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 - Permie

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 41
121
It's good to see people interested in running a witness.

Welcome, Kasreder :)
I will let someone more knowledgeable answer your question :)

122
i agree that future worker proposals by me or actually by anyone should be in usd. i never had the intention to speculate here, the fact is i found at with all this by pure luck. i have no problem on closing current proposal now and go with a new one if needed. in the other hand the extra compensation will be used to bring more value to the community by working more, much more happy. it is hard to quantify  this additional value in money but you can be sure i will be always grateful with this community and be forever loyal.

this is a new milestone in my life and my professional career that will definitely want to develop here, not only for the payment of the current worker, i made a commitment with myself pretty much since i started, i want to be here.

will i make the same work for less money ? a reasonable hourly rate ? probably. but living with a rope in the neck every month is hard and stressfull, the worker money at current bts prices will remove big pressure i have over my shoulders while at the same time finish my new office and buy new equipment. this will bring value, i am not going to be needing to make extra businesses for extra money, fully dedicated to bitshares with everything i have.

will i enjoy my new computer equipment to lets say watch a movie ? of course i will, but the important is that i will use it for work in bitshares, will improve productivity.

i don't want to spend more of your time on why i will like to leave the worker proposal as it is, it is obvious that i need/want the money but the decision is yours and whatever you decide i will agree with it.
I think Alfredo's perspective is worthy of consideration.
Thank you for articulating it Alfredo

Is now a good time for BitShares to be nailing down the bottom line?
Or should bts be bootstrapping the community with loyal talent while BTS is still in the startup phase?
I would like to see early wealth created by BitShares to go to passionate members of the community.
But I would not like to economically hinder the project for some feel good fuzzies.
Conundrum.

How Alfredo's compensation continues from here is very much up for debate but I would not like to see any ill feeling towards a dedicated contributor to the project.
1.1Million BTS sounds like a whole lot, but at the same time sweat-equity from talented, skilled people is also essential for the project to succeed.

I can't code, I could learn, but I would not learn for a low payrate.
Perhaps Alfredo is one of the very few people who is an enthusiast, who can ALSO do technical work to make the theoretical possibilities of BitShares a reality.
But if BTS wants to attract talent, otherwise uninterested workers would be drawn to find out more about the project. Would they bring their family and friends with them?
What is the value of BitShares having a reputation for generosity?
Vs Having a reputation for being hard-nosed (justified or not).
Public perception is important.

Had this rally waited an extra month to get going, Alfredo would have been paid $4800 worth of bts (or would it be $9600 worth of bts?).
Should the timing of the rally make such a difference?
If you (impersonal) think the contract should originally have been paid in bitUSD, then at the time did you lobby for the contract to be changed or not approved?
If so, the shareholders voted against your advice.

If there is fault with the contract it is between BitShares 2.0 shareholders and BitShares Munich, and not Alfredo.

One way to view the Reserve pool is to view it through a monetary-inflation lens. That the shareholders are willing to expend 0.xxxx% of BitShares' wealth on ensuring that the ecosystem is maintained and grows to meet the needs of the BitShares customers.

Worker proposals paid in bts vs worker proposals paid in bitUSD.
One side wants price stability... the other wants to monetize their labour to invest/speculate on the price of bts.
I see no way it could be done, but this scenario does sound a lot like the market for shorts vs longs CfD for the creation of bitUSD. How perfect would it be if the market created a CfD that fascilitated worker payment in bitUSD.
I.e without the need for a multisig account

123
I think they made the dill with Alfredo in USD and accepted the risk of BTS fluctuations. Otherwise worker would be payed to Alfredo's account. They probably made new arrangement with Alfredo since BTS has appreciated. Alfredo probably accepted that generous offer. Who wouldn't?
 
As far as Bitshares concern the dill is clear. Same is related for all payments from Bitshares blockchain. Regarding management of Bitshares company, it is bad dill. That is why we spend so many discussions regarding witness and workers pay denominated in bitUSD.
Next time pay closer attention to those discussions and act accordingly.

