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 - xeroc

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 858
1
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy:B-DEX
« on: September 11, 2019, 12:36:57 pm »
Upvoted today  Bitshares UI worker
 
I upvoted Bitshares UI worker for 7 days so there will be enough funds to release the new updated UI.
The updated UI is urgently needed since it also contains the fix for market fee claim error and more important the cookie session for the refferal system which is a major point for any refferal offer.
+5%

2
No matter what? That's nice of you :)
Well, i don't *need* to talk bitshares. The VIPs there will be fun to talk no matter the topic.

Also, if bitshares cancels the sponsorship, I'll certainly not tag myself as a bitshares-guy - that would be idiotic, right?

3
I'll be there too

4
vote is shi*t, holder is shi*t?
You decreased you skill in reading by 10 points.

5
General Discussion / Re: Huge spending will lead to the collapse of BTS
« on: September 05, 2019, 04:13:15 pm »
Clear argument against Indian workers doing core programming @ 1$/hr:
They are in the wrong timezone, shit like this only happens when Europe or U.S. people are awake :D
/s

6
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Reduce onboarding registrar
« on: September 05, 2019, 01:07:14 pm »
Since that worker is voted out and hardly even pays for the infrastructure i provide for it (let alone all the coding to offer detailed analysis on the registered accounts), I cannot put more time and efforts into this faucet.

Maybe some hobbyist has fun digging into elasticsearch, but I have to feed a family.

7
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Reduce onboarding registrar
« on: September 04, 2019, 07:24:58 am »
Tell me, if registering accounts cost BTS, and the faucet doesn't earn BTS from referral reward, how long do you think this can be self-sustained? (ignoring the expense for hosting the faucet even).
I need to tell you, if registration costs BTS?

The onboarding account does still earns 80% from BTS and market fees for every non-LTM signup, when registrar = 0%. This is not enough to cover the 2 cents registration fee and worker costs?

The bts++ team is generating 5 figures only from the market fee share per month!

Here is the thing: The worker was proposed in a certain way (defined in the worker proposal).
Changing terms in the middle is not good business. If you want to have it 0%, it may be viable long term, but a subsequent worker needs to propose it that way.
This worker and its parameters are set in stone.

8
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Reduce onboarding registrar
« on: September 02, 2019, 11:24:02 am »
I suppose you miss the fact that those 15% are supposed to go back to the reserve funds .. and that's what happend in the past already.
I did not miss the fact, that the extra revenues go the the reserve pool. The registration cut is a appendix, which is not needed anymore and does sabotage the referral system.
OL is using this to gain more voting power.

The registration cut does not make any difference for the non-LTM signup, but makes a difference for the LTM/referral system. 
Tell me, if registering accounts cost BTS, and the faucet doesn't earn BTS from referral reward, how long do you think this can be self-sustained? (ignoring the expense for hosting the faucet even).

9
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Reduce onboarding registrar
« on: September 02, 2019, 10:12:29 am »
I suppose you miss the fact that those 15% are supposed to go back to the reserve funds .. and that's what happend in the past already.
But hey, who reads worker proposals.

10
however, I don't think it's very difficult to find skilled enough developers to do the core dev job.

Uff, have you ever looked into *their* job?
Since I am in a closed telegram group with the core dev team, I can tell you, it's *WAY* over my head ... and I'd call myself well-educated.

11
Holders,

Please remove the vote from NABTS worker since the worker/event is being cancelled due to lack of funding (depreciation of $BTS and voting issues in the past few weeks).

Despite team best efforts to collect private funds through co-sponsorship for making it happen, even with additional funds its impossible to acquire needed funds.

Cancellation of the event is having following costs:

- 10,000.00 USD towards EVOLV for the 2 months efforts and cancellation + 13% depreciation in LTC on half of it due to bear markets (we picked nice moment for cancellation).
- around 3,000.00 USD (still waiting final hours) for the worker team efforts and time they spent on worker.
- Fee for sold tickets through EventBrite and cancellation of the event (minor cost 67.70 USD + eventbrite refund policy + credit card processing fee)

Payment receipts, trading history and remaining of the funds (will be withdrawn and moved to zavod.premik account) will be presented after the holiday/weekend so the owner of the account healingvibes420 can have back ownership.

On behalf of Move Institute,

Milos (DL) Preocanin.

Chee®s

Too bad.

12
Committee Name    B-DEX
Cool! More opinions and a fresh wind in the committee.
Support!

13
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« on: August 27, 2019, 02:20:59 pm »
Our current model [developer -> wp -> poll -> developer] failed to deliver and
Could you explain by what metric this approach has failed?
There have been multiple hard forks, dozens of backend releases and countless releases on the frontend.
Additional DEXbot has brought tons of liquidity.
Please tell the community what makes you think your criticism is justified

Quote
the new model [investor -> vision -> mission -> wp -> polls -> developer -> marketing] is needed to gain transaction again.
I'd like to hear more about this.
When will investors come up with a vision? There have been 5 years now and I haven't seen any of them provide that.
How would you come from vision to mission in a decentralized ecosystem like ours. Who decides what should be part of the mission, or do you support multiple missions in parallel?

14
General Discussion / Re: Smratcoin GCNY backed by GDEX.BTC
« on: August 27, 2019, 02:13:48 pm »
If it's backed by GDEX.BTC, why don't you run private price feeds too?
Much quicker and easier to setup and less burden for the witnesses.
It's based on an IOU so the feeds don't really change much in the risk profile anyhow

15
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker] Integration of BTS with Wirex
« on: August 27, 2019, 12:20:41 pm »
Getting on/off ramps for bitAssets is out of scope?
out of scope of this worker proposal, yes.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 858