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 - Geneko

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13
16
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] New BitShares Core Dev
« on: May 13, 2017, 11:57:40 am »
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.

17
General Discussion / Re: BlockPay in Serious Trouble
« on: May 10, 2017, 10:28:39 am »
I have also listened to mumble.
What bothers me is that neither side provided story in full detail. So we could only speculate.
From what I understood , Chris and Xeroc discovered something troublesome, not willing to reveal at the moment. They are trying to fix that, Ken is opposing. Ken is also secretive, not exposing details. He complains about blocking his salary. They are negotiating. 

I would also be on Ken's side if Xeroc wasn't involved. Since he is I believe there is something more on that. Our forum member Chronos
ones reminded me about Ken's past. I doesn't have to mean anything, only that we should be cautious when rationalizing current situation.

Let's be patient. They cant hold the truth indefinitely.

18
General Discussion / Re: LTM made up almost 1/3 of DAC revenue
« on: April 24, 2017, 09:00:48 pm »
Quote from: mf-tzo on April 24, 2017, 07:57:07 pm
why everytime bts is doing fine then people start proposing to change something? bts is constantly increasing in value..apparently the market says clearly not to change anything..let it be..that is my opinion anyway..

I share your concern too. But this is short term thinking. Should we ignore the facts in exchange for short term gain? Eventually current issues could strike us in the future. I think we should discus all issues openly, eventually we could agree to change something that will bring benefit for all.

19
General Discussion / Re: LTM made up almost 1/3 of DAC revenue
« on: April 24, 2017, 08:41:40 pm »
Quote from: fav on April 24, 2017, 08:04:59 pm
Quote from: Geneko on April 24, 2017, 03:53:19 pm
Quote from: yvv on April 24, 2017, 03:43:22 pm
Quote from: Geneko on April 24, 2017, 03:28:04 pm
Quote from: fav on April 24, 2017, 03:04:01 pm
2449553.496 BTS to the reserve pool.

How did you come up with this figure:
26% from 47,106,798 is 12,247,767.48

OMG does this mean network gets only 20% of LTM fee payed to this very network? This is insane!! WTF is going on?!
So you pay 17,611 BTS and get back 14088 BTS means actual LTM fee is only 3522 BTS. Right?

Actually, you pay 17,611 and your referrer gets 14088, so yes, network actually gets only 3522. And yes, this is insane.


I cant fckn belive. This looks like multilevel marketing ponzi. The first ones gets mayority of the fees that followers generate. And I was wondering why they call Bitshares Ponzi. Gentlemen from commity its your call!!

mutli level means multi level. there's only one in bitshares. also, if you upgrade to LTM, you do NOT get that money back. use your brain cells please

Thanks, i think @yvv already improved work of my brain cells. ;)

20
General Discussion / Re: LTM made up almost 1/3 of DAC revenue
« on: April 24, 2017, 07:30:08 pm »
Quote from: Thom on April 24, 2017, 05:24:11 pm

There seems to be no shortage of ideas on how to distribute funds. Getting consensus on which to implement AND finding devs interested and competent enough to create a proposal and do the work are as scarce as grandma day traders in the crypto space. This is just talk, churning the waters, getting nowhere.

What will bring consensus and workers? When I see answers to that I'll begin to think progress is being made. Until then, not so much.

It doesnt need to be done. What is needed is already coded in Bitshares platform.

Use your Vote!!

First to say I am all against the unilateral action. Community should reach consensus. But we are not helpless neither.
If needed, we should declare our declaration of independence.

I may upgrade to LTM but doesn't find my self appropriate from various reasons, basically trust related for wider community.
Any way, one of hero members including @Thom might take the roll. Candidate for change, collect votes as a Proxy, and vote out every commity member that doesn't support change. Lets show the real power of Bitshares! Eventually we could reach consensus.

