that push BSIP42 onto bitUSD.
How to go forward (IMHO):
While BSIP42 is a rather harsh approach that seems to work well (for bitCNY), I would try another experiment and allow witnesses to leverage the "maintainance
collateral ratio" (MCR). In my (and other people's) mind, when there is a premium, we see too little supply and reducing the MCR would allow
"cheaper" creation of bitUSD. While if there is a negative premium, there is oversupply and the MCR could be raised to reduce the supply (potentially through
margin calls).
The only drawbacks I currently see are:
- shorters need to watch their collateral more actively because their position could be called even if the price is not moving
- there is a backend issue that currently prevents this approaach from being effective/fair
The fact that MCR cannot be lower than 100.1% is _NOT_ a drawback because bitassets are supposed to always be backed
by at least 100% reserves. Removing settlement would not make sense here. Removing black swan/global settlement would
not be required (make sense) either.
When talking about "make sense" you only provided conclusions but no valid argument in regards to why it makes sense or not.
To further improve bitassets, I would recommend to lose then limits of the "short protection ratio" in case a call position goes
below a collateral ratio of .. say 130% to force the margin call to buy into the entire market not just up to 10%. This would be an
additional penalty to those that don't even bother keeping their collateral ratio sane.
As mentioned in BSIP42, applying a modifier to settlement price is effectively same as applying a modifier to MCR, MSSR and force_settlement_offset at same time.
When the modifier is greater than 10%, MSSR is effectively adjusted to less than 100% thus margin calls is avoided at all, thus reduced sell pressure (of collateral), thus reduced bitUSD premium, because selling BTS is buying bitUSD which pushes up the premium. Your proposal about increasing MSSR will lead to more consumption to market depth thus IMHO doesn't help the peg.
On the other hand, reducing MCR does effectively increase of possibility of black swan, it's no difference than increasing settlement price.
The only difference I can see is adjusting MCR and etc provides more transparency than adjusting settlement price, while effectively it's the same. The cons are also obvious: they can not be adjusted to less than 100% when needed as (IMHO) proven on bitCNY.
The MSSR is meant to protect shorts from paying to much in the
case they get margin called. This limit is supposed to be effective in illiquid markets.
bitCNY:BTS is far from illiquit and MSSR should IMHO not be the major problem.
Margin calls not protected by MSSR DID greatly suppress liquidity. Increasing MSSR in a downtrend DOES harm the peg. It IS one of the major problems.
-
At this point, I decided to withdraw my support from witnesses to that feed BSIP42 to bitUSD. This will happen later this week so there is sufficient time for witnesses to
evaluate their individual situation.
I started to feed BSIP42 on BitUSD mostly because majority of witnesses started to do the same. Few hours ago in the witness chat Bitcrab told everyone that they will start removing votes for witnesses that do not support BSIP42 starting with spring-team, but in reality their votes do not much the BSIP42 BitUSD witnesses.
Guys, your fighting is endangering the stability of the blockchain! Keep in mind that the witness job is not only about the price feed.
Please acknowledge the fact that there are disagreements about BSIP-42 and do not vote out witnesses who have been providing reliable services just because they disagree with you.
-
At this point, I decided to withdraw my support from witnesses to that feed BSIP42 to bitUSD. This will happen later this week so there is sufficient time for witnesses to
evaluate their individual situation.
I started to feed BSIP42 on BitUSD mostly because majority of witnesses started to do the same. Few hours ago in the witness chat Bitcrab told everyone that they will start removing votes for witnesses that do not support BSIP42 starting with spring-team, but in reality their votes do not much the BSIP42 BitUSD witnesses.
Guys, your fighting is endangering the stability of the blockchain! Keep in mind that the witness job is not only about the price feed.
Please acknowledge the fact that there are disagreements about BSIP-42 and do not vote out witnesses who have been providing reliable services just because they disagree with you.
Agreed.
-
At this point, I decided to withdraw my support from witnesses to that feed BSIP42 to bitUSD. This will happen later this week so there is sufficient time for witnesses to
evaluate their individual situation.
I started to feed BSIP42 on BitUSD mostly because majority of witnesses started to do the same. Few hours ago in the witness chat Bitcrab told everyone that they will start removing votes for witnesses that do not support BSIP42 starting with spring-team, but in reality their votes do not much the BSIP42 BitUSD witnesses.
Guys, your fighting is endangering the stability of the blockchain! Keep in mind that the witness job is not only about the price feed.
Please acknowledge the fact that there are disagreements about BSIP-42 and do not vote out witnesses who have been providing reliable services just because they disagree with you.
Too late, the trend of voting out witnesses started already with BSIP42 while experimenting on BitCNY. Bitcrab and Abit both withdrew their votes from verbaltech2 witness dropping the rank from 3rd down to 19th, simply for asking questions and disagreeing with the way BSIP42 experimentation was being conducted.
I concur, that the health of BitShares will be best with a spirit of cooperation rather than competition & fighting. I do agree with your sentiment PC, but we also shouldn't over react and let voting become constrained either.
I see the biggest issue with trying to move too fast and with too narrow of a view. I would like to see a safer, more conservative, engineering with published analysis.
And thank you PC for reminding everyone there is FAR MORE to the role of witness than price feeds. There seem to be many that disagree, and it's an all or nothing proposition for them to base their votes on only 1 aspect of the witness role, and only on 1 market rather than thinking of the ecosystem as tool for the world.
-
At this point, I decided to withdraw my support from witnesses to that feed BSIP42 to bitUSD. This will happen later this week so there is sufficient time for witnesses to
evaluate their individual situation.
My thinking is quite easy, I (as a proxy) gave an approval to BSIP42 in the premise that it would be limited to bitCNY for now (in fact I wanted it to named explicitly in the BSIP - which unfortunately didn't happen).
