Quote from: bitstopia2049 on September 16, 2019, 07:51:59 pm

Quote from: Digital Lucifer on August 05, 2019, 10:57:13 pm

Set to sticky, hopefully more people will see even if no activity.

Chee®s

Why moved from Sticky?

Actually people ignore sticky posts.

So we should change basic forum functionalities that serve purpose for nearly 2 decades millions just because of dozens of ignorant users ?

e.g. If there is no activity on the post, it will drop to bottom of the 1st pagination page or even move to 2nd. If its set to sticky, it remains on top forever.

Quote from: ioBanker on September 08, 2019, 12:59:50 pm

Quote from: sschiessl on September 07, 2019, 07:37:22 am

Chinese version now completed
https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2019-09-global-marketing-board-cn

I believe "Global Marketing Board" as term should be replaced with "Global Management Board".

Global Management Board will submit workers for (Infrastructure, marketing etc...) that would be specific and in details when it comes to for example "Annual Marketing Plan" which will have a marketing plan and it's down budget.

"Global Management Board" budget must be segregated from "Annual Marketing Plan" budget.

"Global Management Board" must be OpEx.
"Annual Marketing Plan" must be CapEx and budget should consider the BTS value.

As for the budget, BTS holders have full control how much they want to create. Otherwise the ideas align.

Please move your envisioned management board advances to a new thread if you want to pursue it, I would consider this here as part of it for marketing focus.

Agree that we should keep departments separate, since some of the holders can't even follow reality on very simple individual ones.

+

@wonder88

Don't know where you came from suddenly, but certainly you haven't been much around 2017 and 2018. Coming to piss your opinion in 2019, without catching up on previous 2 is very unethical and unprofessional - to me seems like a pure fud. Now, some facts:

1) BitShares as brand, blockchain and technology offer didnt had any consistency in Branding since inception. For instance, bitshares.org website solely had more makeovers than Madonna, each time focusing on different keywords, shilling offers and doing it in very amateurish way. Clearing it up from over 30k+ unwanted backlinks + very bad/wrong seo done on it now takes more time than would new brand need - drastically.

2) BitShares in 2017 was given to anyone to hype it as its own, hence there was no management in marketing. Various socials (some with very wrong publications), handles, promotions has been done - where some were very illegal and bad for the sake of BitShares. Not a single BTS core token holder, from this bunch that cn-vote's action bring now, did A SINGLE ACTION towards prevention of such things. Unfortunately i know people who were doing it for free (saving BitShares), for many days, nights and hours while holders were sleeping tight and gambling with margins. It ended as permanent bad online trace to BitShares - again thanks to not having marketing management.

3) January 2019 was the first marketing worker as first public idea to run one. It was not a promise, but a budget worker (seems that you can't even understand what means budget), with giving anyone from Community opportunity to chase stated goals/points - it was never a promise that BBF will do.

4) From 3) above, Gokhshtein was delivered, promoted and re-promoted through even news.bitshares.org. Article on publications done with marketing can be found here (part of collaboration and supporting marketing efforts from bitshares.org worker.

5) From both 3) and 4) above, as you can see those payouts were worth of what they were claimed for, and loss of activity on that worker is mostly due to lack of interest from the Community and Holders itself, also another proof no people from these unvoted workers were "sucking" and "dumping" and "stealing" BTS from the blockchain but respectfully managed it to not be spent unless real efforts are done on it.

6) New marketing worker is purely focusing THAT SAME CONTENT/EFFORTS are being PRESENTED/DONE in the same manner across all continents, and in all languages. We need to grow in corporate sense, and i don't see DELL having different offers and different descriptions between USA and Asia, but satisfying both markets in exact same way, just different language.


Now, i do apologize for that "pissing" part above, but i can't find another word that describes the best - how little research or actual reading and thinking you have done, before you came with hot-barrel questions shooting and shouting around without any fact to be claimed.

I do hope this sincere message of mine can wake you up to realize mistake you've made, forgive me for my harsh words and carry on with better prospects for BitShares - aren't we all in here for those at the end of the day ?


Chee®s

Quote from: binggo on September 06, 2019, 08:27:16 am

vote is shi*t, holder is shi*t?

My comment wasn't judgemental on voters. I merely pointed out an inaccuracy in the report.

That said, I welcome the effort to publish a newsletter. I've been missing stuff like the "State of the Network" reports people used to make.
It's impossible to participate in every single discussion or even to stay up to date with all developments here. A comprehensive report helps immensely with staying up to date at least on a high level.

https://news.bitshares.org

Great to finally have variety of languages and countries to push the same/united efforts to properly advertise BitShares in any way.

Many thanks for adding me as appointee, will provide PR on GitHub for adding proper person from Institute for Marketing efforts.