Everything that needs to be done is:
- change the fee structure ( in order to become sustainable)
- include Peerplays dividend model (since code is free, average worker for implementation would be needed)

How to change fee structure?

- LTM fees goes to the network, period.
- Referrer and the network split all fees 50:50, period. (all fees, core token, MPAs, UIAs)

Lets vote in commity that could implement this.
Its that simple.

21
General Discussion / Re: LTM made up almost 1/3 of DAC revenue
« on: April 24, 2017, 06:01:59 pm »
Quote from: Thom on April 24, 2017, 04:07:40 pm

Not a ponzi, which cascade with no limit. The BitShares referrals are limited to receive proceeds from only 1 level.

Ahh no, this cascade is fixed to only one level.
Every referrer gets 80% of all fees including LTM fee from referee. Now when referee becomes referrer he gets a cut form new referee
and the fees he pays goes to his referrer, and same goes for his referrer, ans same for his referrer, and same .....
I agree, this doesn't look like classic Ponzi. It has some innovative approach.

Quote from: Thom on April 24, 2017, 04:07:40 pm
If BitShares 2.0 were received the same way Steem and almost every shitcoin project is upon launch, and the pumpers did their pumping thing on Oct. 15, 2015, people wouldn't be thinking about the 20% cut the network gets as insufficient, they would be trying to enlist their friends and getting that 80% referral reward and complaining 20% is way too much.

Alas, nothing new under the sun, people jump to conclusions and forget history all the time. 

Please be more specific. I don't understand the point of this.

Again this is not trivial question. We are talking here about long term stability, and more important basic value proposition of Bitshares as a platform.
People are planing marketing campaign and doesn't realize that they didn't answer basic question:

What is Bitshares?
Our web cite headline says:
BitShares - Your share in the Decentralized Exchange

I would say: Could you be more specific? Please define the word SHARE.
Does my share related to my share of ownership and share of dividend?
or
My share is related to the ones I bring to the platform as referrer.
or ..
My share is related to income from the network if I am talented and manage to find the way

I advise marketing guys first find the answer to above questions. And yes when you find out please educate us. We don't know either.
 
Try to think of Bitshares as your own business. Would you run it like it is run now?

22
General Discussion / Re: LTM made up almost 1/3 of DAC revenue
« on: April 24, 2017, 03:53:19 pm »
Quote from: yvv on April 24, 2017, 03:43:22 pm
Quote from: Geneko on April 24, 2017, 03:28:04 pm
Quote from: fav on April 24, 2017, 03:04:01 pm
2449553.496 BTS to the reserve pool.

How did you come up with this figure:
26% from 47,106,798 is 12,247,767.48

OMG does this mean network gets only 20% of LTM fee payed to this very network? This is insane!! WTF is going on?!
So you pay 17,611 BTS and get back 14088 BTS means actual LTM fee is only 3522 BTS. Right?

Actually, you pay 17,611 and your referrer gets 14088, so yes, network actually gets only 3522. And yes, this is insane.


I cant fckn belive. This looks like multilevel marketing ponzi. The first ones gets mayority of the fees that followers generate. And I was wondering why they call Bitshares Ponzi. Gentlemen from commity its your call!!

23
General Discussion / Re: LTM made up almost 1/3 of DAC revenue
« on: April 24, 2017, 03:28:04 pm »
Quote from: fav on April 24, 2017, 03:04:01 pm
2449553.496 BTS to the reserve pool.

How did you come up with this figure:
26% from 47,106,798 is 12,247,767.48

OMG does this mean network gets only 20% of LTM fee payed to this very network? This is insane!! WTF is going on?!
So you pay 17,611 BTS and get back 14088 BTS means actual LTM fee is only 3522 BTS. Right?


24
General Discussion / Re: Fees Report
« on: April 23, 2017, 07:53:41 pm »
Great stuff!! Thank you.

This is very important document. It would be very good if we could get those reports on regular ( monthly,  quarterly, yearly) bases.

