BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: matt608 on September 26, 2014, 07:24:15 pm
-
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9136.0
The Google translate doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I'd quite like to know what they are talking about as it looks potentially somewhat important.
The Chinese section of bitsharestalk is very active, I wish the translations were better.
-
They are creating a new asset named FUND. Which is used to reward those people vote for them.
-
Does "fund" have any value? Or does the amount of fund just show that you are voting for some of the delegates in the fund group?
See this https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5775.msg77810#msg77810
The happyshares concept would be harmful to any DPOS network if it is applied at scale.
-
may i also ask about this? https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8973.45
they already have prints of a gui it seems. Could someone tell me the status on this? and will it be done using the BitShares Play blockchain?
-
may i also ask about this? https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8973.45
they already have prints of a gui it seems. Could someone tell me the status on this? and will it be done using the BitShares Play blockchain?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9393.0
here is the english link
Thank you! :)
-
Does "fund" have any value? Or does the amount of fund just show that you are voting for some of the delegates in the fund group?
See this https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5775.msg77810#msg77810
The happyshares concept would be harmful to any DPOS network if it is applied at scale.
I think the people who vote base on a small bribe does not have enough asset to control the system.
Rich guys who have much voting power will not accept a small bribe.
so,you get my point.after all ,DPOS voting power is not about head count,it's about the amount of the asset.
You are completely right with what you said! I would only be worried if a "voting culture" is established where shareholders do not vote anymore for the best delegates but instead for the biggest pay back.
Like you said there would be little benefit for big stakeholders to vote for delegates who are not the best for the job but give high pay backs. 2 Questions / issues arise here:
1) There is no difference between small and big shareholders here (with small shareholders the pack back is small compared to the effect they have on the delegates approval).
2) If such pay back culture is establish and wide spread once big shareholders might just do the same without thinking much about it because they might not completely comprehend that the benefit/cost ratio is negative here.
One question I have: Do you get "fund" proportional to the amount of stake you voted with or x amount of fund if you vote at all vote a delegate. The last option would be beneficial to the system because it would encourage voting at all...
-
Oh,who wants some Fund,post your BTSX account here,just for fun
Ill have some please ))) account - bitsharesrussia
-
Oh,who wants some Fund,post your BTSX account here,just for fun
Ill have some please ))) account - bitsharesrussia
sent.have some fun. :P
thanks
-
I will also have some "fund" if you please..
thanks
-
mf-tzo
What can I do with them once received? Does this mean I belong to the Chinese "FUND"? Do I have to vote for someone?
thanks! :)
-
great. thank u!
-
..
Oh,who wants some Fund,post your BTSX account here,just for fun
I like to have some 'FUND' too. Just for fun ;)
-
I'd like some too please :)
ID: flux
-
wow..you give me back 2BTSX in return for just 50000 FUND,that's too much :P
I just saw from the market, you can directly buy 50000 FUND with just 0.15 BTSX :P FUND:BTSX market
very cheap.....it's our doge :P
just a reminder:you set your transaction fee at 0.5BTSX,you can change it to 0.1BTSX,just go to the preference page.
Yes because I liked your kind gesture...
0.5 BTSX transaction fee is to further support the network! :)
-
I'd like some too please :)
ID: flux
:P sent
I think the FUND slogan can be :have some fun (reads like have some fund,also)
Thank you!
-
Does "fund" have any value? Or does the amount of fund just show that you are voting for some of the delegates in the fund group?
See this https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5775.msg77810#msg77810
The happyshares concept would be harmful to any DPOS network if it is applied at scale.
I think the people who vote base on a small bribe does not have enough asset to control the system.
Rich guys who have much voting power will not accept a small bribe.
so,you get my point.after all ,DPOS voting power is not about head count,it's about the amount of the asset.
You are completely right with what you said! I would only be worried if a "voting culture" is established where shareholders do not vote anymore for the best delegates but instead for the biggest pay back.
Like you said there would be little benefit for big stakeholders to vote for delegates who are not the best for the job but give high pay backs. 2 Questions / issues arise here:
1) There is no difference between small and big shareholders here (with small shareholders the pack back is small compared to the effect they have on the delegates approval).