Hope to see it on chain as well, not just as a draft!

Chee®s

Please dive in your ignorant face to screen, put your ego and pride on a side and reply to/read carefully following:

a) Please define "big workers"
b) 260k BTS per day to the markets ? And you are ignoring the fact that single account is taking out/dropping 2M BTS per day that is not even part of the workers ? If you mean 260k daily of vesting balance, that doesn't go to the markets, and your statement would be wrong/miss-leading.
c) I care about world economy, not just single country or my own - that's the difference between us. In this case, BitShares is not owned by China, maybe majority of BTS token is, but that doesn't still make you an owner of it.
d) Worker can have VOTES REMOVED, but not rigging the consensus with refund400k worker. That's cheating, not voting "down".
e) You personally lost over 300M BTS in various margin calls, yet you are talking economy and giving us lectures.
f) You personally rigged consensus by giving ultimatum to witnesses to do as you say FOR FAR TO LONG - or they will be no witness, without approval/agrement of other holders.
g) You personally went against BSIP42 instructions to not apply it on iliquid markets (e.g. BitUSD) which resulted in GS with 20% loss to worker payouts for months. Some were paying costs (missing difference) for the infrastructure/salaries from their own pocket, just for the sake of the network. (you done it as well by giving ultimatum to witnesses)

You abused power every time you had it, and you are doing it again. You are building the reputation of an enemy who is doing hostile take-over and I don't see anything improved with the price in past few weeks, apart that more serious HOLDERS are dumping BTS. If that's your wish, as I said, I'm ok with it - but don't expect ill do nothing about it or be quiet like others.

Chee®s

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

Quote from: Digital Lucifer on August 31, 2019, 07:34:43 pm

Quote from: bitcrab on August 31, 2019, 03:04:58 pm

I suggest everyone to watch the movie 《American Factory》.

Why the American workers rejected UAW to come into FYA? don't they understand that UAW can help them to fight against the FYA managers?

Surely they understand clearly, but the other consideration has higher priority -  they need to keep their jobs first.

Same logic, don't the BTS holders from China understand what sense can workers like wirex make?

They understand clearly, but at this moment, another consideration take higher priority - they need to stop a patient from continuously losing blood.

in my view, when BTS price is under 0.3CNY or there are margin call orders in CNY/USD markets, any big workers should be stopped immediately.

Please define "big workers" and define who takes responsibility for missing payments on agreements in that case towards 3rd parties (e.g. event organizers, hosting companies, service providers) ?

Many thanks.

Agreements with third parties should never carry liabilities in case worker gets voted, or at least only ones that are manageable.. Of course, any prepayments would need to be considered lost., which woukd both be true for decentralized and wirex.

The damage in reputation is not even measurable, yet significant imo.

Confirmed. NABTS is being cancelled despite team effort to collect private funds through co-sponsorship for making it happen, and cancellation 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)

Escrow payment is 3530 CNY in total.

Reputation/branding -> permanent damage.

I hope to see not the same fate for Decentralized, SteemFest and Wirex, since damage would be on much greater scale.

Quote from: block_chain on August 28, 2019, 09:12:38 am

Hello, I would like to thank @ioBanker very much for raising this matter and everybody who contributes to the discussion!

Athough I share most of the ideas highlighted by @ioBanker above, I am more crytical towards current situation of the community and do believe Bitshares are in deep crysis that may easily finish with the ecosystem's marginalization and stagnation, moving price of the core currency down.
IMHO the root cause of the problem is lack of leadership and vision. The founder has left the project in the early stage and there is noone who effectively replace him. Decentralized governance so far is not being effective enough to cope with the current challenges and drive the DAC towards success and mass adoption. The original idea and vision has never neen revised and most likely are not shared by most of the stakeholders at the moment. The fact that several people are expressing similar opinions at the same time, and major stakeholders undertake immediate and rough actions to change the trend, shows that it is time for major actions to address system issue that we have. I strongly believe this is not a subject for just, minor correction.

I would like to put here a copy of my post in the other thread, I do believe it is totally relevant for this discussion. Sorry for the long read.


Let me express my humble opinion on the current Bitshares status and possible future development, based on my deep understanding of Bitshares as well as common business rules, marketing and analisys of other blockchain ecosystem. I may be missing some parts of the full picture because I'm not involved in some of the core activities and not being part of the governance team, however I believe I express more or less independent opinion and can think out of the box.

