1
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Tokenly Merchant Ecosystem Worker Proposal
« on: November 13, 2015, 01:02:15 am »
It's a placeholder number, I'm attempting to define the real cost with Kuro which can then be used to create the proposal.
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.
this has freebie's full support, we love the concept and would love to work on this project with adam.
do you plan to make money via referral system?
EDIT: But winning the vote will only give you the daily pay for the developer so you still need to arrange and manage the developer yourself.
And the worker pay requires vesting - this is to prevent having the salary paid without the job being actually delivered.
by the way, we could need a tokenly like chrome app too. I like it
@Adam, just to give you an example, this is what a worker proposal looks like in the GUI.
Voters are supposed to read the details supplied by the attached URLs and then vote whether those proposals make sense for them or not.
Right now we have:
BTC, bitBTC, TRADE.BTC, OPEN.BTC... and every new gateway will produce new SOMETHING.BTC. From perspective of new user this is far too complicated.
But in my opinion this is not the worst part. The main problem with this approach will always be low liquidity. And this is not only my concern.
https://twitter.com/genxnotes/status/660845841565941760
In my opinion gateways should work more like (or exactly like) https://metaexchange.info/ or http://shapeshift.io/. As far as I know, metaexchange provide liquidity with their own funds, having in mind that they will generate profit thanks to spread.
From my perspective all gateways should be "end-to-end" (BTC<->bitBTC) and "single transfer" gateways. I should send my real BTC to address generated in my wallet , and this should cause that bitBTC will appear in my bitshares wallet. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY to have simple gateways. Otherwise they are yet another exchanges. And we have to remember, that if any exchange is based on User Issued Assets, they are always counterparty risk. This risk will be bigger if users will be tempted to keep their positions on SOMETHING.BTC:BTC orderbooks.
@ Adam, is it correct that this would bring new users to Bitshares? Then you can make a pofit doing so (bringing new users onto the Bitshares blockchain) with the referral system, see https://bitshares.org/technology/referral-rewards-program/
The referral system has been created in order to make more intellegent marketing decisions. Entrepreneurs that are confident that their service is valuable to customers and brings new users to Bitshares profit big time. It's capitalism: The entrepreneur has to risk his/her own money (invest it).
Voting on worker proposals comes with the difficulty that BTS holders have to asses the profitability of the proposals for BTS so only things that can not be funded via the referral system should be funded with worker proposals. Worker proposal funding is like state or corporatism funding - people risk other people's money - this should be reserved for basic infrastructure that can not be funded via the referrral system.
This one, as I see it would be ideal to be funded via the referral system.
Really cool that you're interested in using Bitshares and I sure hope someone's interested in helping you do this. A worker proposal would get my vote at least.
I'd be happy to help with technical stuff.
yep me either - and good to see you back Sir
( happy to be of assistance with graphic stuff )
What is the process for getting something like this started? I emailed Daniel to set up a call about this and a few other things but I'm not seeing an obvious 'this is how you should do this".
What are next steps?
the next step would IMO to calculate integration costs etc .. for this a call with dan (or maybe xeroc could help as well - @xeroc ) about possiblites and requirements etc. would be a good start...
At next step i would to create a worker proposal with cost/timeframe etc ..
Maybe this could be helping as well ..
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19559.msg250967.html#msg250967
Really cool that you're interested in using Bitshares and I sure hope someone's interested in helping you do this. A worker proposal would get my vote at least.
I'd be happy to help with technical stuff.
yep me either - and good to see you back Sir
( happy to be of assistance with graphic stuff )
Graphene API is just different, it's a paradigm shift - rather than "pulling" data from blockchain it exploits "push" concept allowing creation of close to real time clients.
It's pretty early in it's development, I expect it would be more user friendly as it mature and we implement more features and bindings. I predict the ideas we up to would have a big affect on all crypto APIs in the mid-term future.
With all due respect, Adam (big fan of your work here), if the user hasn't backed up within a certain period of time, there's a link right at the bottom that says "BACKUP REQUIRED". If you click on that, it takes you to a screen to perform a backup. What's the problem with that? And beyond that, what about the interface reminds you of a very early Mastercoin wallet?
By the way, perhaps you're not aware that this is a reference design. Many of us understand the point of it to be a usable wallet for the community to jump start the new governance model, for early adopters and investors to use more generally, and at the same time a working demonstration of the features business builders can design into their own product/service offerings built atop the Bitshares 2.0 platform and aimed at the end-user masses. Obviously it's not perfect, but I think it's delivering on that promise.
As for the API, like anything else clearly there were/are some kinks to be worked out. But I really doubt it will be overly difficult for you to integrate Bitshares 2.0 into your platform.