2) If such pay back culture is establish and wide spread once big shareholders might just do the same without thinking much about it because they might not completely comprehend that the benefit/cost ratio is negative here.
One question I have: Do you get "fund" proportional to the amount of stake you voted with or x amount of fund if you vote at all vote a delegate. The last option would be beneficial to the system because it would encourage voting at all...
FUND was designed for delegates, but it's still in experiment, the rules are not finalized yet. It's just for fun at the current stage,like DOGE. Probably, tipping culture in BTSX community can use FUND. Have some FUND, have some fun~
-
Does "fund" have any value? Or does the amount of fund just show that you are voting for some of the delegates in the fund group?
See this https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5775.msg77810#msg77810
The happyshares concept would be harmful to any DPOS network if it is applied at scale.
I think the people who vote base on a small bribe does not have enough asset to control the system.
Rich guys who have much voting power will not accept a small bribe.
so,you get my point.after all ,DPOS voting power is not about head count,it's about the amount of the asset.
You are completely right with what you said! I would only be worried if a "voting culture" is established where shareholders do not vote anymore for the best delegates but instead for the biggest pay back.
Like you said there would be little benefit for big stakeholders to vote for delegates who are not the best for the job but give high pay backs. 2 Questions / issues arise here:
1) There is no difference between small and big shareholders here (with small shareholders the pack back is small compared to the effect they have on the delegates approval).
2) If such pay back culture is establish and wide spread once big shareholders might just do the same without thinking much about it because they might not completely comprehend that the benefit/cost ratio is negative here.
One question I have: Do you get "fund" proportional to the amount of stake you voted with or x amount of fund if you vote at all vote a delegate. The last option would be beneficial to the system because it would encourage voting at all...
Normal mode：choose the 100 delegates from the 1000 delegates，for reason:the server configuration ;system maintenance ability ;
In FUND game :choose the 14 delegates from the 27 delegates ，for reason:the server configuration ;system maintenance ability ;reward .
The reward can improve the enthusiasm of retail vote;Why we will focus on retail? Because they don't care the vote system.
Who will leads to centralization? I think is the dealers .
We are all free , include big shareholders.We are monarch，include big shareholders.
In addition,everyone can cast opposing votes in any reason.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delegate is a company,
Voter is a shareholder,
You become a shareholder with voting rights;The company to distribute dividends to its shareholders.
--------Fund
Bytemaster:
I am not terribly worried about this kind of behavior because market competition to reduce transaction fees will quickly eliminate the potential for profit sharing.
I say let them do their best, in order to get elected they need to be in the top 101 by shareholder approval and if this is what shareholders want then that is what they will get.
Happy I appreciate the effort you are putting into the ecosystem and hope things go well for you. One thing I can say is that compared to bitcoin we already have a ton of people reinvesting their fees/profits into helping the community in what ever way they can.
By paying 2/3 to all shareholders he has already helped increase the dividend for everyone and providing incentive for people to take some time to actually vote for him. If he provides a reliable service then the network will continue to function.
Lets not demonize people because of a gut reaction to "vote buying". After all votes are personal property and if you think you benefit more by giving your vote to happy than by giving it to someone else then that is legitimate.
I would encourage everyone to drop the personal attacks and instead make the case for why voting for some other delegate is *BETTER* than voting for happy.
A DAC is a Sovereign Co-op
-
I initiated an event : giving some feedback to standby delegates using FUND .
Chinese link is here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9097.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9097.0)
If you guys need some FUND. You can post your standby delegate ID here (even a 0 vote delegate).
I'll send you also :P
-
Does "fund" have any value? Or does the amount of fund just show that you are voting for some of the delegates in the fund group?
See this https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5775.msg77810#msg77810
The happyshares concept would be harmful to any DPOS network if it is applied at scale.
I think the people who vote base on a small bribe does not have enough asset to control the system.
Rich guys who have much voting power will not accept a small bribe.
so,you get my point.after all ,DPOS voting power is not about head count,it's about the amount of the asset.
You are completely right with what you said! I would only be worried if a "voting culture" is established where shareholders do not vote anymore for the best delegates but instead for the biggest pay back.
