@Samupaha

Currently baozi is voting against every worker proposal except refund and burn workers. This is basically same thing as voting for destruction of Bitshares.

This is not against all proposals, but to raise the threshold for the budget.
As there is still some high ticket through the proposal (#1 and #2 below), which is a way to filter highly valuable worker proposal.

---

BitShares 现在已经是一个社区自治的区块链系统：

• 以 BitShares 2.0 的发布为里程碑——由“投票”、“代理投票”、“见证人”、“理事会”、“预算项目”组成的治理结构为社区化自治创造了条件。不再是 1.0 时期 BM 可以任性而为（合并、增发）。
• 以 BitShares 2.0 发布不久后 BM 的离开为标志性事件——意味着比特股已经“去 BM 化”。

---

BitShares 2.0 通过“代理投票”改善了 1.0 时期 BTS 持有人自行投票参与率极低的情况，让不愿花精力关注社区也不愿意频繁变更投票的 BTS 持有人有了一个变通地参与投票的方式——把自己的 BTS 投票权交给自己信任的——能代表自己投票意愿和立场的——投票代理人（Proxy）代理行使投票权。

BitShares 2.0 另外一项重大的举措是“理事会”制度。比特股区块链作为一个金融服务型的区块链，需要适时调整系统的各项参数以适应市场和用户的需求（比如手续费的高低、锚定资产 bitCNY、bitUSD、bitBTC 等的抵押参数和强制清算等各项参数的调整、……等等），而通过“理事会”制度可以在不需硬分叉的情况下实现系统的灵活调整，以适应不断变化的市场需求。理事会的 11 位成员可以发起一个修改提案（如果你有修改参数的要求可以找理事会的理事，或者自己拉票排名进入前 11 位即自动进入理事会），提交给理事会的 11 位成员投票决策，通过后区块链系统即可提案提交的参数自动修改相应的参数代码并按规定执行。


BitShares 2.0 治理结构的另一项特性是“预算项目”（worker proposal ），比特股在 BitShares 1.0 的 25 亿总量的基础上，设置了一个 12 亿的储备资金池（这就是 37 亿总量的由来）用于比特股的长远发展。这个制度在运行的初期， worker proposal 申请经费获得批准相对控制得比较宽松，能够领取经费的 worker proposal 比现在要多，所以释放较快。后来社区对这种解冻（稀释）速度感到担心，于是在 @alt（BTS账号:baozi）等人的推动下，发起了反稀释的拉票运动，反对稀释的人纷纷响应，把 BTS投票权代理给 baozi，把系统内置的销毁提案（burn）和回收提案（refund）投到前面去，提高了 worker proposal 通过申请的门槛。


本帖撰写日期是北京时间 2016 年 7 月 19 日下午 15:00 左右，目前只有 3 个在领工资的 worker proposal ：

• Bitshares GUI Development and Maintenance：比特股GUI 开发与维护，领取工资的时间段为 20160612 至 20160912，申请每日领取 35,000BTS。
• Blockchain maintenance developer：区块链维护开发者，领取工资的时间段为 20160908 至 20160901，申请每日领取60,000BTS。
• refund400k：回收 40 万 BTS 到储备资金池，领取工资的时间段为 20151021 至 20351231，申请每日领取 400000 BTS。

目前储备预算资金池每小时释放 14716BTS，其中储备预算的分配细则见下图：

---

BTS 持有人请了解以下事实：



现在没有增发提案，37 亿最大总量在 BTS 2.0 里已经是既成事实，而且 37 亿中的其中 12 亿是作为比特股长远发展的储备资金形式存在的，储备资金（处于冻结状态）是要由理事会投票通过才能提取的，理事会则是由全体 BTS 持有人投票（或通过代理人投票）选出的——投票支持率前 11 位的理事自动进入理事会，投票支持率发生变化，理事会成员也会实时更新。


新人、老人都已经接受了总量 37 亿的事实，现在预算项目只是从 37 亿总量里的 12 亿初始储备资金池里申请解冻而已，所以任何 worker 预算项目提案都是申请解冻并提取储备资金的提案。解冻意味着对当前供应量（约 25.67 亿）的稀释，而不是在 37 亿总量的基础上增发。