The reason is that I can only acknowledge the fact that the Chinese community apparently wants to experiment with bitCNY which is "their native token" - they know their own markets much better than I do
and I have mostly seen support for BSIP42 from the chinese community so far.
bitUSD is a different beast though. There are many opponents (me included) about running BSIP42 on bitUSD. Not only because there is no real on-off-ramp for bitUSD into fiat USD but also because
it is a less liquid market. I am not convinced it would work well there.
Also, BSIP42, to me is a short term "patch" at best. It forces a price onto the markets instead of providing incentives to the market. Knowing how nuBits failed with such an approach
I would argue that we should do better.
That said, i still support the BSIP42 worker because it want the Chinese community to continue their experiment on bitCNY and chose to instead withdraw my vote
from witnesses that push BSIP42 onto bitUSD.
To avoid playing double standards, will you stop voting for witnesses who refuse to appropriately apply BSIP42 on bitCNY? (note: do it "appropriately" may be a bit hard for some people)
-
At this point, I decided to withdraw my support from witnesses to that feed BSIP42 to bitUSD. This will happen later this week so there is sufficient time for witnesses to
evaluate their individual situation.
I started to feed BSIP42 on BitUSD mostly because majority of witnesses started to do the same. Few hours ago in the witness chat Bitcrab told everyone that they will start removing votes for witnesses that do not support BSIP42 starting with spring-team, but in reality their votes do not much the BSIP42 BitUSD witnesses.
Guys, your fighting is endangering the stability of the blockchain! Keep in mind that the witness job is not only about the price feed.
Please acknowledge the fact that there are disagreements about BSIP-42 and do not vote out witnesses who have been providing reliable services just because they disagree with you.
Witnesses (like employees) are expected to do EVERYTHING right.
Voters are expected to make rational decisions. However, no matter what decisions are made, voters have the final say. We're not like the PoW chains.
-
Witnesses (like employees) are expected to do EVERYTHING right.
<fairy tale>
Alice and Bob are running a window cleaning business, and Charlie is their employee. Alice insists that windows must be cleaned with MagicClean(tm), while Bob insists that windows must be cleaned with WindowMagic(tm).
If Charlie uses MagicClean, Bob will fire him. If Charlie uses WindowMagic, Alice will fire him. What should he do?
Alice and Bob's customers don't care how their windows are cleaned, they're just interested in having clean windows. What should they do?
So the customers (and Charlie as well) go to Dave, who is also running a window cleaning business. Charlie, Dave and the customers live happily ever after, while Alice and Bob go broke.
</fairy tale>
If Alice and Bob were clever they'd sort out their differences among themselves, then tell Charlie about their decision. And NO, the BSIP-42 vote is not a decision, because obviously everyone is reading something else into it.
Stop brute-forcing decisions and find consensus!
-
Witnesses (like employees) are expected to do EVERYTHING right.
<fairy tale>
Alice and Bob are running a window cleaning business, and Charlie is their employee. Alice insists that windows must be cleaned with MagicClean(tm), while Bob insists that windows must be cleaned with WindowMagic(tm).
If Charlie uses MagicClean, Bob will fire him. If Charlie uses WindowMagic, Alice will fire him. What should he do?
Alice and Bob's customers don't care how their windows are cleaned, they're just interested in having clean windows. What should they do?
So the customers (and Charlie as well) go to Dave, who is also running a window cleaning business. Charlie, Dave and the customers live happily ever after, while Alice and Bob go broke.
</fairy tale>
If Alice and Bob were clever they'd sort out their differences among themselves, then tell Charlie about their decision. And NO, the BSIP-42 vote is not a decision, because obviously everyone is reading something else into it.
Stop brute-forcing decisions and find consensus!
nice methaphor...Only thing missing is expecting Charlie to know enough advanced chemistry to decide which of the 2 products is better for the environment.
-
At this point, I decided to withdraw my support from witnesses to that feed BSIP42 to bitUSD. This will happen later this week so there is sufficient time for witnesses to
evaluate their individual situation.
My thinking is quite easy, I (as a proxy) gave an approval to BSIP42 in the premise that it would be limited to bitCNY for now (in fact I wanted it to named explicitly in the BSIP - which unfortunately didn't happen).
The reason is that I can only acknowledge the fact that the Chinese community apparently wants to experiment with bitCNY which is "their native token" - they know their own markets much better than I do
and I have mostly seen support for BSIP42 from the chinese community so far.
bitUSD is a different beast though. There are many opponents (me included) about running BSIP42 on bitUSD. Not only because there is no real on-off-ramp for bitUSD into fiat USD but also because
it is a less liquid market. I am not convinced it would work well there.
Also, BSIP42, to me is a short term "patch" at best. It forces a price onto the markets instead of providing incentives to the market. Knowing how nuBits failed with such an approach
I would argue that we should do better.
That said, i still support the BSIP42 worker because it want the Chinese community to continue their experiment on bitCNY and chose to instead withdraw my vote
from witnesses that push BSIP42 onto bitUSD.
To avoid playing double standards, will you stop voting for witnesses who refuse to appropriately apply BSIP42 on bitCNY? (note: do it "appropriately" may be a bit hard for some people)
I don't mind witnesses running BSIP42 on bitCNY, its up to them. But for bitUSD, more convincing and more factual information is needed.
-
To further improve bitassets, I would recommend to lose then limits of the "short protection ratio" in case a call position goes
below a collateral ratio of .. say 130% to force the margin call to buy into the entire market not just up to 10%. This would be an
additional penalty to those that don't even bother keeping their collateral ratio sane.
"increasing penalty to debt position owners" is not a key to solve the problem, it always make things even worse.
when market become serious bear, it's not easy for most of the players to add more money to the market. and actually the borrower in BTS is not only the simple borrowers in traditional financial markets, they play the important role of issuing currency! when you increase the cost to issue currency, the result is less users to issue less currency, and lead to more serious currency deflation problem.
