BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: lafona on February 26, 2016, 02:21:19 pm
-
With the recent split over dilution/anti-dilution, I wanted to point out an interesting feature (the reject button) of our worker proposal voting and discuss its implications on how it can be used. Since the reject button subtracts votes from an option, it can be used as a way to amplify the weight of your approval votes. This is because the worker approval process is based on the competition between human workers and the refund/burn workers. Instead of simply voting for the worker of their choice, a shareholder could reject the competing parties to double their weight. To find examples one can look at the current voting report at http://cryptofresh.com/ballots (http://cryptofresh.com/ballots)
(http://imgur.com/KIUaIa5.jpg)
Because of the current split it is easy to see this technique applied to both sides by looking at the first two columns.
Currently boazi is applying the full strength(2x) of their votes in support of the refund/burn workers.(one far side of the spectrum)
Angel on the other hand is using the full strength(2x) of their votes in support of the human workers. (other far side of the spectrum)
Thus if one wants to look at the potential effect of their votes, they need to look at the difference between the workers they support, and the workers in competition.
I hope this is helpful. I was thinking about it the other day and it ended up influencing the way I voted with my stake. Feel free to comment or correct anything I might have mistaken.
-
+5% for the explanation so that people know how to best maximize the impact of their stake voting!
Well done!
-
Excellent explanation, thank you. I've been a horrible participant in this democracy and intend to change that by consistently voting. Since we're on the topic of voting, i wanted to raise this question/issue:
QUESTION: Is it true that only the BTS balance counts towards voting? As in, assets, smartcoins, and open order and borrowed collateral balances (or BTS equivalent value) do not count?
ISSUE: If so, this system severely penalizes investors in our products, traders, and those providing liquidity to our system by borrowing these products into existence.
This system bifurcates incentives--you can either hold a large BTS balance to vote, or you can participate in our markets and thereby lose voting power in how the system is governed.
-
Excellent explanation, thank you. I've been a horrible participant in this democracy and intend to change that by consistently voting. Since we're on the topic of voting, i wanted to raise this question/issue:
QUESTION: Is it true that only the BTS balance counts towards voting? As in, assets, smartcoins, and open order and borrowed collateral balances (or BTS equivalent value) do not count?
ISSUE: If so, this system severely penalizes investors in our products, traders, and those providing liquidity to our system by borrowing these products into existence.
This system bifurcates incentives--you can either hold a large BTS balance to vote, or you can participate in our markets and thereby lose voting power in how the system is governed.
As far as I know the bts collateral for smartcoins or prediction markets is included but other assets themselves are not.
-
Excellent explanation, thank you. I've been a horrible participant in this democracy and intend to change that by consistently voting. Since we're on the topic of voting, i wanted to raise this question/issue:
QUESTION: Is it true that only the BTS balance counts towards voting? As in, assets, smartcoins, and open order and borrowed collateral balances (or BTS equivalent value) do not count?
ISSUE: If so, this system severely penalizes investors in our products, traders, and those providing liquidity to our system by borrowing these products into existence.
This system bifurcates incentives--you can either hold a large BTS balance to vote, or you can participate in our markets and thereby lose voting power in how the system is governed.
As far as I know the bts collateral for smartcoins or prediction markets is included but other assets themselves are not.
ah, thanks for the info ...still would be a huge improvement and better alignment of incentives to base voting power on full BTS-equivalent account value.
-
Excellent explanation, thank you. I've been a horrible participant in this democracy and intend to change that by consistently voting. Since we're on the topic of voting, i wanted to raise this question/issue:
QUESTION: Is it true that only the BTS balance counts towards voting? As in, assets, smartcoins, and open order and borrowed collateral balances (or BTS equivalent value) do not count?
ISSUE: If so, this system severely penalizes investors in our products, traders, and those providing liquidity to our system by borrowing these products into existence.
This system bifurcates incentives--you can either hold a large BTS balance to vote, or you can participate in our markets and thereby lose voting power in how the system is governed.
As far as I know the bts collateral for smartcoins or prediction markets is included but other assets themselves are not.
ah, thanks for the info ...still would be a huge improvement and better alignment of incentives to base voting power on full BTS-equivalent account value.
If you borrow some smart coins with your bts, and buy more bts with the borrowed smart coins, you'll have more voting power.
BTS on the order books is also included for voting.
By the way, the "vote against" feature would probably be removed in the future, since it's flawed.
-
Excellent explanation, thank you. I've been a horrible participant in this democracy and intend to change that by consistently voting. Since we're on the topic of voting, i wanted to raise this question/issue:
QUESTION: Is it true that only the BTS balance counts towards voting? As in, assets, smartcoins, and open order and borrowed collateral balances (or BTS equivalent value) do not count?
ISSUE: If so, this system severely penalizes investors in our products, traders, and those providing liquidity to our system by borrowing these products into existence.
This system bifurcates incentives--you can either hold a large BTS balance to vote, or you can participate in our markets and thereby lose voting power in how the system is governed.
As far as I know the bts collateral for smartcoins or prediction markets is included but other assets themselves are not.
ah, thanks for the info ...still would be a huge improvement and better alignment of incentives to base voting power on full BTS-equivalent account value.
If you borrow some smart coins with your bts, and buy more bts with the borrowed smart coins, you'll have more voting power.
BTS on the order books is also included for voting.
By the way, the "vote against" feature would probably be removed in the future, since it's flawed.
true, it'd still be much cleaner to simply count full BTS-equiv value
-
This was the reasons why I voted FOR the refund/burn workers
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565
Once the new fee proposal executes and the worker_create costs ~$50 .. I intend to remove my approval for refunds/burn entirely
-
This was the reasons why I voted FOR the refund/burn workers
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565
Once the new fee proposal executes and the worker_create costs ~$50 .. I intend to remove my approval for refunds/burn entirely
That is a good point. I didn't realized that the create worker fee was so low.
-
This was the reasons why I voted FOR the refund/burn workers
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565
Once the new fee proposal executes and the worker_create costs ~$50 .. I intend to remove my approval for refunds/burn entirely
I think it's better to let a smaller proxy do it.
$50 is hardly a barrier for attackers.
-
This was the reasons why I voted FOR the refund/burn workers
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565
Once the new fee proposal executes and the worker_create costs ~$50 .. I intend to remove my approval for refunds/burn entirely
I think it's better to let a smaller proxy do it.
$50 is hardly a barrier for attackers.
Seems like the best solution might be to get rid of the reject option, that way all votes work to increase the barrier for this type of attack.