---

全体 BTS 持有人可以通过投票（代理投票）表达自己的立场：

• 支持 refund 提案（refund400k、refund-100k-1、refund-100k-2、refund-100k-3、refund-100k-4） 就是反对从储备资金池解冻 BTS——反对对现有 BTS 持股人造成稀释。
• 支持 burn 提案（burn-100k-1、burn-100k-2、burn-100k-3、burn-100k-4）就是支持销毁从储备资金解冻的 BTS——只要这些提案获得注资（排名靠前）就是让储备资金池的这部分 BTS 永远消失。
• 其他 worker proposal（预算项目提案）都是要申请从储备资金池领工资，如果你支持这个 worker 就代表你同意他领他申请的工资，“赞同”即可，如果反对你可以保持“中立”即可。

如果你无条件反对稀释，请把 baozi （论坛ID：alt）设为你的投票代理人（Proxy），baozi 无条件反对稀释的拉票帖：https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21317.0.html


如果你反对无节制地支出储备预算资金，但也支持那些能为比特股的长远发展而申请经费的 worker proposal，你可以自行投票“赞成”上述第 1 条所列的所有 refund 提案和第 2 条所列的所有 burn 提案，以提高申请预算资金的门槛。如下图：

---

补充一点：
目前 37 亿的最大供应量已经被销毁（burn）了将近 1 亿，所以你能在 区块浏览器 里看到 BTS 的最大总量是约 36 亿的样子，而目前的供应量（非锁定的）为约 25.67 亿，要是算上历次快照和钱包使用不当造成私钥丢失的，实际流通的 BTS 量更少。

---

I have voted to support the first budget, and to assess whether the results will support the next budget.
To reiterate my position: the less budget, the easier it is to get my vote.

This is probably the best insight into where Steem may be going I've seen.
(I'm a Steem outsider, so I don't really know, but 178 Steemians upvoted this, so it must be on the mark.)

https://steemit.com/steemit/@andrarchy/steemit-vlog-why-steemit-is-the-tesla-motors-of-social-networks

Steem is pioneering a new way to bootstrap a digital currency platform.

But BitShares is already there, after one more pending Tesla style twist.
(Study the above video and then ponder what the BitShares equivalent might be.)

Their destinies lie along different paths using completely different bootstrap strategies.
And I think the world is plenty big enough for the both of us.

https://steemit.com/steem/@dan/steemit-s-evil-plan-for-cryptocurrency-world-domination

by @cylonmaker2053 in Steemit.com 1 day ago
Steemit should focus on continuously improving its social media function. Requirements creep often kills projects.

and my post:



That's right!
Focus on the special features of Steemit, develop quickly.


@dantheman @dan You can't forget this:
The development of BitShares should be a warning, I mean a lot of ideas at the beginning , such as bitSharesDNS, bitSharesX, bitSharesME, bitSharesLOTTO, bitSharesMUSIC, bitSharesVOTE and so on, later, the merger plan, almost all of them have been killed.


Now the consolidation project BitShares 2.0 is only to achieve the original version of the whitepaper.


说得对！
专注于 Steemit 的独特之处，快速发展。
BM （Steemit 上的马甲是：dantheman 和 dan）你不能忘了这一点：比特股的开发应该引以为戒，我的意思是当初的很多点子，比如 bitSharesDNS, bitSharesX, bitSharesME, bitSharesLOTTO, bitSharesMUSIC, bitSharesVOTE 等项目，后来的合并计划几乎把它们全干掉了。
现在合并后的主项目 BitShares 2.0 仅仅实现了原始版白皮书的功能。

 

Quote from: svk on June 27, 2016, 11:00:59 am

I appreciate the effort put into the OP, but I have to disagree with most of it. The one thing I do agree with is point 2: the liquidity proposals. I do think some kind of liqudity incentives need to be implemented, but we probably need some more discussion and some concrete proposals by developers able to implement them (@abit ?) before we decide what to do here.

Otherwise, I'm happy to finally see some stability in terms of features for Bitshares, and will not support any kind of 3.0 involving a change in the supply or IPO. We now have Ronny from Openledger stepping up to support development of the GUI, and many other projects taking advantage of the recent stability of BTS, let's not jeopardise that.