In few words, there is no difference between DAC and a typical company (there are some slight ones, but generally those are not game changers), and therefore a DAC MUST follow same rules to win the business and increale its value, namely:
1. Have a clear governance and ownership structure, with effective internal communication and decision making means.
2. Have a clear mission and values adopted by the management. Those to be put as corner stones under the marketing and business strategy.
3. Have a clear marketing and business strategy - what is the business, its short and long term goals, who are the target customers, what is the value proposition, how do we position our company on the market and compete with other companies - etc, etc.
4. Have a clear legal structure and follow the regulation of the operating markets.
5. Have a clear and effective financial managment, to control revenues, costs and investments.
6. Have all resources (financial, human, material) that are required to implement the business plan.
7. Have a clear and effective organizational structure so that company management and emplyees could collaborate effectively and know who is responsible for what.
8. Have a clear communication strategy to integrate the efforts and report on results.

This is the basis and 99% of you know this is a paramount for any successfull business.

SO WHY BITSHARES IS GOING THE OTHER WAY?!
WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK THIS DAC WOULD BE A SUCCESS IF IT DOES NOT FOLLOW BASIC BUSINESS RULES?!

Let's look at the points above in more details.

1. Governance and ownership structure: although this is the backbone of DPOS consensus, it definitely could be better. Generally, we have 4 levels of governance:
- investors (aka BTS holders). Many of those have no idea how Bitshares is governed, to whom they proxy their voting power and don't participate the DAC governance in any way.
- proxys, actually key decision makers in the ecosystem. Most likely do not share any common vision, often acting only in own interest and are not actively supported by investors (e.g. historically have many stakes from referrals or hold a CEX account).
- committee. Although being publicly elected and are in control of key network settings, they have low power when it comes to business decisions, again not sharing same vision and in many cases care more about their own business (although inmany cases aligned with the DAC).
- witnesses, mostly providing technical resources for the network to operate, but sometimes can implement some power, i.e. when it comes to price feeds. Probably the best part of the governance model, working as  it should be.
2. Mission and values adopted by the management. As mentioned before, there are different opinions on that matter, and this is OK. However, the government MUST work out some statements supported by the majority and use those to define the strategy. Othervise the backbone is missing and the body is vulnerable and weak.
3. Marketing and business strategy - again, no consensus on that matter. Many people express their opinions because they have their vision and care but nothing formulated and agreed upon by the majority. Having weak plan is better than having no plan, but we don't have even a weak one. Key questions - what is the value Bithsares brings, is it for individuals or businesses, how do we reach them, what is the message we send.
4. Legal structure - although BBF is a good step, it is definitely not enough. Legal status and regulations applied are not defined. This prevents business from adoption and buy-in and makes Bitshares a very risky investment.
5. Financial managment - there is some form of it, but having every single penny recorded in the ledger, must be more formal and detaled, also support the business strategy. Noone is in charge of the DAC profitability at the moment, many take it as endless gold cart.
6. Financial, human and material resources - most likely present, but most likely not effectively managed and spend with huge overheads. Also with no business plan you never know how the resources must be spent and managed.
7. Organizational structure - there is some form of it and sometimes works well, but definitely could be better.
8. Communication strategy - presents in form of this forum and several TG chats, but maybe cumbersome and ineffective in many cases. Internal and external PR looks weak and ineffective w/o the strategy and proper governance.

With the above being said (although again, I may miss many points or misintepret those), here are some actions I would recommend to re-start the the business at the new level:
1. Put major proxies and investors into public negotiation to define DAC's basis - mission, values and business strategy.
2. Use all means to involve end users and BTS holders so that their support is based on their decision, and is not by default or as void.
3. Make key proxys to publicly announce their position towards DAC's mission and strategy, along with their personal and business information. This is not mandatory for sure, but those who are open and transparent may gain more support.
4. Spend particular resources (via a worker) to develop a straightforward business and marketing plan. Make sure it is based on proper market and competitors evaluation. Ensure support by the majority.
5. Allocate resources to implement the plan, control and elaborate it, report on the progress. Apart from promotion approach and business model this also shall also include efforts for users/clients onboarding and support. 
6. Ensure proper financial control by designated authorized parties, along with timely and clear reporting to the government and the community.
7. Ensure effective resource spending, avoid spare funding overheads. Think ROI.

This is to start from. I trully understand that this approach may be not supported or adopted by the majority of the players (gateways and other businesses on top of Bitshares), many of those are looking for short term benefit and does not care about the ecosystem development. It is most likely not something what most of dev team would appreciate, because this would mean costs cutting for sure. However, all of them could definitely benefit from strong and powerfull Bitshares in the future.

I call to the investors, it is time for you to shout!

Thanks for reading to this point

• This plan is not workable. It works only in centralized companies。Ronald H. Coase said, why do authoritarian companies exist in the market？ Because it is efficient.
• The Dpos mechanism is like the democracy of ancient Greece. It's childish.Dpos did not achieve its goals

I'll have to agree with 1) and 2) but with notice that 2) was because of the people not DPOS structure itself.