BitShares Forum
Main => Stakeholder Proposals => Topic started by: xeroc on October 17, 2017, 07:29:06 am
-
Yet another industry-first
The BitShares Blockchain Foundation approches the BitShares token holders to
approve us (a Dutch non-profit foundation) to become public spokesperson of
its decentralized and distributed ecosystem.
In our opinion, this will grow confidence in the platform and allow new
businesses to approach a legal entity for consultation. This will also
enable the BitShares platform to approach businesses directly that are
under the scrutiny of regulatory and compliance bodies.
Read more about the proposal here:
http://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2017-10-spokesperson
We kindly ask you to take a few minutes to read and understand those
proposal and consider voting for it,
Kind regards
-- Fabian Schuh
-
my thoughts on this one:
I only know xeroc on their team, and you basically want me to vote for a bunch of (to me) unknown people to represent our multi billion blockchain? I already have some concerns in terms of marketing, because this seems like missing an actual agenda.
Here are the changes I would like to hear your opinions on:
* double the payment, add bitshares.org/support paid team
* for the love of bitshares, get some trusted names as advisors in
* define some clear targets
this whole proposal is too passive in my opinion.
define clear, reachable goals.
for example:
- get in a meeting with 2 exchange every month
- contact 4 high potential businesses
and so on, make it measurable.
bonus:
* get a pro marketer on, call the proposal "marketing", take 150 or 200k for all I care for representative, support, and marketing.
thoughts?
-
If it is anything I agree on the point with Fav above:
* double the payment, add bitshares.org/support paid team
* for the love of bitshares, get some trusted names as advisors in
* define some clear targets - Measured goals/sprints
*get a pro marketer on, call the proposal "marketing", take 150 or 200k for all I care for representative, support, and marketing
-
Posted on Telegram:
Thank you Fabian for your work on the foundation.
My primary concern after reading these 2 proposals is they lack any statement concerning fundamental principles that guide your goals. The docs do well state the goals, mainly focused on improving adoption IMO, but not what motivates that goal.
We all want to make some money, take some profit. Some don't care how that is achieved and it becomes their top priority. Others such as myself DO CARE about the underlying principles that frame the Blockchain Prime Directive as a driving force for financial freedom which must back all our efforts.
As long as I always have a choice and am not REQUIRED to register a real world ID to hold an account and use the platform I will won't object.
There will be pressure by regulators to eliminate anonymous and likely psuedo-anonymous registrations as well. If the foundation or any of its' personel don't demonstrate their willingness to defend that basic right not to be tracked, my support for the foundation will quickly disapear.
It will be particularly interesting to see how the foundation will position and describe blinded transactions and future stealth functionality to regulators.
Will this ecosystem remain true to the original disruptive vision of blockchain technology invented by Satoshi Nakamoto or will it morph into an ecosystem the regulators will be happy with b/c they can turn it into weaponized money that tracks every transaction?
-
In a decentralized ecosystem, we are not looking for leaders or owners, but we are looking for leadership.
The strength of BitShares is that of technical superiority, and distributed governance, but by nature of its decentralized and autonomous community organization all the rest is not continuously attended unlike in most other platforms. In some areas now with very undesirable effects. There is no one following a bigger picture, not business development, public relations, or even marketing. This needs to change.
With this I fully agree. I have said similar things before.
to engage in external communication as the only spokesperson with the authorities, market parties and legal council. To coordinate and distribute work and to act as representative. If need be the foundation may sign on behalf of the community when it is a document that protects its interests in registration or public tradability.
This is problematic, to say the least.
I don't think "the community" exists as an entity in some legal sense. If the proposal is accepted, this provides a certain justification for the BBF to act as a spokesperson. If this justification is sufficient or acceptable probably lies with said "authorities, market parties and legal councils". But I think it is doubtful that it would hold when challenged.
On the other side, it is (to me) extremely unclear what it means in practice that the foundation "may sign on behalf of the community". First of all, disagreement about our interests is the rule in this community, not the exception. From this it follows immediately that it is undecidable if signing a document is in our interests, which means that any such signature is most likely not valid.
Second, any agreement that the BBF signs on behalf of the community is unenforcable (against us). For example, if the SEC demands that the stealth feature is removed, and the BBF promises to do so, the community might simply refuse to do that. Neither the SEC nor the BBF can enforce the removal of stealth.
Please clarify how you are planning to handle all of this.
-
I feel like this is a power grab and won't vote to approve this.
How can the authorities have any impact on the DEX? Gateways and centralized exchanges are the only vulnerable entities, of which BTS is neither.
$50k over 15 months isn't too bad for some of the work which you propose, however mandating that you're the one that dictates what work must be done seems like undermining subsequent worker proposals.
"There can be only one representative for the BitShares blockchain, as otherwise other parties will use this to disqualify all." Yet there are many representatives of bitcoin and nobody cares about that given that those who control it change over time (POW), much like how shareholders change over time.
"Propose changes to the BTS holders in order to become compliant with specific regulations" Care to elaborate on what this means?