From another thread:
@xeroc is paid with bitUSD.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23770.0.html
http://cryptofresh.com/u/multisig-worker-2017-01

BTW Just noticed that escrow account has set its own proxy which perhaps shouldn't be: that BTS doesn't belong to them.
Quote
    Every thing that is not paid out after the end of the worker will be settled and returned to the reserve fund

BTS 2.0 shareholders need to be sure that the worker-proposal-contract is rock-solid leak proof before signing/voting for it.
There is a need for some 'BitShares lawyers' (the proxies?) to make sure the terms of the worker proposal are clear to the shareholders.
The issue is that BitShares Munich made a gentleman's agreement with the BTS 2.0 shareholders.
The shareholders have no means of enforcing that section of the contract. The terms written by Chris in the proposal are indeed ambiguous, and perhaps should never have passed the vote.
If BTS had a team of lawyers advising the shareholders, I don't think they would have reccomeneded signing it in it's presented form.
BTS shareholders are likely to be majority-bullish on the price of bts.
Surely this exact scenario should have been forseen?

At the time of the original worker proposal, Chris should have been lobbied to state the intention/soft-obligation of BitShares Munich on how to compensate Alfredo in co-operation with BTS reserve fund.
Were BitShares Munich committing to paying $4800 per month? Or were they committing to match the financial contribution made by BitShares 2.0 shareholders?
These terms were not present or explained thoroughly in the contract.
Legal contracts and paperwork are tediously comprehensive, long and boring to read for a reason.

If BitShares Munich had not been involved, and the contract was between Alfredo himself and BitShares 2.0 shareholders, then the terms would be simple.
"Complete work to the subjective satisfaction of the BitShares shareholders and you will receive x bts per month."
Then after a huge price rise, shareholders may find it prudent to renegotiate the employment contracts it holds with employees.

Should this worker proposal, employing Alfredo, be voted out?
The Shareholders could then wait patiently for a new proposal with payment in bitUSD to be submitted by Alfredo.
Depending on his demands for compensation I am sure the shareholders will be pleased to re-hire a talented BitShares literate core dev.

124
General Discussion / Re: Dan's Next Project - EOS Rears its Head
« on: May 13, 2017, 04:33:19 pm »
Quote
It may be that the future of BTS 3.0 is on a parallel EOS chain just like Peerplays is on a parallel Graphene chain.
Peerplays performs functions that the bts token can not.
I hope that EOS tokens cannot possibly be used as collateral in a CFD.
This is a key selling point of BitShares, if EOS tokens can back trades/contracts of this kind then I think Dan will have a lot of explaining to do.



The security of BTS 2.0 is sole responsibility of the BTS 2.0 shareholders.
If an EOS token is required to secure the BTS 3.0 chain, then some control would be lost. Maybe so negligible that it most would say it "doesn't matter." But.

The 'slippery slope' phenomenon regarding citizens across the world losing their legal freedoms and legal privacy has been gradually chip chip chipped away.
Ever so slowly over decades so as for it to go unnoticed or ignored.

I don't want to see the 'merger' with EOS to be the first chip, the first slip, down a slippery slope.
My concerns might all be invalidated when the full story is released, but I want to say something now in the hopes that other shareholders will hold similar scepticism when they read/discuss the full details later.

BitShares Maximalism.

What a story it would be if Dan's EOS ended up directly competing against BitShares 2.0, battling it out. Creator VS Created.
I'm sure that will merely be a story for a fanfic novel written in the future ;)

Is it public knowledge whether Dan is still a large BTS 2.0 shareholder or not?


====
Stan may be right, in that the best path will be to get BitShares 2.0 onto EOS via a direct 1:1 sharedrop from BitShares 2.0 shares >>> into EOS-BTS-shares.
To prevent somebody else doing it first.

But this doesn't necessarily mean that BTS 2.0 would die.
BTS 2.0 shareholders could/should buy the 'real estate' on EOS so that nobody else could set up shop there.
Then business as usual could continue on both platforms (although likely detached and unlinked except by community).

Setting up BTS 2.0 to run on EOS, and then sharedrop 1:1 to BTS 2.0 shareholders, is likely to require coding effort. The coder would then (correct me?) have to be trusted to perform the sharedrop properly.
Who can the BTS 2.0 reserve pool hire to perform this job?
Is loyalty to BTS 2.0 required?