My personal stand: I am AGAINST BSIP42 on BitUSD clearly puts BitUSD holders at an disadvantage and effectively wipes out their ability to convert their BitUSD to BTS and a true face value. BitUSD creators have their call price always ABOVE the current market price (black swan if they don't sell?)
bitUSD is designed to peg USD, not to provide premium, as a stable coin, big premium/discount are hindering potential adopters to come in.
force settlement is seldom used for long time, simple to understand, before BSIP42, feed price is already >3% higher than DEX price, considering the 1% force settlement offset, you always to pay more than 4% to convert bitUSD to BTS by forse settlement comparing to just buy in DEX, if you place a buy order with price 2% higher than latest price, your orders will be fulfilled rapidly, right?
-
I hereby remove my "threat" of unvoting witnesses if they apply BSIP42 to bitUSD.
Ultimately, threatening them was a mistake to begin with. Also, BSIP42 has been approved explicitly to grant freedom of choice to the witnesses. IMHO proxies shouldn't push a their decision about BSIP42 onto the witnesses.
With that said, sorry for my previous statement and sorry for the mess and uncertainty it may have caused.
Please also note the discussion in this thread: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27203.msg322845#msg322845
-
Dear Xeroc, could you please clarify you point here? What is the reason for you to not unvote those witnesses who feed updated prices to bitUSD?
1. You believe applying BSIP42 is safe for bitUSD.
2. You have concerns regarding BSIP42 applied to bitUSD, but you don't want or afraid to make a decision and take actions.
3. Any other?
Thank you very much in advance!
-
Dear Xeroc, could you please clarify you point here? What is the reason for you to not unvote those witnesses who feed updated prices to bitUSD?
1. You believe applying BSIP42 is safe for bitUSD.
2. You have concerns regarding BSIP42 applied to bitUSD, but you don't want or afraid to make a decision and take actions.
3. Any other?
Thank you very much in advance!
We currently are in a very interesting (and also competitive) time when it comes to "stable" crypto assets.
With that said, we do *need* to improve, or we will not be able to compete for much longer.
The market sees a need for a tighter peg, and the current "solution" provides that quite well.
It is my believe that the way BSIP42 is currently implemented is suboptimal in many ways, but it
achieves its goals. In addition, there is a backend limitation that prevents the witnesses from using
other means for utilizing BSIP42 fully.
In short, the way most witnesses currently deal with BSIP42 should be a short-term solution that is
ideally replaced with a method that is currently highly discussed but only possible *AFTER* fixing
the backend.
With those things in mind, I believe there is more value in keeping BSIP42 for now than to ditch it away
without replacement.
-
I have voted for the "bitshares-org" worker proposal:
https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2018-10-bitshares-org
-
With those things in mind, I believe there is more value in keeping BSIP42 for now than to ditch it away
without replacement.
Thanks a lot for the elaboration, Fabian!
Just to be totally clear, do I understand correctly that you evaluate risk of undercollateralization as very low?
-
Just to be totally clear, do I understand correctly that you evaluate risk of undercollateralization as very low?
I do believe undercollatarlization must be avoided at all costs!
But I also realize that
a) black swan isn't as bad as world armageddon, but in fact can be recovered through BSIP18 and
b) the risk of *OVER-ALL* undercollateralization is much smaller than the risk of an individual position going below 100% collateral.
Point b) is very crucial to understand and while I do not believe we should bail out individual short positions with too little collateral (but instead would rather penalize
them), I do see a fine line between risking the entire asset through global settlement just because of a single position being undercollateralized and temporarily tune
price feeds to potentially "hide" a few undercollateralized positions (that will have a margin call that can be filled!).
Again, to me, this is a short-term solution and I would prefer any undercollateralization to be *obvisous* and *transparent*, but we first need to fix the backend to provide us
with the necessary means to get there. In the mean time, plenty of discussion is being done to figure out the "how"
-
Just to be totally clear, do I understand correctly that you evaluate risk of undercollateralization as very low?
I do believe undercollatarlization must be avoided at all costs!
But I also realize that
a) black swan isn't as bad as world armageddon, but in fact can be recovered through BSIP18 and
b) the risk of *OVER-ALL* undercollateralization is much smaller than the risk of an individual position going below 100% collateral.
Point b) is very crucial to understand and while I do not believe we should bail out individual short positions with too little collateral (but instead would rather penalize
them), I do see a fine line between risking the entire asset through global settlement just because of a single position being undercollateralized and temporarily tune
price feeds to potentially "hide" a few undercollateralized positions (that will have a margin call that can be filled!).
Again, to me, this is a short-term solution and I would prefer any undercollateralization to be *obvisous* and *transparent*, but we first need to fix the backend to provide us
with the necessary means to get there. In the mean time, plenty of discussion is being done to figure out the "how"
I've got your point, thanks a lot!
-
Just to be totally clear, do I understand correctly that you evaluate risk of undercollateralization as very low?
I do believe undercollatarlization must be avoided at all costs!
But I also realize that
a) black swan isn't as bad as world armageddon, but in fact can be recovered through BSIP18 and
b) the risk of *OVER-ALL* undercollateralization is much smaller than the risk of an individual position going below 100% collateral.
Point b) is very crucial to understand and while I do not believe we should bail out individual short positions with too little collateral (but instead would rather penalize
them), I do see a fine line between risking the entire asset through global settlement just because of a single position being undercollateralized and temporarily tune
price feeds to potentially "hide" a few undercollateralized positions (that will have a margin call that can be filled!).
Again, to me, this is a short-term solution and I would prefer any undercollateralization to be *obvisous* and *transparent*, but we first need to fix the backend to provide us
with the necessary means to get there. In the mean time, plenty of discussion is being done to figure out the "how"
So glad to see you make these points clear Fabian. I see collateralization is a crucial, bedrock principle that must be maintained. Lets not allow BitShares to become like Bitcoin, with its whitepaper principles ignored and the platform no longer useful for why it was created.