If you mean exchanges need someone official to contact, then they can contact witnesses and committee members whilst halting wallets if there's a serious issue. If they're not confident enough to talk to these key members then they're not going to talk to you.
-
Thanks for all your feedback. Let me address them individually
I only know xeroc on their team, and you basically want me to vote for a bunch of (to me) unknown people to represent our multi billion blockchain? I already have some concerns in terms of marketing, because this seems like missing an actual agenda.
I agree with that. We are working hard on our presence of BitShares
Blockchain Foundation but got distracted big time due to the Bittrex
incident.
I personally trust each and every single individual involved in the
Foundation and I will make sure they will be publicly known more.
Here are the changes I would like to hear your opinions on:
* double the payment, add bitshares.org/support paid team
* for the love of bitshares, get some trusted names as advisors in
* define some clear targets
this whole proposal is too passive in my opinion.
Technical Support is explicitly not what we want or can focus on right
now. This has to be done by businesses that make a profit out of
building on top of BitShares, like OpenLedger or RuDEX. I don't think
there will ever be a centralized support team, other then the broader
community. Also, this worker is **explicitly** only for getting a
spokesperson.
The goal is to be able to sign documents with exchanges and represent
BitShares with them. Otherwise, noone cannot be proactive business
wise.
We do have some trusted advisors and will list them on the page as
soon as we are done with cleaning up the dust around recent events.
I find it difficult to define clear targets for a spokesperson. It is
not like it would do marketing or public relations. It really is merely
meant to be someone that people can approach and that we can send to
important meetings on behalf of the BTS holders.
As I described this on telegram already: This worker is to solve the
following questions:
* Who would sign an NDA with an exchange
* Who is supposed to be invited by regulators
* Who would businesses approach in order to get into the space
* Who would sign a 'listing'-proposal for with exchanges
To these questions, community-members *cannot* be the answer!
define clear, reachable goals.
for example:
- get in a meeting with 2 exchange every month
- contact 4 high potential businesses
and so on, make it measurable.
Again, the spokesperson proposal merely serves for "obtaining the
required approval to be able to do things for the BitShares business".
It is not meant to be proactive but to be able to do things when
required.
The other worker (compliance) is about smoothening the way to be listed
on more exchanges. If you want that, you should vote on that one.
But then again, the spokesperson worker is somewhat required in order to
sign **ANY** deal on behalf of the BitShares business.
bonus:
* get a pro marketer on, call the proposal "marketing", take 150 or 200k for all I care for representative, support, and marketing.
thoughts?
Marketing is out of scope for those two workers.
My primary concern after reading these 2 proposals is they lack any statement concerning fundamental principles that guide your goals. The docs do well state the goals, mainly focused on improving adoption IMO, but not what motivates that goal.
We all want to make some money, take some profit. Some don't care how that is achieved and it becomes their top priority. Others such as myself DO CARE about the underlying principles that frame the Blockchain Prime Directive as a driving force for financial freedom which must back all our efforts.
Here is the thing, financial freedom is great but in case of BitShares
won't work unless we ensure it can survive the scrutiny of regulators.
If you want a decentralized exchange to survive the upcoming flood or
regulatory disasters building up, we need to be able to proactively
approach those regulatory bodies. Otherwise they will shut down every
business that deals with BitShares - sure they cannot shut down
BitShares, but they can make our live very difficult.
We all live in the physical world, and while I would love the internet
and the way that BitShares is "alegal" (you should google that term),
non of us lives "on the internet". We need to play nice with whoever
governs the physical world. This is most important if you want to do
"actual business" on bitshares and not just see this as a nice to have
hobby/community project for fun.
Even the Linux Kernel plays by patents and trademarks - not to mention
how RedHat works.
As long as I always have a choice and am not REQUIRED to register a real world ID to hold an account and use the platform I will won't object.
This is what we want to educate the people about. Let me show you a
quick document I wrote up earlier today:
When we talk about "BitShares", we need to distinguish these three
things clearly:
* BitShares - the platform
BitShares, much like Bitcoin, is a blockchain-based platform that offers
"featutes" (sometimes called smart contracts) to people to do certain
things in an autonomous way. The focus of the BitShares platform is the
(possibly compliant) FinTech area. That said, it offers features, such as
* token creation,
* token transfers,
* recurring&scheduled payments,
* trading of tokens,
* token vesting,
* .. and potentially more that can be added tot he protocol
The distinction from the Bitcoin platform is, that it offers "more"
features/services to its users. In contrast to Ethereum (and other
general purpose platform) BitShares does NOT allow any user to just
install their own "features"/services, but the platform is limited
to the currently installed features, and new features may only be
added upon approval of the owners of the platform (see below).
