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 - blockchained

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13
1
    The purpose of this proposal is to establish a scientific financial model of BTS, make reasonable use of the commission income of the committee, open up resources and reduce expenditure, and promote the stable growth of BTS system value.

bitASSETS dividend

      Intelligent assets are the original assets of the system, and the corresponding holders should enjoy the dividend of system growth.
      Dividend amount: 20000 BTS per day
      Participating assets: bitCNY, bitUSD, bitEUR,bitRUBLE
      1.Dividend conditions:
      1)  The holding amount should exceed X. For example: those over 1000 yuan can participate in dividend
      2)  The holding amount needs to last for a period of time . For example, 7 days. Dividends can only be distributed if the holding amount meets 1000bitcny or above for 7 consecutive days.
     2.Dividend method:
     1) Participating accounts should register at the beginning of each cycle.Account does not participate in dividend if not registered. The registration method can be to transfer any small number of bitassets to the specified account.
    2) The reward needs to be collected actively. If the reward is not collected within the time limit, this part of the reward will not be accumulated.The collection method can be to transfer any small number of bitasset to the specified account.
    3) If there are too few bitassets participating in the dividend, set the upper limit of daily yield, such as 5 ‰.
    4) The more available bitassets you hold, the more dividends you get. Calculated as a minimum of 7 days. For example, if the number of bitCNY held within 7 days is 2000 3000 3000 1000 5000 5000 2000, then 1000 is the effective number. Note that the available bitassets do not include bitassets such as participating in Pending purchase\ compulsory liquidation and transfer.
    5)There is a reward for recommending new registered account to participate in lock in dividend. If the number of locked in bitassets in the account reaches a certain amount (e.g. 100000 bitcny, other bitassets are calculated based on the exchange rate year-on-year), it can be applied as a promotion account. If the new account recommended for registration by the account participates in the locked in of smart assets, the account can obtain corresponding dividends.

Regular destruction

      The dividend shall be destroyed at the same time as it is distributed in each dividend cycle.
      Destruction per week = coefficient Z * (dividend per week)

Parameter adjustment description

     For all parameters, the modification cycle is 2 weeks. Each modification can be adjusted for a function or a single parameter.Modification conditions (one of two options):
     1) Adopted by more than half of the members of the Council.
     2) Send a simple baip, describe the parameters you want to modify, according to the passing standard of baip.

Continuous operation

      This proposal does not conflict with baip6(MM competition).
       If baip6 passes, it will be carried out at the same time. After the consumption of the Council's stock funds, 30% of the Council's monthly income is used for destruction, 30% is used for warehouse locking and dividend distribution, 30% is used for mining with hanging orders, and 10% is used for Council reservation. The parameters are adjusted in the same proportion.
       If baip6 fails, the proposal will be implemented separately. After the consumption of the Council's stock funds, 30% of the Council's monthly income is used for destruction, 60% is used for lock in dividends, and 10% is used for the Council's reservation. The parameters are adjusted in the same proportion.

organizer

      The organizer is appointed by the Council. In the early stage, a certain amount of funds will be spent by the Council account for program development, and 1% of the daily reward will be used as the organizer's salary after operation.

nextone instant SEC invitation,
and spends on the useless initiative

2
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll] BAIP6: BTS-DEX economic model
« on: June 01, 2020, 04:36:10 pm »
Mark ATM:

1.14.260   Poll-BAIP6-Implement BTS-DEX economic model                483,504,455
1.14.236   BAIP-Threshold                                                              483,019,167
1.14.261   Poll-BAIP6-Do Not Implement BTS-DEX economic model     136,235,999

bitCNY, [01.06.20 10:17] in telegram
What is the purpose on a threshold on bitshares if you just lower the threshold when wanting to get something getting voted in.
It makes the threshold irrelevant and doubling the votes from proxies who want to get a BAIP voted in.


bitCNY, [01.06.20 10:17] in telegram
That voting system makes no sense as it doesn't have a real threshold it is basicly desinged in favour of big proxies


that's why we need to reconsider this system at least count negative vote when we look for threshold

for example

VOTE.YES - VOTE.NO = X
if X less than threshold baip/bsip didn't pas 

somehow even if we have a negative vote but we count only positive ones

3
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll] BAIP6: BTS-DEX economic model
« on: May 30, 2020, 01:11:53 pm »
blockchained mistakenly wrote alt instead of abit.
Yes, I was mistaken

4
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll] BAIP6: BTS-DEX economic model
« on: May 30, 2020, 11:45:16 am »
So basically it's just the money for the gdex MM/fees from a reserve pool. Rejected

it's designed for all qualified gateways.

it's designed to grab money from reserve pool as I see it

You should vote for this BAIP 1.14.236 (BAIP-Threshold) to against BAIP6.