How could this process remain trustless?

I am unfamiliar with the process of a new coin sharedropping on an existing chain. Is the sharedrop in the genesis block or something?

Regardless of whether these questions are invalid or have been answered before on these forums; I think it prudent to have answers to them here specifically in this thread.

EOS will become a busy subject of discussion on this forum once more information comes out, and the sooner noob-questions can be answered the sooner everyone is on a good level of understanding and can direct the discussion most efficiently to achieve consensus fastest.



What could an "unmerged" BTS 2.0 offer a customer of EOS?
That will be the question, and the answer may depend on the success of EOS.

Dan doesn't work for the BTS 2.0 shareholders anymore. His announcements and big-reveal may not necessarily address this community.
If EOS is a big new product, he and his partners will be looking to sell it to the wider cryptoworld and the mainstream investor.
Although I suppose BTS 2.0 is a $100MM company to target for investment now...

125
General Discussion / Re: Dan's Next Project - EOS Rears its Head
« on: May 13, 2017, 03:20:45 pm »
It's like moving our store from inside our own house to the shopping mall of someone else to operate under their new rules and not ours.
Today BitShares shareholders do have 100% control over the application, the blockchain itself and its settings. That's power we would probably lose running on EOS.
It's like moving a centralized exchange to BitShares ^^
Not saying it does not come with benefits but also not without risks.
I've known this to be true for years but right now is the first time I truly appreciate 100% shareholder control.
Is BTS 2.0 the first company in history to be able to say that with 100% confidence?

Shareholders of traditional companies enforce their control with laws, correct?
But what if the state/lawmakers turn against the shareholders in favour of a bad-actor?
Is there historical precedent of this kind of thing happening during wartime or some such?
The state 'confiscating' shareholder control of corporations, therefore stealing the wealth and 'sovereign' power of the shareholders?

BitShares 2.0's 100% guaranteed shareholder control is a landmark event in history.



I like BitShares for the decentralized control of the network; a network that produces a highly desirable product, at the rock bottom possible price to the consumer. BitShares can morph to fill the shape in the market as it evolves. To remain the absolute most competitive platform for financial products, bar none. It can also morph to most incentivize cooperation instead of competition.

To reward those who join BitShares and start running services upon it so enormously that it makes it impossible for anyone with 'fiduciary duty' to declare that there is more money in trying to compete with BitShares.
This means razor thin profit margins for the BitShares Corporation, in which shareholders have stake.
BitShares' profit model is to enable and capture the online trades performed by every single person in the world.
High volume, low price, gigantic target audience.

=========

Currently the BTS 2.0 shareholders have 100% control of this system.

I do not think it should be given up lightly.

126
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« on: May 13, 2017, 01:03:03 pm »
and to add a lessons learned:

Worker payment should be in bitUSD, and I won't vote for any future worker that does not denominate in bitUSD.
Is there a mechanism in place for this?

My understanding is that worker proposals denote payment in bts.
Would 'payment in bitUSD' require constantly updating the worker to change the bts payrate (to reflect a new bts:USD price) ?

127
hello guys, Alfredo here :)
Great to hear from you Alfredo.
I am glad that reserve pool funds are being used to employ a core developer and reinvest reserve funds in the BitShares platform.
Great to hear you are pleased with your current level of compensation too

Keep up the good work :)

EDIT: I didn't read the previous-page discussion with fav. Now I have.
Unsure how I feel about the current level of core developer pay.
I hope Bitshares can retain as many core devs as is needed for a reasonable price.

128
General Discussion / Re: Hollywood HEROs
« on: May 13, 2017, 12:41:26 pm »
+5% +5% +5%

Will watch the video later.
It's so great to see well-informed lengthy content come out about bitshares and blockchains.

For ages and ages this forum seemed to be the only place to get indepth news.How many people can be bothered to crawl and internet forum to find the info?
Much less than the multitudes who can be bothered to watch youtube videos.
Excellent!