* BTS - the crypto token on the BitShares platform
The BTS token is the (core) token of the BitShares platform. It gives its
holders the ability to "vote". These votes can be used to
* define the set of block producing entities
* define the members of a committee (board of technical directors)
* protocol upgrades (e.g. new features)
* project funding (via BTS 'dilution')
The initial distribution of the BTS tokens happened through 2 mechanisms:
* Mining of a 'proto'-token called BitShares-PTS
* Donations to the development (no tokens issued for donators)
100% of the initial BTS supply has been gifted to participants of those
to schemes on a 50%/50% split pro-rata to their mined/donated amounts.
Other than voting, the BTS token may be used for trading on the internal
platform, or on an external exchange. It is fully liquid.
* BitShares - the Business
BitShares likes to see itself as a "Business", namely a decentralized
autonomous company (DAC). That means it comes with
* owners (of the core BTS token)
* revenue producing services (features that ask for a fee)
* expenses (block producers and funded projects)
In contrast to "regular" companies, BitShares does NOT pay dividends to
holders of the BTS token. Even if BitShares (the platform) that a dividends
feature, the BTS token would not be an autonomous target for dividends
payments funded through the revenue streams it has.
Instead, the blockchain's income flows into a "reserve" that is not
spendable other than through approval voting by the BTS holders. The
reserves are pre-funded with around 1B BTS tokens. The funds in the
reserves can thus only be used for paying the block producers and the
funded projects (only after approval voting by BTS holders). This far,
most of the time, more BTS have left the reserves than entered it.
If at one point in time, more BTS go into the reserves than are used for
the expenses, the liquid and spendable supply of BitShares will shrink.
This might, or might not have the impact of the individual share price
to grow.
Regulators will need to understand this - and our spokesperson will make
sure they do!
There will be pressure by regulators to eliminate anonymous and likely psuedo-anonymous registrations as well. If the foundation or any of its' personel don't demonstrate their willingness to defend that basic right not to be tracked, my support for the foundation will quickly disapear.
Understood. Rest assured that that's not what we plan to do. *BUT*, as
you may know, BitShares itself is capable of running compliant
businesses ONTOP, by means of whitelisting. That means you WILL see
businesses that use BitShares in a compliant environment.
Also, you may have noticed that the BTS token is owned by the
null-account which means, BTS will never require any whitelisting. It's
simply not how it works.
It will be particularly interesting to see how the foundation will position and describe blinded transactions and future stealth functionality to regulators.
I don't think we will be required to do so. Regulators care about
customer protection and they can do so be going after gateways that act
badly. Private Transactions are a feature that people know (more or
less) from bitcoin. So I don't see a big problem with BTS that BTC
wouldn't have as well.
Will this ecosystem remain true to the original disruptive vision of blockchain technology invented by Satoshi Nakamoto or will it morph into an ecosystem the regulators will be happy with b/c they can turn it into weaponized money that tracks every transaction?
We hope to find a way to keep those goals and am confident that we will.
Ultimately, ofc, it will be the BTS holders choice to decide the next
steps.
The spokesman WILL NOT MAKE DECISIONS!!
to engage in external communication as the only spokesperson with the authorities, market parties and legal council. To coordinate and distribute work and to act as representative. If need be the foundation may sign on behalf of the community when it is a document that protects its interests in registration or public tradability.
This is problematic, to say the least.
The reasoning here is to make sure "other people" don't claim to do
things in the name of BitShares. We have seen how that can be perceived
miserable by people outside of our realm.
While i tend to agree with this being problematic, I think we should
give this a try until we know a better solution for this.
I personally can think of a scenario, where we have multiple
spokespersons representing subcommunities within BitShares. Think:
Ester and Western. ...
I don't think "the community" exists as an entity in some legal sense. If the proposal is accepted, this provides a certain justification for the BBF to act as a spokesperson. If this justification is sufficient or acceptable probably lies with said "authorities, market parties and legal councils". But I think it is doubtful that it would hold when challenged.
The major problem is that a decentralized autonomous company has noone
to guide them and no one to speak for them. But old economy requires a
headquarter, an address, and a person to speak with.
While this spokesperson will never be or act as "BitShares' CEO", it
hopes to link the old economy more with the new economy. Again, The
spokesperson is here to *represent* BitShares, not make decisions over
BitShares - else we would have been voting for a CEO!
On the other side, it is (to me) extremely unclear what it means in practice that the foundation "may sign on behalf of the community". First of all, disagreement about our interests is the rule in this community, not the exception. From this it follows immediately that it is undecidable if signing a document is in our interests, which means that any such signature is most likely not valid.
Second, any agreement that the BBF signs on behalf of the community is unenforcable (against us). For example, if the SEC demands that the stealth feature is removed, and the BBF promises to do so, the community might simply refuse to do that. Neither the SEC nor the BBF can enforce the removal of stealth.
Exactly .. and if the spokesman were to promise or sign such a deal
the BitShares holders could fire him/her anytime. We do know that, and
that is why "signing documents" is not meant to do promises or do make
decisions over what happens on BitShares, because, as you noted, this is
out of the spokesman's influence. Changes to the Protocol **NEED** BTS
holder approval - end of discussion.