Like you said there would be little benefit for big stakeholders to vote for delegates who are not the best for the job but give high pay backs. 2 Questions / issues arise here:
1) There is no difference between small and big shareholders here (with small shareholders the pack back is small compared to the effect they have on the delegates approval).
2) If such pay back culture is establish and wide spread once big shareholders might just do the same without thinking much about it because they might not completely comprehend that the benefit/cost ratio is negative here.
One question I have: Do you get "fund" proportional to the amount of stake you voted with or x amount of fund if you vote at all vote a delegate. The last option would be beneficial to the system because it would encourage voting at all...
Normal mode：choose the 100 delegates from the 1000 delegates，for reason:the server configuration ;system maintenance ability ;
In FUND game :choose the 14 delegates from the 27 delegates ，for reason:the server configuration ;system maintenance ability ;reward .
The reward can improve the enthusiasm of retail vote;Why we will focus on retail? Because they don't care the vote system.
Who will leads to centralization? I think is the dealers .
We are all free , include big shareholders.We are monarch，include big shareholders.
In addition,everyone can cast opposing votes in any reason.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delegate is a company,
Voter is a shareholder,
You become a shareholder with voting rights;The company to distribute dividends to its shareholders.
--------Fund
Bytemaster:
I am not terribly worried about this kind of behavior because market competition to reduce transaction fees will quickly eliminate the potential for profit sharing.
I say let them do their best, in order to get elected they need to be in the top 101 by shareholder approval and if this is what shareholders want then that is what they will get.
Happy I appreciate the effort you are putting into the ecosystem and hope things go well for you. One thing I can say is that compared to bitcoin we already have a ton of people reinvesting their fees/profits into helping the community in what ever way they can.
By paying 2/3 to all shareholders he has already helped increase the dividend for everyone and providing incentive for people to take some time to actually vote for him. If he provides a reliable service then the network will continue to function.
Lets not demonize people because of a gut reaction to "vote buying". After all votes are personal property and if you think you benefit more by giving your vote to happy than by giving it to someone else then that is legitimate.
I would encourage everyone to drop the personal attacks and instead make the case for why voting for some other delegate is *BETTER* than voting for happy.
A DAC is a Sovereign Co-op
Did I understand this right? A voters has to vote for at least 14 of 27 delegates that participate in the "Fund program"?
The question is whether the "FUNDs" voters get for voting are worth anything? Can they be redeemed for CNY or BTSX? If they can plus if the redeemed amount (in CNY or BTSX) is worth a considerable amount of money then the problems described in here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5775.msg77880#msg77880 apply.
But this is more of an academic / theoretical problem at the moment. It is only a problem if bribing for votes is applied at a grand scale...
-
Did I understand this right? A voters has to vote for at least 14 of 27 delegates that participate in the "Fund program"?
yes
The question is whether the "FUNDs" voters get for voting are worth anything? Can they be redeemed for CNY or BTSX? If they can plus if the redeemed amount (in CNY or BTSX) is worth a considerable amount of money then the problems described in here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5775.msg77880#msg77880 apply.
Worth:there may be a little bit.
First redeemed is buy wall .
Buy wall used : CNY BTSX USD ROSE.
But this is more of an academic / theoretical problem at the moment. It is only a problem if bribing for votes is applied at a grand scale...
Stan and Bytemaster are social philosophers;we can experiment。
-
Where does the value of FUNDs come from? Do the delegates have received votes buy FUNDS with CNY or BTSX?
-
Where does the value of FUNDs come from? Do the delegates have received votes buy FUNDS with CNY or BTSX?
There are four partners:(1)voter (2)delegate (3)fund holder (4)fund dealer
"Fund dealer" give funds to "voter(who vote to some delegates)".
"Delegate" give some dividends to "Fund dealer" (after in 101).
"Fund dealer" create buy wall for " fund holder".
-
I will also have some "fund" if you please..
thanks
what is your BTSX account name?
Can you send some fund for me too? Thanks. ;)
BTSX account name: vlight
haha send me what ever you're sending these guys.
account name: mysto