Quote from: bitcrab on June 15, 2020, 03:31:11 AM

Quote from: binggo on June 14, 2020, 01:04:08 AM

Quote from: Thul3 on June 12, 2020, 04:47:53 PM
please correct your statement from community to a group because i haven't seen a single line of discussion of that topic in telegram.

I think BTS didn't have the community anymore, the holders of BTS had made this choice for themself, they chose to destroy themself and the chain, time will show the fact.

I mean community, not telegram.

In my view, if Bitshares is a DAC, then Committee is just like the Board, no Board need to get approvement from Shareholders in everything.

Every shareholder is authorized to unvote any Committee member.

you are the janitors of the blockchain and you do as shareholders tell you. simple as that.

voted

HIVE Community: https://peakd.com/c/hive-120117/created

Commun: https://commun.com/bitshares?invite=cmn1iurphaqd

Matrix: http://bitshares.chat/

https://peakd.com/c/hive-120117/created

https://steempeak.com/c/hive-120117/created

Quote from: litepresence on February 09, 2020, 09:42:28 PM

Quote from: abit on February 09, 2020, 07:36:02 PM
Biased info is less valuable.

You have 4 institutions in the cryptospace who's claim to fame is the fact that they audit exchange volume... they do this for all exchanges globally... American, Chinese, Russian and all in between.  Its not a matter of racism against chinese companies, its a matter of quantifying raw data.

nomics, comaps, coingecko, and coinmarketcap's liquidity rankings are all in alignment for the most part on the true volume reported by top global exchanges.  Some of these are Chinese, some are US, some otherwise.   MXC is not among the top contenders by a long shot. 

mxc is not in the top 120 at nomics trust ranking
mxc is not in the top 120 at comaps trust ranking
mxc is not in the top 50 at coinmarketcap's liquidity; the bottom of which is less than 200k daily volume
mxc is not in the top 100 at coingecko's trust ranking
mxc is not even considered at hacken.io cyber security ranking

how many independent un-associated auditors does it take to make it clear that fake is fake?

if we're going expend resources on getting listed at exchanges we should be focusing on exchanges who's orderbooks have been AUDITED by sites who's stated purpose is to audit.

We should not be looking at rankings based on "internally reported volume" nor rankings based on "pay to be listed in rankings".

focus on the sites that matter... the one's with real volume:

binance, bittrex, bitfinex, poloniex, kraken, huobi, upbit, hitbtc, coinbase, bitflyer, bithumb, okex, bitstamp, gate.io, kucoin, bitmex, gemini

these, maybe a few others are the only sites matter ^

Almost every other exchange in cryptospace are various shades of bullshit.

All these other bottom tier junk exchanges are just a waste of resources.  They encourage BTS holders to involve themselves with shady institutions.  These shady exchanges ultimately turn out to be scams or go broke, get hacked, and leave BTS holders with nothing to show for their investments.

Under no circumstances should community worker funding go towards exchange listing at an exchange that is not in the top 40 at nomics, coingecko, comaps, and coinmarketcap liquidity rankings.

fully agree. I think the money will only be used to wash trade BTS and it will probably land in the wallet of OP and this garbage exchange. This is another piggybank attempt

Quote from: Fox on October 15, 2019, 07:18:05 PM
In response to the fraud that is BSIP76, "fox" continued to publish accurate pricing data. The result was swift: votes were removed by those complicit with the fraud and the most senior block producer was removed from active production. Restoring your vote will move the needle on toward freedom from price-feed manipulation,

voted

removed support for every witness except blckchnd.

If you're a witness and you run with default settings (non-fucked up smartcoins) post here and highlight me on telegram. will vote for you.

Quote from: abit on September 14, 2019, 07:38:01 PM

Quote from: fav on September 14, 2019, 03:57:54 PM
bump

For what? I see nothing is new.

because I can.

this is controversial, but in my opinion the best way forward.

Committee should buy DAI and put it in a savings account. With smartcontracts selecting the best interest pool, you're able to keep a steady 10% APR with relative moderate risk.

The interest generated should be used every month to buyback BTS and then moved to the Pool.

Once (if ever) BitShares has a similiar DeFi available, the operation should obviously be moved back on-chain.

WHAT IS DPOS?

bump

This topic has been moved to Meta.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=28531.0

Quote from: binggo on June 19, 2019, 02:35:50 PM
Who is the biggest LTM? Do you know? Faucet and gateway!

Suck blood from the smartcoin to feed them? if BTS didn't have smartcoin, where did you want to get this?

Whe i claim the vesting balances i need pay 50.52 BTS fee to got 50 bts?

Quote from: bench on June 19, 2019, 02:23:27 PM
Now everyone pays a 0.04% fee, which gets to Bitshares.
Afterwards Bitshares gets only 0.02%, what a LTM has, to pay.
The main benefit goes to LTM!

gateways are the only reason bitshares is still alive.

Quote from: sschiessl on June 18, 2019, 01:32:24 PM
Got my vote! Thanks for the initiative.

What exactly did you create? That is not a worker id 1.10.34553

Probably a committee vote.

I'll support this initiative!