The documents we are talking about are in the realm of NDAs, or other
agreements that do not affect the protocol itself but allow other
businesses to interact with the BitShares ecosystem - in general.
The documents sign on behalf of BitShares by the spokesperson will be
publish as possible.
Please clarify how you are planning to handle all of this.
I hope I did so.
One clarification that needs to be made still is that the BitShares
Blockchain Foundation is the spokesperson, not me personally!
I feel like this is a power grab and won't vote to approve this.
That's your freedom as a BTS holder.
How can the authorities have any impact on the DEX? Gateways and centralized exchanges are the only vulnerable entities, of which BTS is neither.
Who would defend BitShares in case it gets delisted from an exchange?
Who would defend BitShares against false claims by anyone?
Who would exchanges contact in order to get founded facts about the network?
While I agree with you that the authorities may only affect 'external'
businesses, these businesses should be supported by us. In the end, they
are business partners of the DEX. Being a business partner of a
decentralited autonomous company is *NEW* and not understood by any
legal body. Would you not want to offer any help to fix any upcoming
legal issue with that?
Keep in mind, no one *EVER* did something like this before!
$50k over 15 months isn't too bad for some of the work which you propose, however mandating that you're the one that dictates what work must be done seems like undermining subsequent worker proposals.
1. The bitshares blockchain foundation has the "mandate" to be spokes person, not me personally.
2. The spokesperson cannot make decisions over the blockchain protocol - that's what the approval voting is good for
The spokespersons job is to be a first contact person. Not to make
decisions. Decision making is the job of a CEO - and BitShares doesn't
have one and wont' need one because the BTS holders have a form of
"direct voting".
"There can be only one representative for the BitShares blockchain, as otherwise other parties will use this to disqualify all." Yet there are many representatives of bitcoin and nobody cares about that given that those who control it change over time (POW), much like how shareholders change over time.
"Propose changes to the BTS holders in order to become compliant with specific regulations" Care to elaborate on what this means?
That is off-topic to the spokesperson proposal.
But we already do know a few points that need change in order to
smoothen the way through regulatory turbulence. Among those are
modifications to the documentation ... you already saw a posting of mine
declaring that smartcoins are not CFDs but collateralized loans. That
came as a consequence to what we learned while talking with regulators.
If you mean exchanges need someone official to contact, then they can contact witnesses and committee members whilst halting wallets if there's a serious issue. If they're not confident enough to talk to these key members then they're not going to talk to you.
You must be kidding ..
Would you prefer a witness to sign on behalf of the blockchain? Some
technical savvy individual that might not know about legal and
regulatory aspects of countries they don't even live in? I wouldn't want
the witnesses to stop producing blocks just because they got threatened
in a discussion with SEC or any other authority. Their job is to build
blocks and not to go into discussion with lawyers. That's also not what
they are paid for - and it would be unfair to burden those witnesses
that live in the U.S. over those that live somewhere else while paying
them the same money.
That's even worse for committee-members which are not paid AT ALL!!
Don't you agree?
-
Thanks for the clarifications, @xeroc (and for coming up with the proposal in the first place)!
I definitely see the need for the role, and I'm going to support the proposal.
-
what channels did you use to inform shareholders of the asset bug & hold of creation, or is stakeholder relations not covered in this proposal?
-
Any communication with Poloniex on BTS being "under maintenance?"
-
what channels did you use to inform shareholders of the asset bug & hold of creation, or is stakeholder relations not covered in this proposal?
That discussion wasn't made throught the BBF .. if you read through the BBFs proposal carefully, the spokesperson's job is not to interfere with the blockchain, but to be a point of contact for outside people.
The "asset_creation" bug was identified by abit who has contacted core developers, from there, the committee members have been approached to approve a change in fee real quick.
After the approval, a detailed description was published through the BBFs webpage (their duty is to keep everyone in the loop, too).
Any communication with Poloniex on BTS being "under maintenance?"
BBF is trying to contact polo. It's on them to get back to us .. we've tried all channels we know of
-
Any update with Bittrix? Last update was 19 days ago on Steem: https://steemit.com/bitshares/@bitshares.fdn/the-contacts-with-bittrex-and-its-legal-counsel-are-moving-forward
Having BTS relisted would help spread awareness especially when this market is red hot.
-
FYI:
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@bitshares.fdn/report-spokesperson-bitshares-blockchain-foundation-on-bittrex-inc-and-other-regulatory-issues
-
Good job!
Minor nit: the worker budget is not capped at 21k per hour, instead the cap is a fraction of the total budget. The factor is 17*3600/2^32 per hour. And that's not configurable by the committee.
-
The third report of the BBF was updated
http://www.bitshares.foundation/announcements/2018-03-02-spokesperson-report (http://www.bitshares.foundation/announcements/2018-03-02-spokesperson-report)
-
The third report of the BBF was updated
http://www.bitshares.foundation/announcements/2018-03-02-spokesperson-report (http://www.bitshares.foundation/announcements/2018-03-02-spokesperson-report)
i like the approach. what about start conversations with https://shapeshift.io/ to get us back up ?