I'm not saying the platform shouldn't evolve, ofc it should nothing is ever perfect. I'm just saying its evolution should take place according to sound economic and individual freedom promoting principles (Austrian, not Keynesian, individuals not collectives) and not forget the lessons learned over the centuries and in particular the last 100 or so years of just how counter to individual freedom and prosperity centralized planning is.
-
FYI: I voted for BSIP 43 and BSIP 44. Both are nice additions to bitshares!
I also approved the smartcoin marketing compaign, mostly because the funds are held merely by committee and every transfer
needs to be discussed again. There is need to a budget that can be spent on marketing.
-
Since bitcrab has declared OMO as inactive in the committee channel, I have also removed my vote from OMO.
Everything left in the worker will be used to support existing call positions.
-
Hello xeroc
It is convenient to look at this proposal, we believe in terms of time cost and product integrity. This has certain advantages.
In addition, we would like to invite you to join the proposal account multi-sign management. I don't know if you are interested.
Proposal address: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27486.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27486.0)
-
Hello xeroc
It is convenient to look at this proposal, we believe in terms of time cost and product integrity. This has certain advantages.
In addition, we would like to invite you to join the proposal account multi-sign management. I don't know if you are interested.
Proposal address: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27486.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27486.0)
Thank your for the offer! I much appreciate the trust you put in me.
The only issue that I am facing is time. I feel that I cannot perform the
amount of review that would be expected from me when being part
of this multisig group.
-
Hello xeroc
It is convenient to look at this proposal, we believe in terms of time cost and product integrity. This has certain advantages.
In addition, we would like to invite you to join the proposal account multi-sign management. I don't know if you are interested.
Proposal address: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27486.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27486.0)
Thank your for the offer! I much appreciate the trust you put in me.
The only issue that I am facing is time. I feel that I cannot perform the
amount of review that would be expected from me when being part
of this multisig group.
Very regrettable.
However, abit and jademont have already participated. I don't know if you can understand our worker proposal, we need you to vote for us.
thank you very much.
-
Hello Fabian
I hope you can take a look at our work proposal. Address: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27486.0
I hope you vote for us. Thank you.
-
Hello xeroc,
We would like to work on BTS data visualization. Currently, there is a discussion on it that has attracted a lot of attention from community. Here (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27350.0) is a part of the discussion. Could you vote for our Worker(ID: 1.14.135)？
Data Visualization：Investigation, Design and Implement (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27458.0)
We have published questionnaires using Chinese/English to collect community suggestions on data visualization :
(https://l.dpos.club/photo/2018/2fd7098b-2155-4f33-8ba5-c6f114e18fc5.png)
Chinese version : BTS数据可视化需求调查 (https://wj.qq.com/s/2973810/acca)
English version: An Investigation for BTS Data Visualization Worker Proposal (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfjrJcQoy6IEXZE1zQTawY9SOUTEUFXFAGuOOsafCSBlAmOQQ/viewform)
In addition, in the Chinese community, a preliminary summary of the survey results has been made: BTS数据可视化 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27557.0)
-
Hello Fabian
I hope you can take a look at our work proposal. Address: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27486.0
I hope you vote for us. Thank you.
Tested the app. Love it. Voted!
-
Xeroc,
On behalf of the DEXbot Cabinet (Permie, Gabe, Kevin Messerly, CryptoKong, and Cryptick) we would like to ask for your support for the "DEXBot WP2 Liquidity for the DEX" Worker Proposal. We feel as though we have made great progress, and everyone at BitShares will benefit as continue that work, bringing greater liquidity and trading volume to the DEX.
The Proposal is live on the Blockchain.
https://www.dexbot.info/2018/12/12/cabinet-multisig-dexbot-wp2/
Cryptick
-
Xeroc,
On behalf of the DEXbot Cabinet (Permie, Gabe, Kevin Messerly, CryptoKong, and Cryptick) we would like to ask for your support for the "DEXBot WP2 Liquidity for the DEX" Worker Proposal. We feel as though we have made great progress, and everyone at BitShares will benefit as continue that work, bringing greater liquidity and trading volume to the DEX.
The Proposal is live on the Blockchain.
https://www.dexbot.info/2018/12/12/cabinet-multisig-dexbot-wp2/
Cryptick
I love the work and passion you've put into this .. support!
-
FYI, I have removed my votes from committee members that have (after 3 weeks) not replied to the proposed fee schedule changes. Pretty disappointing.
-
I just removed my vote from witnesses xn-delegate, roelandp, and xman as they are feeding CNY prices that are more than 8% off.
gdex-witness promised to fix their feed script shortly.
I have also removed openledger-dc since they feed a USD price that is almost 20% off.
Also, I would like to let the community know that I will be most away from keyboard until January 6th.
See you all at 7th :D
-
Wish you happy holidays
-
Wish you happy holidays
Thanks.
Due to the need for legal mandate, I took a break from my break and approved the worker proposal to grant a mandate to the BBF for legal representation:
https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2019-01-legal-representative
-
since your are the biggest proxy who support crazybit
what's your thought about the feed price cheating?
I guess we all known how important the feed price is for us, and it's one of the mainy jobs for the witness.
but crazybit give us a 'fake' feed price.
here is his logic as I observe today:
every 5 minutes, he will check if his price equal the finally feed price(median price of all feed price),
if it's not, he change his price to the median price.
This is a very stupid strategy, it's cheat.
what's the thought of those who support him as a witness?
-
since your are the biggest proxy who support crazybit
what's your thought about the feed price cheating?
I guess we all known how important the feed price is for us, and it's one of the mainy jobs for the witness.
but crazybit give us a 'fake' feed price.
here is his logic as I observe today:
every 5 minutes, he will check if his price equal the finally feed price(median price of all feed price),
if it's not, he change his price to the median price.
This is a very stupid strategy, it's cheat.
what's the thought of those who support him as a witness?