I like its findings so far. Although generally informative, I don't understand scope of its interest. I suppose it is meant for Bitshares share holders.
Without:
 - subsequent distribution of the collected fees to entities such as the network, witnesses, worker proposals, asset issuers, referrers, nor lifetime member accounts;
 - the quantities that are reported in the document are all in terms of the asset units that were specified for fee payment
, it lacks basics for valuable conclusions such as ( I'll put my opinion in parentheses):

- how well it performs in terms of a company aka Distributed Autonomous Companies (no clue w/o expenses)
- where is possible space for improvement in terms of income (it partially provided clue)
- does current fee structure supports mentioned above (no clue)
- how does it distribute value that it creates (no clue)
- is this distribution in compliance with its short term and long term goals (no clue)

As a basics for future improvement I would suggest minor changes:
Income side
- all fees denominated in BTS, structured by descending value (gross network fees)
- basic gross fee structure in terms of percentage of the whole (core token, MPAs, UIAs)
- all fees after deductions, that goes to network (neto network fees)
expenditure side:
- witnesses
- workers
- other if exists

25
General Discussion / Re: Marketing Marketing Marketing
« on: April 13, 2017, 07:31:18 pm »
I like your initiative. I know this is of topic, neither English is may natural language.
Anyway it crossed my mind when reading this.

Inconsivable Crypto Trader's Dream

Imagine there is trading platform like Poloniex made on top of block chain.
Block chain with bullet speed transactions, thousands per second.
It could not be hacked. It could not be seized, It could not be shutdown.
There you would have control of your private keys.

Imagine it charges negligible fees. Imagine you could upgrade to 80% cash back on such fees.
Imagine free trading bots and Api tools for such exchange at your disposal.

Now, imagine not being member of such exchange.
This is reality you currently have.

Bitshares Decentralized Exchange DEX

26
General Discussion / Re: Adjusting how bitshares fees get distributed.
« on: April 11, 2017, 06:44:42 pm »
I agree with OP that proposition should be plain simple.

Quote from: fav on April 11, 2017, 05:13:26 pm
means existing businesses (OL/Blockpay/etc) lose 30% of income stream and get nothing in return.

sounds like a great idea to drive them away, then we can watch grass grow here, because bitshares will be dead for good

If this is true then Bitshares doesn't exist anyway. It only serves as entertainment playground for its share holders. If you think Ronny and Co already control Bitshares then there is only one thing we could do about it. Dump all shares and let them have their business.


27
General Discussion / Re: Lets bring " earn x% interest on 'anything' " back to Bitshares!
« on: April 11, 2017, 03:08:00 pm »
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on April 11, 2017, 01:42:39 pm

  • Implement our profit sharing code thanks to Peerplays development


How does profit sharing work?

Like most online gaming platforms, the Peerplays network collects a small percentage of each jackpot, which is called the rake fee. These fees are automatically sent by the blockchain into a virtual account, where they accumulate until they reach a certain threshold or time interval. Then, they are automatically distributed to the accounts of Peerplays core token holders, according to the total percentage of core tokens belonging to each account.

This is closest to bitshares idea as you can get. However the trick is in details.

How does the referral program work?

Imagine if you refer a friend to open a bank account, and then for doing this you were automatically entitled to a percentage of every fee they paid the bank from that point forward. This is how the Peerplays account referral system is set up.
Each time a player registers a new account on Peerplays, someone must pay the initial account registration fee. This can be done through a faucet that is operated by an tournament hosting partner, or by any other Peerplays user. This means that each new account is tied directly to the account which paid the fee to register them. Peerplays then directs a percentage of every network fee paid by the new account from that point forward – every asset creation fee, rake fee, trading fee, etc., back into the account of the person who registered it. The remaining percentage then goes to the network to be paid out as profit sharing.


This looks the same as Bitshares model. But as said the trick is in details.
 