- bitrex: legal issues.
- poloniex: communication with them is impossible.
- shapeshift ?
-
Once there is an opinion letter, things become much easier.
So far, no one involved in BitShares even tried to obtain one, which is extremely disappointing :-(
-
There is now a subsequent worker proposal to at least obtain a mandate for the BitShares Blockchain Foundation:
Details:
https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2019-01-legal-representative
-
Thanks!
Please clarify what is covered by the funding. The examples you list typically have their own worker proposals, and I'd expect these to cover any required BBF work as well. Or to put it differently - what if the mandate is granted but not funded?
That said, I'm of course aware that this is an important proposal and that a representative needs to be paid. I support this worker.
Edit: after re-reading I think the explanations provided are sufficient.
-
Any update to the legal council? Last update I recall the legal opinion was completed however not shared with anyone? Are all the exchanges basically giving NDA's? Possible to list what exchanges have open communication to have BTS listed?
This is a good worker, just seems there has been a fall off in communication with some of the projects.
-
Any update to the legal council? Last update I recall the legal opinion was completed however not shared with anyone? Are all the exchanges basically giving NDA's? Possible to list what exchanges have open communication to have BTS listed?
This is a good worker, just seems there has been a fall off in communication with some of the projects.
- Legal opinion letter was available at BitFest few months ago in Amsterdam if you were interested to follow up.
- Bittrex has a ball at their court atm and they are stretching re-activation, our side done their deed. Yes, all the exchanges has their own type/view of Agreement and not all consist with NDA (most of them does).
- There is another bounty/worker that is currently looking up listing for CNY and USD, but along few proposals BTS came as an offer in between (for some of top 30 CMC rated exchanges that are being negotiated atm). Listings are between 5 and 15BTC per token, so it's gonna take a while to select/choose exchange with most realistic liquidity/trading volume from those offers. Some of them are pumping themselves...
Hope my replies were satisfying.
@xeroc
I believe that "Spokesperson" worker was wrongly named/defined and this is much better and more fitting proposal from BBF than previous one. Am I on the point ?
This is finally replacement for "legal opinion" and "spokesperson"? If yes, then I personally support this worker for option 3) aka "Approval for the entire 12 months".
If not, please clarify more. Thanks!
Chee®s
-
Hello! I was sharing this proposal on Twitter, and someone specifically asked for @fav ‘s opinion.
Would anyone care to hop on Twitter with me to further the conversation?
https://twitter.com/bts_maximalist/status/1080621557423226886?s=21
-
@xeroc
I believe that "Spokesperson" worker was wrongly named/defined and this is much better and more fitting proposal from BBF than previous one. Am I on the point ?
This is finally replacement for "legal opinion" and "spokesperson"? If yes, then I personally support this worker for option 3) aka "Approval for the entire 12 months".
If not, please clarify more. Thanks!
Correct. With "spokesperson", people expected the BBF to be much more proactive than it has resources for. For instance, some community members expected the BBF to attend conferences around the world, do marketing for the BItShares Blockchain. Interestingly, even when there were opportunities (funded differently) for the spokesperson to attend conferences and do marketing about BitShares, the community wasn't very happy with it. So, what can be learned from this is to be more accurate with what the role is supposed to do. Hopefully, it is more clear now.
Funds are used to cover *time* spend by the entire team on aspects relevant to the work as representative. That mostly involves discussions and talking to third partners that desire to understand more abut the technology and legal aspects around BitShares and BTS. Unfortunately, NDAs prevent us from naming those businesses explicitly, but at least Bittrex is publicly known to be part of this list.
In case the worker is approved and later disapproved, no funding is available, hence, the BBF can still keep the mandate but has to stop spending time.
-
support.
I am aware what BBT will do according to this WP is important to Bitshares Community.
-
support.
-
support.
I am aware what BBT will do according to this WP is important to Bitshares Community.
+5!
-
support+
having official legal rep / one channel for regulators or authorities is essential role in the longevity and growth of BitShares and the community. I'm aware of efforts and goals to date of BBF which are aligned in making BTS regulated and legal to the world, so I am confident in them continuing with the task.
-
On behalf of the BitShares Blockchain Foundation:
The worker "Publicly Approved BitShares Representative" (https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2019-01-legal-representative) will be running out end of this year. We currently are doing efforts to draft a follow up proposal, and will post it as soon as its ready.
In 2019 the community was offered the choice to have a legal representative for free. This seemed reasonable at that time, it is not reasonable at the current situation. The subsequent worker will ask for a monthly fee for the legal representative.
Among the tasks of the legal representative is to deal with listing agreements, defend against delisting from existing exchanges (e.g. Binance and Bittrex!) and other parties requesting the legal opinion letter or legal questions on BitAssets for all kinds of purposes. We seek to extend our position as legal representative in case the community wants us to do so. If that is not the case, we are also happy to help any subsequent representative to take over obligations and responsibilities as friction-less as possible.
