BitShares Forum
Main => Stakeholder Proposals => Topic started by: abit on November 23, 2017, 07:26:51 pm
-
In order to collect stake holders' opinions, poll workers created: 1.14.69 & 1.14.70 . Funds requested in these workers are for reimbursing worker creation fee, not for development.
The development work for these features is not hard, however, the devs can only start working on them when got approved by stake holders.
Please discuss and vote.
Please approve if you agree that we need to implement the features/changes.
Please don't vote if you disagree.
Related links & more info:
https://cryptofresh.com/workers
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0026.md
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0027.md
-
Thanks for bringing this up, @abit!
tl;dr:
BSIP-26 will change how the refunding of limit order creation fee works when the order is cancelled. Currently, the refund always returns the fee in BTS, even if it was originally paid in some other asset through the asset's fee pool. The motivation for this change is that this behaviour has more than once been abused to "sell" an asset for BTS.
BSIP-27 is meant to solve a problem that is created through BSIP-26. Currently, half of the asset creation fee is deposited into the fee pool - and there is no way to get these funds out again. The fee refund mentioned above could be used as a workaround for this, but that will no longer be possible after BSIP-26 has been implemented.
----
I think BSIP-26 is a good idea and I support it.
I think BSIP-27 is unnecessary and can be replaced by a simple change of the asset creation logic - i. e. the asset creation fee should be reduced, and the automatic funding of the fee pool upon creation should be removed.
-
Thanks for bringing this up, @abit!
tl;dr:
BSIP-26 will change how the refunding of limit order creation fee works when the order is cancelled. Currently, the refund always returns the fee in BTS, even if it was originally paid in some other asset through the asset's fee pool. The motivation for this change is that this behaviour has more than once been abused to "sell" an asset for BTS.
BSIP-27 is meant to solve a problem that is created through BSIP-26. Currently, half of the asset creation fee is deposited into the fee pool - and there is no way to get these funds out again. The fee refund mentioned above could be used as a workaround for this, but that will no longer be possible after BSIP-26 has been implemented.
----
I think BSIP-26 is a good idea and I support it.
I think BSIP-27 is unnecessary and can be replaced by a simple change of the asset creation logic - i. e. the asset creation fee should be reduced, and the automatic funding of the fee pool upon creation should be removed.
Thank you @pc .
Changing of asset creation logic is described in another BSIP (not yet finalized): https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/37 . However, even if it's implemented, BSIP27 is still useful in some scenarios, for example, to reclaim funds from fee pools of earlier created assets, or from incorrectly/accidentally over-funded fee pools.
-
I'll vote for it as soon as possible.
-
+5%
@Peter: I also think that we need an operation to claim BTS from the fee pool for users that have created an asset already and want the BTS out of the fee pool
-
Your work is sound abit.
In line with these improvements, I think BSIP-38 candidate (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/38) needs some attention too.
If its complexity requires an extra budget to pay for A bit more time (or for another dev to help), it'd be fair to me.
-
i just saw BSIP38 thanks to this post and i added some comments on it: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/38#issuecomment-348991034