Anybody think the money belong to the community should vote for BAIP-Threshold.


And i think BAIP6 didn't belong to BAIP, it should be a BSIP, the fund didn't only come from bitasset.

and only one gateway participate in, no competitor, any committees vote for this involve transfer of benifits.

理事的屁股不要坐到不该坐的地方。

abit use the bot to mute admins in bitshares chat so only way community see it if they come to this forum,
in chat, abit abuse his admin power to silence those who against his agenda

5
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll] BAIP6: BTS-DEX economic model
« on: May 30, 2020, 11:42:07 am »
Mark at this moment:

1.14.236   BAIP-Threshold                                                                       483 518 895
1.14.260   Poll-BAIP6-Implement BTS-DEX economic model                  471,277,721
1.14.261   Poll-BAIP6-Do Not Implement BTS-DEX economic model     136,354,157

6
General Discussion / Re: MARKET FEE SHARING AND BSIP 86
« on: May 28, 2020, 12:22:23 pm »
BSIP86 makes a trap to bts holders and committee, when charge all the UIA market fees, BTS must have the responsibility for supervision and control of all UIAs, but that's impossible, even find a UIA is scamcoin, bts still didn't have the power to control it.

Committees have staff changes, the bts holders will face the lawsuit in the future at last.

it's just a trap from the point of the law after these changes bitsahres became a security 100% and this became SEC interest

7

We already paying blockchain fees, so this double taxation looks more like a tribute for the existing businesses this is not acceptable.

I told you and I repeat you not once that taxation is a worse idea that pops up in your head, a community that for the year couldn't imagine/invent anything smarter/better than bring/build taxation in blockchain for a few existing small businesses on top of it are going in a rekt direction


Chinese community, mark my words, with such ideas for the bitshares upgrade you will roll OUT from top-100 till the end of the year No foreigners, no businesses, no money, just some scammed/broken bitassets, empty markets and "workers" dumping the coin. The bright future for the chain, isn't it?

anyone do not like to pay further fees, easy to understand.


WE PAYING FEES ALREDY

we just don't want to pay this tribute because we well know what happened with OMO fund, also your next one "brilliant" idea


8
It's clear that there is a conflict of interest on your side. As a gateway you want the platform to help you more so you can earn more, and it's better to pay less to the platform, on the other hand, as a BTS holder you probably want the platform to earn more from the gateways.

so now gateways are not members of the community? not bts holders that by the activities spending more on the blockchain fees than average holder that just sit on the bag and pay no fees to the platform?
why we have blockchain fees then?

Before talking "conflict of interest" and "earnings" just take a calculator and calculate so-called profit of the gateways it is public on the blockchain. Bitshares as a blockchain for gateway business already failed that's why gateways run away and stop their services, did you noticed that? Because no fish there, nobody uses it really, nor ICOs nor traders. So from the point of view of the business after this changes it better to migrate service, less spends. Why do I need to use bts engine with double taxation as a gateway service/cex on top of it if I could use other dex engines on other blockchains with no fees at all?. Our customers mainly our community that come to rudex and trade our UIA mostly, but still paying blockchain fees. Why do we need to stay here with our community? 
And as a bts holder, I understand if the businesses will continue to migrate from bitshares, BTS would be worthless very soon.

This bsip make borders for the new gateways and push out those that exist, what value in it? tell me

Why the community must pay for this development instead of something valuable that bring something to bitshares and not push out and force to dump this coin. Do you understand how ridiculous this situation is?

Yes, Chinese pushed the de-peg of bitassets, but without the great support of Thule, your friend, it shouldn't have been done.

it was your and bitcrab idea no one to blame besides you two

Rather than rejecting this and that, can we start a discussion about what is acceptable? E.G. what fee percent is acceptable for you? 1%? 5%? 10%? 20%? 30%?

You don't understand that this tribute not acceptable at all

It's clear that there is a conflict of interest on your side
From my point of view "conflict of interest" it is you who seating as a witness, committee and worker at the same time. Чья бы корова мычала.