All existing agreements must be considered void if the BBF is no longer the legal representative for the BitShares Blockchain, with all consequences that come with it.
-
A draft has been published for the worker proposals "Global voted BitShares Spokesperson and Legal Representative". The BBF seeks to renew its mandate and split it into two roles.
https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2020-01-legal-representative
Any and all feedback is welcome.
-
Sufficient time has passed for the collection of feedback. Both workers are now put on-chain, see here (https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2020-01-spokesperson-and-legal-representative) for a summary.
Please consider both proposals for your next voting update:
- 1.14.243 - 202001-bitshares-legal-representative (https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2020-01-bitshares-legal-representative)
- 1.14.244 - 2020-01-bitshares-spokesperson (https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2020-01-bitshares-spokesperson)
-
Sufficient time has passed for the collection of feedback. Both workers are now put on-chain, see here (https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2020-01-spokesperson-and-legal-representative) for a summary.
Please consider both proposals for your next voting update:
- 1.14.243 - 202001-bitshares-legal-representative (https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2020-01-bitshares-legal-representative)
- 1.14.244 - 2020-01-bitshares-spokesperson (https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2020-01-bitshares-spokesperson)
Dear BBF,
On behalf of non-profit Zavod Premik (Move Institute) and followed with quoted part of presented workers:
"All existing legal agreements must be considered void if the BitShares Blockchain Foundation is no longer the legal representative for the BitShares Blockchain, with all consequences that come with it (effective date 31st January 2020)."
we came here to offer 3 possible options/scenarios and discuss them a bit in front of holders.
Option 1)
Consider 7 days extension on the quoted statement above while I personally reach out to the holders and get confirmation that they are not supporting your worker. This may result in worker being approved, considering that workers never had proper forum thread, usual lobbying and politics that holders are expecting from workers. Anyway, I do understand the sentiment considering state of entire ecosystem in previous 6 months.
Option 2)
Move Institute would be willing to create alternative workers if `Option 1)` ends with negative response. We would be requesting costs for BBF services to transfer all agreements and handover all legal documentation to us (in case the holders decide to support `Option 2` so we can plan budget accordingly)
There is no Option 3 right now - so please let's do this in a reasonable way, because the BitShares blockchain relies on us in many ways including our main BTS core token listings, agreements and legal letters done in the past through BBF.
Notice for BBF:
Option 1) and request for extension comes as late, but an official request from Move Institute. Email will follow over the weekend.
Notice for holders/proxies:
Move Institute would be offering worker that has far more complexity and would involve additional worker for legal funds/budget. Multi-sig between Committee and Move Institute for those funds would be a must in order to make possible any potential proceedings, listings or legal needs on the yearly basis.
Personal statement:
I have a lot on my plate and to be clear I didn't had much time to follow up on forums or to run around following up entire politics (not even update my votes ). I personally support this worker because the price and the terms for being legal representative are very feasible and communication is already established between parties involved in agreements.
Regards.
-
Sufficient time has passed for the collection of feedback. Both workers are now put on-chain, see here (https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2020-01-spokesperson-and-legal-representative) for a summary.
Please consider both proposals for your next voting update:
- 1.14.243 - 202001-bitshares-legal-representative (https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2020-01-bitshares-legal-representative)
- 1.14.244 - 2020-01-bitshares-spokesperson (https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2020-01-bitshares-spokesperson)
I agree with Digital Lucifer's statement, price and the terms for these workers make sense and changing legal representative is a very complex task, would be better to continue with the same legal representative.
-
I am working on an alternative legal representative proposal, with options for follow up spokesperson/bizdev proposal(s) that will be structured in a much more flexible way.
Hope to get it up for discussion on this board today, and will be submitting it into the worker system by the end of this week. Stay tuned!
-
Supporting BBF as legal representative should bitshares have one.
Price is also way cheaper 24k compared to 36k and already some years of history.
-
Supporting BBF as legal representative should bitshares have one.
Price is also way cheaper 24k compared to 36k and already some years of history.
Sorry to inform you, but you're late for about 1 month and 14 days (6.2 weeks) on this vote and decision despite your initial request. Now small recap:
1) You were first holder to ask me will Move setup counter worker. I've stated if holders decide to not support BBF, Move will push replacement worker.
2) On 31st of January (4pm Holland time) I've posted this above (http://"https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=25143.msg340698#msg340698") as last attempt to uphold existing legal and agreements done. Yours and Alt response was `no support` to BBF.
3) To explain difference to all holders between "fixed price" and "budget price" type of workers for this existing remark on the price:
a) BBF had a 24,000 EUR FIXED PRICE to be legal representative for 365 days and uphold existing agreements. They get paid monthly amount of 2,000 EUR regardless of what they do, and YES it was very simple cost to maintain legal availability for the blockchain. Now it's gone.
b) Move Institute has 36,000 EUR BUDGET AVAILABLE for any need/request done by holders to be processed according to the price table for 365 days and in mind that we need to obtain/redo most of agreements. Budget is bigger for the reason of possibility to redo all the existing/cancelled agreements or proceed with transfers with in-house lawyer/attorney and legal. No payouts will be made unless task is assigned/done.