That is indeed a stupid strategy. I'll do some research. If this turns out to be his implementation. I'll remove my support, ofc.
-
Hi Xeroc,
You have removed your support for my witness sahkan-bitshares on 20 DEC 2018 (the day the blockchain crashed). I just wanted to request that you consider re-voting my witness. Thank you for you past support!
-
Hi Xeroc,
You have removed your support for my witness sahkan-bitshares on 20 DEC 2018 (the day the blockchain crashed). I just wanted to request that you consider re-voting my witness. Thank you for you past support!
revoted. You've done a good job so far .. as it later turned out, the crash on december was not due to witnesses not upgrading their software in time - which was what i believed when i remove my vote from your witness (among others)
-
Hi Xeroc,
You have removed your support for my witness sahkan-bitshares on 20 DEC 2018 (the day the blockchain crashed). I just wanted to request that you consider re-voting my witness. Thank you for you past support!
revoted. You've done a good job so far .. as it later turned out, the crash on december was not due to witnesses not upgrading their software in time - which was what i believed when i remove my vote from your witness (among others)
Thank you! Also just republished the price feeds as they were above the threshold for the auto update; they are back to auto feeds again.
-
I just voted for:
* the new UI worker
* the Citadel worker
-
I support the candidacy of y new committee member
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27791.msg327460#msg327460
I'd like to hear more details but think that committee can use some fresh blood
-
Removed my vote from witness "delegate-zhaomu". He is double producing blocks:
Got block: #35402824 021c34487edacb4c6b6a679bc43c6371a8a9f9f2 time: 2019-03-04T17:52:27 transaction(s): 31 latency: 344 ms from: delegate-zhaomu
Got block: #35402824 021c3448705f175cfd865f4ed2c7aade0e0ec1ea time: 2019-03-04T17:52:27 transaction(s): 30 latency: 601 ms from: delegate-zhaomu
-
Removed my vote from witness "delegate-zhaomu". He is double producing blocks:
Got block: #35402824 021c34487edacb4c6b6a679bc43c6371a8a9f9f2 time: 2019-03-04T17:52:27 transaction(s): 31 latency: 344 ms from: delegate-zhaomu
Got block: #35402824 021c3448705f175cfd865f4ed2c7aade0e0ec1ea time: 2019-03-04T17:52:27 transaction(s): 30 latency: 601 ms from: delegate-zhaomu
Sorry for the “double producing” issue. It was my mistake and I fixed immediately after abit reminded me. At that day, I developed a new backup node to substitute the old one and I didn’t close the old server immediately (I thought it was better to keep the old one running for a while until the new one was proved to work fine).I didn’t notice that my witness-monitor script had already automatically changed to backup node’s signing key and I forgot to check the status when deploying. This was the cause of “double producing”. I realize that it was a big mistake and it shall never happen again. I hope you will re-vote me. Thank you.
-
Thanks for getting back at me .. I'll add my vote to your witness again. Please don't double sign!
New workers I am voting for:
* Poll - BSIP59 - Reduce MCR of bitCNY to 1.6
* 201903-bitshares.org-exotic-infrastructure
* 201903-atomic-cross-chain-swaps
New witnesses I vote for:
* delegate-zhaomu
Important Remark
Since our workers are now consuming the entire daily budget, and some workers do not receive any funding while others receive theirs plus extra backoff,
I will start rotating my votes for active witnesses start in April. This means, I will remove my votes from workers that are currently active but funded
sufficiently to continue their work, then, after some time (e.g. 4 weeks), I rotate my votes again.
By this I hope to distribute funds across more worker proposals instead of having too much excess funds in individual ones.
Since I cannot change workers to become active/inactive alone, I will post here frequently for other proxies to potentially follow the idea voluntarily.
-
As promised last week, I am now starting to rotate my votes. Consequently, I will remove my vote from workers even though I technically support them to give room for other workers.
The list of workers I (generally support):
- 201902-bitshares-core
- 201902-reference-faucet
- 201902-infrastructure
- 201902-bitshares-ui
- 201810-bitshares-org
- 201901-legal-representative
- 201902-marketing-interviews-articles-and-visibility
- 2018-09-rossul-ui
- 201903-atomic-cross-chain-swaps
- 201812 Bitshares Mobile App [this one should be fully funded already - @team, please update us]
- 201903-bitshares.org-exotic-infrastructure
- DEXBot WP2 - Liquidity for the DEX
Poll workers I keep supporting:
- Poll - BSIP42 - NO adjustment to price feed
- Poll-BSIP41-Reduce MSSR of bitCNY from 1.1 to 1.05
- Poll - BSIP59 - Reduce MSSR of bitCNY to 1.02 (to replace the vorker above)
- Poll - BSIP59 - Reduce MCR of bitCNY to 1.6
- Poll-BSIP58-Global Settlement Protection on bitCNY
- Poll-BSIP58-Global Settlement Protection on bitUSD
- Poll - BSIP59 - Reduce MSSR of bitUSD to 1.05
- Poll - BSIP59 - Reduce MSSR of bitUSD to 1.02
The ones I vote for in this period:
- 201902-bitshares-core
- 201902-infrastructure
- 201810-bitshares-org
- 201902-marketing-interviews-articles-and-visibility
- 201903-atomic-cross-chain-swaps
- 201903-bitshares.org-exotic-infrastructure
- DEXBot WP2 - Liquidity for the DEX
- 2018-09-rossul-ui
(e.g. every odd worker in the list above)
edit: added more workers that are in need for funding more desperately
-
As promised last week, I am now starting to rotate my votes. Consequently, I will remove my vote from workers even though I technically support them to give room for other workers.
