Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - matt608

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 ... 59
586
General Discussion / Re: Proposal: Keep delegates' task simple - signing blocks.
« on: November 03, 2014, 10:04:25 pm »
A thread where this is discussed:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9452.0

587
General Discussion / Re: Paid-delegates is genius
« on: November 03, 2014, 04:54:32 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on November 03, 2014, 04:53:11 pm
Exchanges make money from volume and we are already in the top 5 by volume on most days.

The reason we are not listed on bigger exchanges is because bigger exchanges are far more conservative and no amount of delegate pay will change that.

We have partners lined up to make this easy and the exchanges are paying us to bring them customers rather than us paying them.

Sounds good!  +5%

588
General Discussion / Re: Paid-delegates is genius
« on: November 03, 2014, 04:50:14 pm »
Quote from: alphaBar on November 03, 2014, 04:38:52 pm
I totally disagree with the premise. Once you break into the top 5 in market cap (as we already have) there is no need to fight for acceptance from exchanges. What we're trying to do is effectively conflate the incentive structure of block production with that of marketing and development. What we're actually doing is creating new incentives that serve neither purpose.

This kind of thing could be useful for big partnerships.  Wouldn't it be worth a delegate spot to get on bitstamp? 

However I do actually agree.  If there were a new type of delegate created, 'business delegates' rather than having just 1 delegate class responsible for doing everything then delegate positions could be more easily traded in partnership deals.

589
General Discussion / Re: Paid-delegates is genius
« on: November 03, 2014, 04:45:12 pm »
Quote from: Rune on November 03, 2014, 04:27:55 pm
We don't need big exchanges. BTS should and will only be traded on the internal market and all on-ramps will be in bitassets. This would mean that points of exchange will be able to function at full effectiveness with almost no volume, and we would finally get rid of the problem of goxing, trusting a third party with your savings, manipulation, willy bot etc. It means our on-ramps will be small operations, but spread out all over the place. The feeds will function by averaging the pegs of the respective bitassets and using the average as a multiplier to move the feed price based on the market rate of the internal market.

I thought the feeds currently average the external exchange price of BTSX? So black swans can be caused by massive dumping on just a couple of exchanges at the same time at this point (bter + btc38).  The more exchanges the stronger the price feed.  Sorry but I don't understand your explanation for the feeds/pegs (due to my own limited understanding probably).

Maybe there's a way for exchanges to prove they aren't voting for themselves such as having a trusted delegate could be an escrow for the exchange funds using multisig or something?



590
General Discussion / Re: Paid-delegates is genius
« on: November 03, 2014, 04:04:25 pm »
You mean we should actively communicate to big exchanges that the BTS community may choose to vote them into a delegate spot if they run as a delegate and add BTS to their exchange?  That could be a great way of getting on big exchanges... Though no one can guarantee them a delegate spot, or for how long.

591
General Discussion / Re: Fee for delegates making voteable dilution proposals: How high should it be?
« on: November 03, 2014, 03:56:43 pm »
Quote from: svk on November 03, 2014, 02:50:34 pm
Quote from: matt608 on November 03, 2014, 02:41:49 pm
Quote from: monsterer on November 03, 2014, 10:13:02 am
Quote from: xeroc on November 03, 2014, 10:05:28 am
Hug? Since when are delegates supposed to pay a fee besides registration fee, which is pretty tiny:

Quote
  "delegate_reg_fee": "14.09802 BTSX",

Sorry, I thought that's what this thread was discussing? I must have misunderstood :)

I've realised that I've made the error here of thinking that 'technical delegates' and  'business delegates' (what I've been calling 'dilution requests') will be separated.  In the linked thread https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9452.90 this is discussed at length.  It doesn't look like a decision was reached, has that decision been made?  There will still just be 1 type of delegate and paid 100% by dilution as proposed in BM's opening post in that thread, or is it still up for discussion?

Yea I don't think that was ever changed, so there will only be one type of delegate pay: by dilution. Transaction fees will be burnt 100%. The delegate types are simply describing their function, not their pay form.

As for the fees, the original proposal was 100 blocks worth I believe, which BM quickly upped to 7 days after feedback from Arhag and others including myself.

So there will never come a time when transaction fees directly pay for delegates?  I was under the impression the dilution was temporary, it was just going to be there for however long it took to  to 'bootstrap' the DAC up to a level of profitability to be able to pay delegates entirely by transaction fees.  But then with 100% burning of transaction fees, eventually that burn rate could outpace the dilution rate, so overall deflation could eventually occur.

592
General Discussion / Re: Fee for delegates making voteable dilution proposals: How high should it be?
« on: November 03, 2014, 02:41:49 pm »
Quote from: monsterer on November 03, 2014, 10:13:02 am
Quote from: xeroc on November 03, 2014, 10:05:28 am
Hug? Since when are delegates supposed to pay a fee besides registration fee, which is pretty tiny:

Quote
  "delegate_reg_fee": "14.09802 BTSX",

Sorry, I thought that's what this thread was discussing? I must have misunderstood :)

I've realised that I've made the error here of thinking that 'technical delegates' and  'business delegates' (what I've been calling 'dilution requests') will be separated.  In the linked thread https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9452.90 this is discussed at length.  It doesn't look like a decision was reached, has that decision been made?  There will still just be 1 type of delegate and paid 100% by dilution as proposed in BM's opening post in that thread, or is it still up for discussion?

I would be in favour of separating the roles... unless there's another big thread on this I should read?

593
General Discussion / Re: BitShares Group on SocialCrypto
« on: November 03, 2014, 01:23:04 pm »
I made an account but when I go to the link you posted it says "You do not have permission to view the requested page."...