4) I'll quote reply from BBF (Annemieke Dirkes) on the initial request (3rd of February via email) to extension/grace period for worker to get voted in or possibility for transfer:
"Dear Milos
thanks for reaching out and showing your concerns regarding the BitShares ecosystem. You are indeed correct that the latest worker has not received the required support to continue the work for the BitShares community and the BBF lost its mandate to be the legal representative effectively end of 2019. The agreements between the BBF and other parties where based on the legal representative status of the BBF and as such the counterparties need to be informed by the BBF that it is no longer said representative. This will of course happen in a non-offense way. After thorough investigation we concluded this is the only possible choice.
With regards to done agreements: All ongoing and relevant information that led to signed agreement are public records and found in the relevant channels of the BBF. Unfortunately, I am not in the position anymore to disclose such a list directly due to the legal position and potential liabilities.
With regards to the legal opinion letter: The opinion letter has been distributed to exchanges upon request, enabled through the BBF being the legal representative for the BitShares blockchain. As it stands now I am no longer in the position to distribute it due to the legal position and potential liabilities. Besides that the law firm has explicitly not agreed to publication.
As far as the handover cost: There no cost involved when a new legal representative is being introduced. In a decentralised blockchain like BitShares everybody has the same opportunity to introduce changes or proposals which can voted in based on popular vote. There is no requirement or obligation for any new legal representative to meet the BBF or continue the work that the BBF once did. The community has to decide what happens next, what kind of services they would like to see and which entity is going to be offering those services.
The BBF respects the choice of the BitShares community and has seized its operations as legal representative after 31st of December 2019, and has withdrawn the offer to continue for 2020 after the grace period ended on 31st of January 2020 as stated in the worker proposal https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2020-01-bitshares-legal-representative.
Kind regards,
BBF"
I don't know how to please you all and I've arranged best agreement for the blockchain I've possibly could. No BBF despite attempts to uphold it as a first mover, no hurt to the ecosystem and worker that asks nothing unless holders wants it done, but available for any request or legal need, and you stated that 36k budget is more costly than 24k fixed payment. I hope this made it clear once and for all.
P.S. Public statement to holders on Trademark and recent initiative will be released soon, priority is core worker this weekend. In short: I'm getting info that some of you are stressed because of it. There is no need for anyone long-term in this community and with healthy intentions towards ecosystem to be worried about trademark or handle they own. They just need to legally communicate so we can protect our brand from any scam, fake news, defamation or miss-information to wider public. Nobody prevents people of advertising BitShares, but we will prevent scammers, BitShares fake profiles, and people who don't properly promote (miss-information outside of streamline scope that project has). We had 2 years of experience to see how much brand can get hurt by random dojos that nobody can touch - and we had legal representative at the time. BitShares had 7 long years to find a way to protect the code and reputation, and it failed badly. Why ? Possibly that everyone were interested in profits more than consequences and impact of unfinished business on project of this scope.
It's still remains decentralized. Move will hold trademark on `word` and support BBF legally to take over and uphold trademark on `logo`. We do want unity here and we had our chances to be competition if we wanted over past 2 years, we never did and we don't want to. Otherwise I would be not spending so much time around ecosystem or workers for literally free/no-cost.
Above all facts and deal with them. I mean no harm. I meant no harm when i first time asked/warned:
- witnesses on security and lack of vpn on the nodes
- openledger domain security leaks
- bcl failure (ask Kimchi King)
- eosio fail to launch (2 months before hack and delay of launch)
- eosio fail to deliver promises (BFT implenetation to eosio)
- bsip42 disaster
- cryptobridge closure
- spark closure
Now, at the times of my statements you people called me fuder, lunatic, devil, idiot and what else... bad guy eventually. Now after so long me still being here comes the question, was I wrong ? From the answer you find, you may all learn something. So trust me on trademark again - it's very much needed after everything I've seen in past 30 months around here. And tbh I never hurted BitShares brand or it's reputation in any way or I'm gonna do it ever, so same as I wasn't clear why Spark is against gateway legalization (http://"https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares.org/issues/89"), I don't know why some of you are now against Trademark, but smells as dodgy stuff once again. Same as it was said to George -> only time will tell.
Chee®s
-
Bce 3a oдHoro и oдиH 3a Bcex.
-
I still support their worker because there is still a possibility to get it done should this worker get done.
I'm in favour of decentralization
You holding
domain
core worker
legal
brand
etc
its to much centralization to a single identity
-
1) Domain - given by original owner, never asked for it. Why nobody else picked it 2017 ? Ended up in non-profit as a request of community. Maybe community would be happier if I gave it back to CNX ?