The list of workers I (generally support):
- 201902-bitshares-core
- 201902-reference-faucet
- 201902-infrastructure
- 201902-bitshares-ui
- 201810-bitshares-org
- 201901-legal-representative
- 201902-marketing-interviews-articles-and-visibility
- 2018-09-rossul-ui
- 201903-atomic-cross-chain-swaps
- 201812 Bitshares Mobile App [this one should be fully funded already - @team, please update us]
- 201903-bitshares.org-exotic-infrastructure
- DEXBot WP2 - Liquidity for the DEX
Poll workers I keep supporting:
- Poll - BSIP59 - Reduce MSSR of bitCNY to 1.02
- Poll - BSIP59 - Reduce MCR of bitCNY to 1.6
The ones I vote for in this period:
- 201902-bitshares-core
- 201902-infrastructure
- 201810-bitshares-org
- 201902-marketing-interviews-articles-and-visibility
- 201903-atomic-cross-chain-swaps
- 201903-bitshares.org-exotic-infrastructure
(e.g. every odd worker in the list above)
Thanks for the update xeroc. This is an excellent way to ensure adequate funding for more workers and I hope other proxies follow suit and sync their pick with yours.
However, although I understand you went for a simple first-selection algorithm, I suggest you change your first picks to include ones that are in more "urgent" need of funding such as rossul.
How often do you plan to rotate the votes?
-
As promised last week, I am now starting to rotate my votes. Consequently, I will remove my vote from workers even though I technically support them to give room for other workers.
The list of workers I (generally support):
- 201902-bitshares-core
- 201902-reference-faucet
- 201902-infrastructure
- 201902-bitshares-ui
- 201810-bitshares-org
- 201901-legal-representative
- 201902-marketing-interviews-articles-and-visibility
- 2018-09-rossul-ui
- 201903-atomic-cross-chain-swaps
- 201812 Bitshares Mobile App [this one should be fully funded already - @team, please update us]
- 201903-bitshares.org-exotic-infrastructure
- DEXBot WP2 - Liquidity for the DEX
Poll workers I keep supporting:
- Poll - BSIP59 - Reduce MSSR of bitCNY to 1.02
- Poll - BSIP59 - Reduce MCR of bitCNY to 1.6
The ones I vote for in this period:
- 201902-bitshares-core
- 201902-infrastructure
- 201810-bitshares-org
- 201902-marketing-interviews-articles-and-visibility
- 201903-atomic-cross-chain-swaps
- 201903-bitshares.org-exotic-infrastructure
(e.g. every odd worker in the list above)
Support! At present, the funds of our workers are enough to pay for the next work.
We also feel that getting more workers to get funding is very beneficial to the ecological development of bitshares.
-
Thanks for the update xeroc. This is an excellent way to ensure adequate funding for more workers and I hope other proxies follow suit and sync their pick with yours.
However, although I understand you went for a simple first-selection algorithm, I suggest you change your first picks to include ones that are in more "urgent" need of funding such as rossul.
How often do you plan to rotate the votes?
Good call.
I added DEXBot and rossul, they do need funding.
Originally, I intended to update votes every 4 weeks. That might be too long. Let's see ..
-
Hi Xeroc, do you consider voting abc123 as witness? btsabc.org is the biggest Chinese forum for bitshares, and has been running for 5 years. We provide API bit.btsabc.org and gateway bit.btsabc.org, also we participate every update on testnet, so I wish you can support our witness, thanks a lot.
-
Hi Xeroc, do you consider voting abc123 as witness? btsabc.org is the biggest Chinese forum for bitshares, and has been running for 5 years. We provide API bit.btsabc.org and gateway bit.btsabc.org, also we participate every update on testnet, so I wish you can support our witness, thanks a lot.
Missed this one. Thanks for pinging me! Keep up the good work!
-
Hi Xeroc, do you consider voting abc123 as witness? btsabc.org is the biggest Chinese forum for bitshares, and has been running for 5 years. We provide API bit.btsabc.org and gateway bit.btsabc.org, also we participate every update on testnet, so I wish you can support our witness, thanks a lot.
Missed this one. Thanks for pinging me! Keep up the good work!
OK, Thankyou!
-
As promised last week, I am now starting to rotate my votes. Consequently, I will remove my vote from workers even though I technically support them to give room for other workers.
The list of workers I (generally support):
- 201902-bitshares-core
- 201902-reference-faucet
- 201902-infrastructure
- 201902-bitshares-ui
- 201810-bitshares-org
- 201901-legal-representative
- 201902-marketing-interviews-articles-and-visibility
- 2018-09-rossul-ui
- 201903-atomic-cross-chain-swaps
- 201812 Bitshares Mobile App [this one should be fully funded already - @team, please update us]
- 201903-bitshares.org-exotic-infrastructure
- DEXBot WP2 - Liquidity for the DEX
Poll workers I keep supporting:
- Poll - BSIP42 - NO adjustment to price feed
- Poll-BSIP41-Reduce MSSR of bitCNY from 1.1 to 1.05
- Poll - BSIP59 - Reduce MSSR of bitCNY to 1.02 (to replace the vorker above)
- Poll - BSIP59 - Reduce MCR of bitCNY to 1.6
- Poll-BSIP58-Global Settlement Protection on bitCNY
- Poll-BSIP58-Global Settlement Protection on bitUSD
The ones I vote for in this period:
- 201902-bitshares-core
- 201902-infrastructure
- 201810-bitshares-org
- 201902-marketing-interviews-articles-and-visibility
- 201903-atomic-cross-chain-swaps
- 201903-bitshares.org-exotic-infrastructure
- DEXBot WP2 - Liquidity for the DEX
- 2018-09-rossul-ui
(e.g. every odd worker in the list above)
edit: added more workers that are in need for funding more desperately
hi xeroc,do you support bisp59(Reduce MCR to 1.6)?
-
BSIP59
-
BSIP59
Yes ... you quoted it :D
-
But I see you haven't voted yet.
-
Now that I see activity again from committee member openledgerdc internally, I decided to give my approval to them again.
It bothered me that they have been inactive in internal discussions for quite some time ... Fortunately, that changed.