The guys doing the Hollywood Event are doing an impromptu sneak-preview Webinar today on Gameification, if you are interested:
https://thinkbig.lpages.co/gamification-training-w-mark-hoverson/
I am, thank you

129
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Witness Report for Verbaltech2
« on: May 13, 2017, 12:30:09 pm »
Thanks for the update :)
 +5%

130
General Discussion / Re: Dan's Next Project - EOS Rears its Head
« on: May 13, 2017, 11:14:03 am »
From steemit:

dantheman73  ·  13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.

 i wonder what's left for the most fair distribution method then

So long as 'the most fair distribution method' includes BTS 2 shareholders, or that EOS is not a competitor to BTS 2, leaving BitShares 2.0 to carry on running as normal.

Is EOS the next steem? If so, great

Is EOS a replacement for BTS 2? ??!?!!?



I think this is the 3rd scenario where Dan and Stan's titilating and teasing has degraded shareholder confidence.
Which makes bts a less-appealing value proposition to the as-yet-uninvested

I assure you there are sound business reasons for releasing information as fast as we can and no faster.

I point out that any time we get ahead of ourselves and say something that later changes we hear about that even more.

Then there are the wishes of other partners to consider.

Nothing is done in a vacuum.
Regarding the method of releasing information, fair enough. I understand that

BUT the prospect of a complete overhaul of BTS 2.0, into a new system, with a NEW 'fair distribution model' is quite alarming.
I suppose you could argue that BTS 2 shareholders have got what they paid for from Dan already, and that he owes them nothing. True.

But if EOS is a system that completely undermines the wealth of BTS 2 shareholders, then what's to say that Dan won't find cryptonitesupercode language better suited to blockchains in 2 years time? And replaces EOS again?

If Apple took investment from the public to build a iphone 8, built the iphone 8, and then immediately released a newer-shiner iphone 9 that Apple had worked on behind the scenes with their own capital (i.e released a product that is not beholded to the shareholders of iphone 8).

And then decided to sell the iphone 9 in a 'fair way'. The iphone 8 investors would all be bag holders.

I understand that this analogy has several holes in it but I cant think of a better way to get my concerns across.

I know you can't release certain information; but is 'Don't worry BTS 2 shareholders, we aren't going to fuck you over' that much to ask for?

131
General Discussion / Re: Hollywood HEROs
« on: May 13, 2017, 11:04:15 am »
 +5% +5% +5%

Will watch the video later.
It's so great to see well-informed lengthy content come out about bitshares and blockchains.

For ages and ages this forum seemed to be the only place to get indepth news.How many people can be bothered to crawl and internet forum to find the info?
Much less than the multitudes who can be bothered to watch youtube videos.
Excellent!

132
General Discussion / Re: BlockPay in Serious Trouble
« on: May 13, 2017, 11:00:21 am »
Once Ken and I solved our internal issues I kindly request to stop further speculation. I am for full transparency at the right time and I am planning to release a full report ala Erik from Shapeshift about our case. I loved to read Erik´s story and to get a better overview what happened.

I will have more updates for all of you within the next days. Thank you for your support.
Are you saying you have resolved the issue between yourselves already?
As in present tense?

If so, great :)

I have no personal complaints about Chris, just that the consensus seemed to be steering against Ken and I wanted to voice my support.

133
General Discussion / Re: Dan's Next Project - EOS Rears its Head
« on: May 11, 2017, 06:25:13 pm »
From steemit:

dantheman73  ·  13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.

 i wonder what's left for the most fair distribution method then

So long as 'the most fair distribution method' includes BTS 2 shareholders, or that EOS is not a competitor to BTS 2, leaving BitShares 2.0 to carry on running as normal.

Is EOS the next steem? If so, great

Is EOS a replacement for BTS 2? ??!?!!?



I think this is the 3rd scenario where Dan and Stan's titilating and teasing has degraded shareholder confidence.
Which makes bts a less-appealing value proposition to the as-yet-uninvested

135
General Discussion / Re: The Hero from BitShares Island
« on: May 11, 2017, 04:10:34 pm »
Stan invoking Jesus Christ to incite FOMO...

Pretty extreme even by Stan's standards

Actually, no.  That was my mini sermon for the day. 
50% of my posts on Steemit over the past year are on that far more important topic, not BitShares.  :)
Very interesting posts they are too.
 +5%

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 41