2) your idea was for me to take on core worker. I was the only one willing to spend months on actually assembling core work, not just ask for money like other offers did without even idea what to do. I hold no core team, I manage core team for 35$/h which is nearly 5x less than previous manager
3) you as someone who was publicly destroying BBF in all groups this is a twist. We are attorney and a legal representative for the blockchain/community not the legal. Best part, i'm not even on the worker. Unless holders and move doesn't come to agreement what will be done that worker holds only legal liability for this ecosystem without taking single BTS. Small thanks would be nice if not vote
4) once you, alt and cn-vote demonstrated very wrong centralization event of refund400k, I did what I had to protect the brand. You as holder had BBF as legal representative 2.5 years to do so, and any of you holders individually for circa now 7 years. It's my fault you haven't paid 1200 euros or just made the order but I did ?
Worried what might happen ? Worry not. BitShares can only be better not worse. Did no damage to it in 3 years and will not change in a lifetime. I will protect it from any damage though, without ask, blink or consensus (e.g. trademark)
And for ignorance on BBFs worker and position around the blockchain, why just not reach them out directly but just stiring publicly fire ?
And to be clear - even cn-vote group came to reason and all they needed was someone willing really to break language barrier, while you in the meantime drifted away from it, without any concrete reason apart from trademark initiative that made you turn 180 degrees. You have some handles there ? What's up for real ?
Chee®s
-
And most important part that you missed... Escrow.
Ask BBF who negotiated the terms and asked them to be escrow for all these upcoming workers and based on what.
Also, while you're there, ask them is Move centralized owner of brand or we (as we always did), agreed to collaboration and decentralization where
Move Institute is owner of trademark on word
BBF handling ownership of trademark on logo.
You might reconsider your actions, it's still not late for you to stop being so wrong, so we can actually together make BitShares better instead of whatever is your intent atm.
Chee®s
-
1) Domain - given by original owner, never asked for it. Why nobody else picked it 2017 ? Ended up in non-profit as a request of community. Maybe community would be happier if I gave it back to CNX ?
1.Domain was given to you by "Stan" .If i remember correctly bbf said themself that it was transfered in a wrong way which should never happen
2) your idea was for me to take on core worker. I was the only one willing to spend months on actually assembling core work, not just ask for money like other offers did without even idea what to do. I hold no core team, I manage core team for 35$/h which is nearly 5x less than previous manager
Correct that was in december with the argumentation of urgent need to develop important features like defi .
it was also the solution for your $3k need.
3) you as someone who was publicly destroying BBF in all groups this is a twist. We are attorney and a legal representative for the blockchain/community not the legal. Best part, i'm not even on the worker. Unless holders and move doesn't come to agreement what will be done that worker holds only legal liability for this ecosystem without taking single BTS. Small thanks would be nice if not vote
I and many other accused BBF of bad work and vote selling by adding their escrow.Still if i would have to decide about their and your legal worker i would chose theirs as even their escrow service was shitty their legal was always neutral even i hated their indirect threat of delisting.
Best option for me would be xanoxt because he has no relation to any bigger proxy.
4) once you, alt and cn-vote demonstrated very wrong centralization event of refund400k, I did what I had to protect the brand. You as holder had BBF as legal representative 2.5 years to do so, and any of you holders individually for circa now 7 years. It's my fault you haven't paid 1200 euros or just made the order but I did ?
You had to protcect the brand ?I mean seriously its just a plan to gain more power on bitshares to make you indispensable.
I mean everyone disagreeing with your threats even i don't understand what they are worried about since you own nothing just an EU brand on a name and nothing more.BTS holders can always rebrand .You did it for your own personal benefit only to be indispensable.
I mean core members are even talking to pay some "fee" so you sit calm.
It's not a healthy situation and giving big power to such a person who is many times attacking people threating to sueing them for their voting decissions is not something i support.
Your demand about all social media accounts to get approved by you already showed how uncontrolled your actions are.
Did you had any authority to demand all social media accounts to get approved by you ?
And for ignorance on BBFs worker and position around the blockchain, why just not reach them out directly but just stiring publicly fire ?
I did spoke to them.Their answer get the worker active and we will see.
And to be clear - even cn-vote group came to reason and all they needed was someone willing really to break language barrier, while you in the meantime drifted away from it, without any concrete reason apart from trademark initiative that made you turn 180 degrees. You have some handles there ? What's up for real ?
Oh you mean the new cn-vote leadership who is doing inside deals with beos ?
With BEOS from which owner you got the domain.
And which core worker you execute without even thinking if its at current situation really needed.
Didn't i asked you as first on december and pushed defi and other important features for bitshares ?
Even asked why its taking so long not knowing what happened to you and told you to take your time and during that time
you present a completly new core worker based on the nonsense of a group who tries to dictate everything with their garbage.
They just have 270 million votes.
How come they dictate everything what is on core proposal ?
-
Can the elected spokesperson please mitigate the bitasset situation? Perhaps it's time to remove the 'bit' prefix to avoid users getting scammed?
-
Can the elected spokesperson please mitigate the bitasset situation? Perhaps it's time to remove the 'bit' prefix to avoid users getting scammed?
There is no elected spokesperson anymore.