9
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll] BAIP6: BTS-DEX economic model
« on: May 27, 2020, 02:44:37 pm »
So basically it's just the money for the gdex MM/fees from a reserve pool. Rejected

it's designed for all qualified gateways.

it's designed to grab money from reserve pool as I see it

10

after the launching of 4.0, the BSIP86 parameter will be determined by voting, I agree that the community need be careful/conservative on this, if finally the voting decided to set the rate to 0, market fee will not be shared.

however in my view, it's good that gateway pay some further fee and the platform provide some further public service, GDEX has bought MM service from providers, it's expensive and not so satisfactory, the MM contest actually provide good service and is potential to be better, when MM contest helps GDEX, GDEX will contribute to community with better depth, more active trading and also more system income, the rules will be continuously updated to make it more easy for voters to estimate how it works well enough.

As a gateway that participated and observed previous mm contest, I can say that it is bring nothing, just some money to the bots that trading on gdex

if it so good use it for your own business proof that it's worth something. But NO you prefer to do it by the community money because it looks like to spend money on MM contest from reserve pool it is the only way how you make money on this so-called MM contest.

if finally the voting decided to set the rate to 0, market fee will not be shared
We already paying blockchain fees, so this double taxation looks more like a tribute for the existing businesses this is not acceptable.

I told you and I repeat you not once that taxation is a worse idea that pops up in your head, a community that for the year couldn't imagine/invent anything smarter/better than bring/build taxation in blockchain for a few existing small businesses on top of it are going in a rekt direction


Chinese community, mark my words, with such ideas for the bitshares upgrade you will roll OUT from top-100 till the end of the year No foreigners, no businesses, no money, just some scammed/broken bitassets, empty markets and "workers" dumping the coin. The bright future for the chain, isn't it?

11
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll] BAIP6: BTS-DEX economic model
« on: May 25, 2020, 05:45:39 pm »
So basically it's just the money for the gdex MM/fees from a reserve pool. Rejected

12
BSIP86 is the result of a long discussion
name 1 more gateway who participated in this discussion besides you?
With what businesses that operate on top of bitshares you discussed it in "a long discussion"? who are they? I'm really curious

a percent fee from UIA market fee will be good to build a great ecosystem
it would be the last nail in the coffin. The first one was also YOURS bsip42 from what began all this mess


the "tax" can be considered as the fee for utilizing the DEX infrastructure
We already paying blockchain fees for utilizing the DEX infrastructure, so it is just double taxation for the businesses, It obvious that you don't care about some private tokens like "ZALUPA", you couldn't get any profit from this

Who will manage the taxation fund?
Who will get money for the management of this fund?

It is a rhetorical question because everyone in the community knows that it will be your or members associated with you, so tell me more about how you were against this bsip 

Community well remember the SPRING thing or committee-cnytrader operations, do you have the same brilliant plans for taxation funds?

13
Gateways are not forced to participate the MM contest, but BSIP86 will apply for all.

not for all, just for you

Ol- gone, bitspark - gone, cryptobridge - gone, deex - gone, easydex - gone, escodex - gone, etc. You haven't asked any 1 gateway about these changes beside yourself.

Ask the Chinese community are they ready to stay on this chain by themself with no foreigners? Is it worth it?

We already start looking for an alternative platform to migrate our service if these updates will pass (we love bitshares as an instrument and we've helped to develop and popularise it in our community but we do not agree with this way for bitshares) anyway our main trades between our own pairs. We use bitshares as a matching engine and we don't want to be a double-taxed, but we already have a loyal community of traders that will leave with us. Bitshares a long time ago lost the race for only dex engine in the crypto space. So you will be monopolist and you will control the budget that worthless on a platform that nobody uses and nobody interested especially when bitshares loose top-100 positions. For sure you know a statistic and you know how bad this statistic.

Look at ALL your MM proposals and where they lead us in the end, I don't think that it is possible to find something besides failure. If I'm wrong please show me the result of the previous MM contest or what a result you have of previous fee managing from the bitAssets?

 Greed is a bad advisor, stupid greed especially 

14
kindly reminding: after the launch of BTS4.0, all the gateway assets need to share market fee to system, either participate the MM contest or not.
In this case, you'll have probably only your gateway, and bitshares ranked 110+ or something. I heard more and more people and services talking about the fork, also saw some code already. What you will do with double taxation when it will be nothing to taxate?



After observing the previous MM contest we've decided to not legitimize money-grabbing from the reserve pool.


RuDEX will not participate in the next MM contest please exclude our platform from this list


15
General Discussion / Re: Market making contest (main thread)
« on: May 21, 2020, 04:50:39 pm »
RuDEX will not participate in the next MM contest please exclude our platform from this list

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13