I also have no problems whatsoever with DPOS as the consensus model, it's been working very well and there's no point changing it if you ask me. While implementing a queued mining system like Steem has might be possible, I don't really think it's worth the effort. Mining will slowly disappear from crypto if you ask me so we would be adding support for a legacy, wasteful, soon-to-be obsolete system. Keep in mind I'm not saying it will disappear soon here, but over time I think it will become less and less important.

I can see merits from mining when it comes to building a "community" .. In Steem, the whole platform DEPENDS on a community, while in BitShares, the platform depends on business partners, traders and liquidity .. That's why I agree with svk that mining BTS (compromising max supply) makes no sense for BTS.

COMPROMISING MAX SUPPLY? Absolutely not!

Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 27, 2016, 01:37:37 am

OK, I am pretty much done with the OP pending any other thoughts jumping into my head (or feedback from replies).

Quote from: bitsharesbrazil on June 27, 2016, 01:20:13 am

Coinhoder,

I will give my input.

Bitshares model is pretty stable.......n is innovative by itself......what bitshares have we can call it 3.0, 4.0....whatever......
Too much people looking for problems because a lot ofcoins had huge pumps n Bitshares "only" made 50% in the last few days.....
I follow a lot of data about bitshares n other projects n can safely say bitshares can explode at any time, it will, it has everything needed to make crypto scene shake hard. be patient about ROI.

This reasoning was not developed based on the past 3 days of market indications, but instead from a year and a half of market indications, and two years worth of many discussions/debates with Bitshares' antagonists on Bitcointalk.

No offense, but the lazy mantra of "Bitshares will explode at any time" and "Liquidity will increase with adoption" has been used for two years with no to little effect. It is time to take matters into our own hands, and realize there are issues with Bitshares that we need to fix.

I would argue Bitshares as we know it today is only 8 months old.. when 2.0 came out it was a giant rest button really. Since then refooting to gain liquidity into the network has taken place. Due to some of the changes some has been lost.

I like some of your suggestions. I understand the idea of appealing to crypto folk and it makes sense in certain ways.

You are proposing we hit the rest button again.. but with no real serious innovation to justify it. At present Steem is going through an experiment that may lead to solving the liquidity problems we see in bitshares today. We are not very far from seeing what the results of that experiment yield, and I would rather see that before making any kind of clear cut plans.

I agree that liquidity is needed, and various projects are actively creating ways to produce that. BlockPOS through merchant adoption for example. Peerplays through online tournament wagering. Openledger with ICOO and all the other projects that make up the pyramid of the decentralized conglomerate.. and so on. There are other projects in the making as well that are not publicly discussed that plan to introduce solutions to liquidity as well, like Freedom Ledger. There is the bitCASH wallet, there is Echo... list goes on.

I don't think bastardizing dpos really provides any value aside from making those that invested thousands in mining equipment happy they got another coin to attempt to get their investments back. Believe me, I know the feeling.

While going the ICO route sounds like the latest gravy train to get on, I think it would be particularly challenging for Bitshares. Frankly, anybody can do this.. doesn't need the community to do it.. and the market will decide afterwards.. as bytemaster himself said a few months ago.

I think as long as everyone executes and completes the projects they are working on to take to market, you are going to see our liquidity issues reach a tipping point and no longer be an issue. Look at our transaction volume... its slowly but surely increasing. That is the right direction we want to see.. its just a matter of like @bitsharesbrazil already said.. we just got to be a little patient and just keep doing MORE of what we are doing to reach that tipping point.

Also.. from a value proposition perspective as a reboot ICO offering... the optics of doing an ICO for Bitshares right now would go TERRIBLY bad... as a matter of fact.. I am certain it would be the death blow for Bitshares market cap. It has to do with how messaging is currently handled that would inevitable lead the ICO into a very bad place. Again I say though, anybody could do it if the choose too.

I like to hear more ideas on creating liquidity though.. its a good discussion to have.

BitShares3.0 is bad, BitShares 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, ... is bad too. The price of BTS has already explained everything -- changing MAX SUPPLY of BTS is a very bad idea.
It's terrible to lose trust, especially in the area of the BlockChain, random changes to the maximum supply will allow people to avoid and far away.

We just need to go along with the current direction of BitShares 2.0, we only need to make the use of BitShares 2.0 to build a model of the business model, people will see it.