+5%
-
I started voting for these poll workers:
1.14.178 Poll - BSIP59 - Reduce MSSR of bitUSD to 1.05
1.14.179 Poll - BSIP59 - Reduce MSSR of bitUSD to 1.02
I do support an MSSR of 1.02 (similar to bitCNY) but would be ok with 1.05 as well.
-
I am voting for 1.14.183 - wirex integration
-
Please unvote these witnesses! These witnesses have not yet changed the MCR to 1.6, and they do not follow community consensus!
delegate-1.lafona
blckchnd
openledger-dc
verbaltech2
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=28399.0
-
I do support the workers:
* 201904-hackthedex
* 2nd Global Graphene Devcon in Shanghai
Also new:
* bitspark-delegate committee
-
Hi Fabian,
On behalf of the DEXBot team, I would like to inform you that the latest DEXBot WP is now live on our website and available to review.
https://www.dexbot.info/2019/06/04/dexbot-worker-proposal-wp3/
If you have any questions or concerns please let us know.
Respectfully,
Kevin Messerly
AKA Kimchi King
-
Hi xeroc
Thank you for your support of BitShares Mobile Worker. We have completed the work of the established Worker and added and adjusted the functionality of the user suggestions.
In the past few months, we have demonstrated high-quality and high-quality work ability and serious work attitude. We have completed the basic functions including registration, login, transaction, transfer, voting, mortgage, etc., as well as multi-sign, proposal management, HTLC cross Chain transfer, multiple gateways feature.
In the new phase, we will continue to maintain a pragmatic working attitude and efficient work ability to continue to provide reliable maintenance and development work for BitShares Mobile.
I hope to get support from you and the community members you represent.
I look forward to more communication with you in Shanghai.
Related introductions and video presentations
2018-2019 Work Report (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27486.msg330856#msg330856g)
2019-2020 Work Plan (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=28460.0)
BitShares Mobile - Video「YouTube」 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9njZA_3l19E)
BitShares Mobile - Video「优酷」 (https://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNDIxODIzMzIzMg==.html?spm=a2h0k.11417342.soresults.dtitle)
Source Code&Download
GitHub (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-mobile-app)
Download (http://btspp.io)
Please vote for us
Proposal: 201906-bitshares-mobile-app (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=28460.0)
ID: 1.14.198
-
I now also vote for:
1.14.208 - Poll - BSIP59 - Keep MSSR of bitUSD as 1.02
1.14.206 - 2019-06-decentralized-partnership
1.14.205 - Poll - increase BTS holdings with accumulated market fee
1.14.204 - 201907-uccs-research-project
1.14.202 - BITCNY Opposing the Direct Destruction of Mortgage BTS
1.14.200 - [poll] BTS repurchase destruction proposal
1.14.199 - DEXBot WP3 - Liquidity for the DEX
1.14.198 - 201906-bitshares-mobile-app
1.14.190 - Article and Brand Marketing on Major News Websites
1.14.189 - 2nd Global Graphene Devcon in Shanghai
-
Please Unvote 9 Witnesses that have No Feed Global Protection for BitUSD.
liondani, verbaltech2, delegate-1.lafona, xn-delegate, abc123, xman, fox, roelandp, in.abit
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=28662.msg332430;topicseen#msg332430
-
Please Unvote 9 Witnesses that have No Feed Global Protection for BitUSD.
liondani, verbaltech2, delegate-1.lafona, xn-delegate, abc123, xman, fox, roelandp, in.abit
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=28662.msg332430;topicseen#msg332430
It would be nice if you said what this Feed Global Protection is. Your call to unvote witnesses for some fictitious "protection" just shows how the need to reform expectations about GS.
There is NO SUCH THING as GS protection besides people learning to manage THEIR OWN collateral properly. This platform was built to provide trading safety for all participants, but UNDER THEIR OWN PERSONAL CONTROL.
Those who cry for price manipulation as a means of "GS Protection" are pushing their responsibility for collateral management onto others. It is irresponsible and causes everyone to pay for it. Black Swan events will NOT STOP until this behavior is disincentivized. This is the 2nd black swan of BitUSD in under 1 year.
How long will this be tolerated? As long as those with voting power continue to allow the draining the reserve pool through subsidizing bad trading behavior of those who refuse to manage their collateral properly.
I have found no info that anyone has used the MCR fix (which took devs a very long time to implement, test and deploy into production) to control feeds better. Why not? Why ask for fake price feeds (changing prices ignoring feed sources, i.e. price manipulation) to protect a bad debt position?
Such repeated behavior is killing whatever integrity Bit Assets had on this platform. Just shows how far the Austrian economic principles of free trade have been corrupted in favor of mainstream Keynesian thinking that is destroying economies worldwide, and how short sighted people are in not seeing it occur right before their own eyes.
Until I see more responsible actions taken I have stopped feeding CNY and USD prices to remove this witness from participating in further corruption.
If you call for unvoting witnesses for not publishing specific feeds, make sure you also call for unvoting witnesses that refuse to publish ALL feeds (gdex-witness, abit, magicwallet.witness, xn-delegate, delegate.freedom, xman, witness.hiblockchain and sahkan-bitshares), or come up with a list of BitAsset feeds all witnesses must supply or be voted out. Such a list does not exist now, so calling for witness removal is premature based on which BitAssets feeds are or are not published.
Any idiot can call for unvoting anything, workers, witnesses, committee members etc, that is what we here in the USA call freedom of speech. Those same people show their lack of responsibility and ignorance by not providing good reasons, and those who blindly take such action without such reasons show they are simply order followers who do the bidding of their commanding overlords, just like the inhuman monsters that killed millions in Nazi Germany in WW2.
When will this attitude of violence, aggression and irresponsibility end? When good men step up and take action to stop it, and unfortunately I don't see much of that going on.
-
Why this argumentation now and not before when GS Protection have been voted in ?
If something is voted in for months i would thought it will be implemented since i didn't saw any conter argument from witnesses till now.