594
General Discussion / Re: Will we go below DOGE???
« on: November 03, 2014, 09:04:24 am »
Thanks onceuponatime, I wonder when bitSLV will start trading...

595
General Discussion / Re: Made a video about BitUSD
« on: November 03, 2014, 08:45:43 am »
 +5%

596
General Discussion / Re: onramp initiative
« on: November 02, 2014, 09:08:27 pm »
Nice find.  They have a "service partner" section.  Not an opportunity to be missed, that could be a great partnership.

597
General Discussion / Re: Fee for delegates making voteable dilution proposals: How high should it be?
« on: November 02, 2014, 08:11:16 pm »
Quote from: fluxer555 on November 02, 2014, 07:30:53 pm
Rune Ander is actually spot on with BM's original proposal for this:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9452

100 x 50BTS = 5000 BTS


Edit: Mixed up the names

Ok.. I missed that thread.  Reading it.

598
General Discussion / Fee for delegates making voteable dilution proposals: How high should it be?
« on: November 02, 2014, 06:35:57 pm »
Will there need to be a fee for delegates making officially voteable dilution proposals?  How high should it be? 

Prospective delegates who want dilution could propose their idea unofficially on the forums and get an idea of whether it is likely to be voted in or not and use community feedback to refine the idea. Then they could write it up and officially propose it, costing a fee, maybe quite a large one.

The stakeholders could easily get overwhelmed by too many voting decisions.  Too many proposals have already been seen in the forum to cause confusion, stress, and bearishness.  If there's a fee to make an official voteable dilution proposal it would have the following benefits:

The higher the fee:

- the fewer voteable dilution proposals (higher stakeholder confidence/certainty)
- the better the quality of the proposals
- the lower the level of freakout by stakeholders as at least some would have been exposed to the proposal many times on the forum and developed some trust towards the delegate during the preliminary proposal feedback process.
 - the higher the deflation from fee-burning!

Burning of fees from dilution proposals could add a decent income stream to the DAC.  I'd say it should be a few hundred USD worth of BTS per official voteable proposal, maybe more?

If the fee is $300USD worth of BTS, stakeholders who are greatly in favour of the proposal from the pre-liminary discussions could easily donate to pay the fee to put it up for vote.  If the proposal is good enough it should easily be able to gather $300 of donations from its supporters before going up to vote.

Also maybe proposal makers should be required to run a delegate for at least 1 month before making an official voteable proposal.   That helps build trust and commitment to BTS by creating an intellectual overhead and proves they are capable of the basic delegate tasks.



599
General Discussion / Re: Hey,BM,do we really need dilution to pay for developers ? Let's calculate !
« on: November 02, 2014, 05:07:17 pm »
Some parts I don't understand, like how would VOTE being a bitasset effect the BTS price if they got a deal in the Californian elections?  Say if they secured a multi-million dollar deal, federal funding to develop the open source software, if merged with BTS then getting that deal would be massive for BTS, if they are a bitasset it might greatly lessen the effect?  I don't know.  User issued assets (as opposed to market-pegged bitassets) don't raise the BTS price do they apart from by fees?  They could take off and hardly have any impact on BTS price.  Much more effective to have them merged and using a market-pegged bitasset, which does raise the BTS price by requiring BTS to be used as collateral. 

I don't understand either other parts either about PTS + AGS continuing to expect 10% from all future DACs.  As far as I understand it the AGS funds needed to be acquired by an airdrop so 3I could continue to work on BTS.  So that's necessary to survive, in which case the airdrop is necessary, in which case AGS + PTS continuing to expect 10% when they've already been necessarily airdropped BTS is over-rewarding them.  If the airdrop is cancelled BTS has no funding, which certainly does't help raise the price to 0.0819 USD.  Maybe I've mis-understood about that...

"New Dacs" will either be entirely independent and snapshotting whoever they choose, or will be propose to be delegates of BTS.  That's the model that seems to be the current one.

I do respect this idea though.  The fees may soon day be enough for no more dilution to be required.


600
General Discussion / Re: What is the Profit model of BTSx ?
« on: November 02, 2014, 03:28:05 pm »
Quote from: Felix on November 02, 2014, 03:15:27 pm
Quote from: CoinHoarder on November 02, 2014, 03:00:18 pm
The profit model is apparently that there will be no "profits."

Once dilution is implemented, I venture to say BTS will never be "profitable" on its original goals of creating a profitable company out of a cryptocurrency by not diluting its shareholders and burning fees. No amount of marketing and development will ever be enough, shareholders will always want more no matter the value of the BTS tokens.

Now the model closely resembles how any other cryptocurrency would be "profitable" by its tokens' value rising. Whether this is a good thing or not is yet to be seen, but if I see someone say "they just don't see the big picture" one more time I'm going to flip shit. Apparently there are people that can tell the future, and the debate is not a debate at all as it is an objective matter and not a subjective one.  ::)

 +5% +5% +5%
Dilution  is absolutely the nightmare for btsx!!! Originally I firmly kept resisting the merging with dilution！3I should use the btsx shares of its own to buy back ags/pts！Not diluting！

There may well come a time when no dilution is needed to pay for any features/marketing.  If Bitassets use is high enough the fees will be enough to pay delegates for any work they may do.  Once that is the case the stakeholders would not vote for any dilution as the delegates would already be being paid plenty for their work.

The dilution is to bootstap the DAC up to self-sustaining size, where the fees are enough.

People who don't want dilution can vote against it for every delegate if they wish.  Maybe a hard time-cap so that after say 2 years its impossible for more dilution.

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 ... 59

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 23 queries.