Also i disagree about bad debt holders behavior.They took debt to push the ecosystem of bitshares.If some people start collecting all stablecoins from that bitassets and keep holding them even in a downtrend what do you want the debt holders to do if there is no USD they could buy in a reasonable price range ?
A few people and workers sucked out majority of USD.
-
Why this argumentation now and not before when GS Protection have been voted in ?
Am I the only one required to be responsible here Thule? I don't know why other witnesses failed to provide arguments, but I have been pushing against price manipulation since before the BSIP42 fiasco.
Also i disagree about bad debt holders behavior.They took debt to push the ecosystem of bitshares.If some people start collecting all stablecoins from that bitassets and keep holding them even in a downtrend
Would you please elaborate on this point? I don't understand it.
what do you want the debt holders to do if there is no USD they could buy in a reasonable price range ?
I want them to manage their own debt better. If they wish to trade in a volatile market, they need to increase their collateral. It's not a difficult concept to understand. Problem is traders see collateral as a limitation of how much profit they can gain rather than as a necessary means of providing trading safety in such markets.
A few people and workers sucked out majority of USD.
I believe that is irrelevant to discussion of GS "protection".
-
hi, Fabian,
I hope you can support to reduce bitUSD MCR to 1.5 based on careful consideration.
bitUSD is ill, we need to find ways to help it to recover.
Dr. Brown has already published his first paper about smartcoin mechanism, although the research is based on a simple model, it give some conclusion that it make sense to set MCR<1.53 to incentivize smartcoin supply.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=28823.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=28823.0)
the risk of undercollateralization is very limited, especially when bitUSD is already under GS protection.
set USD MCR=1.5 and keep CNY MCR=1.6 will also attract capital from CNY market to USD market to help bitUSD to recover.
please support for a more prosperous ecosystem. thanks!
(http://i2.tiimg.com/523014/a2f07c486dd7e7f8.png)
-
hi, Fabian,
I hope you can support to reduce bitUSD MCR to 1.5 based on careful consideration.
bitUSD is ill, we need to find ways to help it to recover.
Dr. Brown has already published his first paper about smartcoin mechanism, although the research is based on a simple model, it give some conclusion that it make sense to set MCR<1.53 to incentivize smartcoin supply.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=28823.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=28823.0)
the risk of undercollateralization is very limited, especially when bitUSD is already under GS protection.
set USD MCR=1.5 and keep CNY MCR=1.6 will also attract capital from CNY market to USD market to help bitUSD to recover.
please support for a more prosperous ecosystem. thanks!
This what he said about his particular paper numbers:
- The specific numbers used in the paper (MSSR= 1.005, 1.01, 1.02 and MCR= 1.4, 1.5, 1.6) are to be taken with a grain of salt. I used them to illustrate the general shape of the problem, not to draw any specific conclusions about those particular parameter choices.
-
Now voting for the Las Vegas Conference
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=28450.0
-
I support the following BSIPs:
BSIP 73: Match force-settlement orders with margin calls and limit orders
BSIP 72: Tanks and Taps: A General Solution for Smart Contract Asset Handling
BSIP 70: Peer-to-Peer Leveraged Trading
BSIP 69: Additional Assert Predicates
BSIP 64: Optional HTLC preimage length, HASH160 addition, and memo field
BSIP 62: Close margin position
BSIP 61: Operation to Update Limit Orders
BSIP 57: Managed Vesting Balances
BSIP 47: Vote Proxies for Different Referendum Categories and explicit voting operation
BSIP 45: Add BitAsset as Backing Collateral flag/permission
BSIP 39: Automatically approve proposals by the proposer
BSIP 22: Vote Decay for Witnesses, Committee members & Proxies
Also, I am not 100% sure vote-decay will change things to the better, but I am willing to support this experiment.
-
I support the following BSIPs:
BSIP 73: Match force-settlement orders with margin calls and limit orders
BSIP 72: Tanks and Taps: A General Solution for Smart Contract Asset Handling
BSIP 70: Peer-to-Peer Leveraged Trading
BSIP 69: Additional Assert Predicates
BSIP 64: Optional HTLC preimage length, HASH160 addition, and memo field
BSIP 62: Close margin position
BSIP 61: Operation to Update Limit Orders
BSIP 57: Managed Vesting Balances
BSIP 47: Vote Proxies for Different Referendum Categories and explicit voting operation
BSIP 45: Add BitAsset as Backing Collateral flag/permission
BSIP 39: Automatically approve proposals by the proposer
BSIP 22: Vote Decay for Witnesses, Committee members & Proxies
Also, I am not 100% sure vote-decay will change things to the better, but I am willing to support this experiment.
Thanks man, very appreciated your effort and time is here.
Good that you gave a chance to vote decay too.
-
Can you approve Committee-account Proposal: 1.10.50903 to Create a new Worker "BAIP-Threshold"? Is one of the criteria to pass a BAIP(BitAssets Improvement Proposal)
https://github.com/bitshares/baips/blob/master/baip-0001.md
-
Please consider vote for Worker: 1.14.236 BAIP-Threshold to increase the number of votes required, one of the criteria to pass a BAIP(BitAssets Improvement Proposal).
-
Many have noticed already, that I have found less and less time to participate actively
in BitShares related topics like politics, development, etc.
In particular in these days, I have to focus on my own businesses more than ever and
thus don't find time to participate in projects for the fun alone. This includes my
participation on social media channel, businesses, support, development on various
github repositories and the foundation.
However, I realize that my assistance might be helpful from time to time. This is why
I will still be available for this community and the BitShares Blockchain, however,
no longer for free.
Furthermore I don't have the time to prepare another random worker proposal with
all the politics and drama involved. For this reason, I ask the community to provide
funding (through any means) upfront if they like to hire me for work.
In the meantime, I'd like to also let everyone know that there are talks for a sale of
bitshares.eu.
Fare well.