Could you please explain, in plain language, how the revenue split work in Peerplays?

If we decide to accept Peerplays model could you help implement it. We could organize worker proposal.
You are also long time member of Bitshares. Dont you feel responsible for its destiny too?

28
General Discussion / Re: Lets bring " earn x% interest on 'anything' " back to Bitshares!
« on: April 11, 2017, 12:23:41 pm »
Quote from: kani on April 11, 2017, 11:35:19 am
Benefits over transaction fee distribution:
* Market Fees produce bitAsset of choice -- no need to convert BTS to bitAsset for dividend payment.
* Does not violate LTM agreement
* Does not mess with referral expectations

"Your share in the Decentralized Exchange"

In my opinion suggested model doesn't affect LTM members at all. Lets see:
LTM member pays fee in advance (LTM mebership fee) and gets 80% cash back, on every fee they pay to the network.. It is simple bulk discount.
Proposed change ONLY affects non LTM users which pay same fee as anyone else. They doesn't get any cash back only.
Their fee goes 20% to the network and 80% to referrer and registrant coalition.

Proposed change increases network cut from 20% to 50% decreases referrer coalition cut from 80% to 20% and introduces new beneficiaries like bitAsset interests (20%) and LTM members interests(10%).

Non LTM users can decide whenever they like to pay LTM membership fee and get 80% cash back on their fees. As I understand current model, such action breaks referrers dill and network keeps all of membership fee. Am I right?
 

29
General Discussion / Re: Lets bring " earn x% interest on 'anything' " back to Bitshares!
« on: April 11, 2017, 07:24:14 am »
Quote from: alt on April 11, 2017, 05:43:48 am
bank have many real business to pay the divident.
where is the business based bitshares?
I believe we'll get divident too after we have some real business.
pay divident is the result, not the reason.

But Bitshares is a business. It creates value for its clients by providing:

-decentralized market place
-mechanism to create and maintain collateralized crypto fiat and crypto precious metal asset
-mechanism to create and maintain user issued asset - business or scam collateralized asset   
-it provides various tools for a business to leverage blockchain technology
-etc...
-etc...
-hopefully - provides dividend for their share holders

Lets take just one of these, decentralized market place. What is the value of Poloniex? Does it provide value?
If not, why people go there anyway and pay for their services. If does, how about additional value in organizing decentralized market place?
Should I elaborate on value of decentralized market place on top of blockchain?

What is the value of Coca Cola? Its a brown, carbonated, oversugary drink with serious health implications. It is more of a scam then many things in crypro. Just to remind you, at the moment of its introduction, it was snake oil type of a product, promising various health benefits.

Now back to Bitshares. Take all above value quote , put it on speed bullet platform and put negligibly small price tag on it (which it did in form of transaction fee). Now this is a VALUE. Who else has did it? This is "Coca Cola moment" we all hope for.

Bitshares is a DAC or DAO with huge value unlike the others that use that acronym. I would also call it decentralized autonomous business DAB with healthy revenue stream in form of transaction fees.

30
General Discussion / Re: Lets bring " earn x% interest on 'anything' " back to Bitshares!
« on: April 10, 2017, 06:51:30 am »
Quote from: tbone on April 10, 2017, 06:01:17 am
50% - network
20% - referral
20% - bitAsset interest
10% - LTM dividend


This one sound reasonable.

Quote from: tbone on April 10, 2017, 06:01:17 am

I also propose that the referrer gets the 20% on ALL fees, even on fees paid by LTM users (which i'm 90% sure referrers currently get 0% of).  In addition, I propose that the referrer keeps 100% of the LTM fee.


This one sounds not so reasonable.  It makes LTM pointless. LTM is kind of bulk discount. It could be fair referrer gets 100% of LTM ( in my opinion 50:50 split would be fine) but additional taxation of poor referee (20% of all fees) or taking more of revenue stream from the network, is unreasonable.  This one should be clarified because it is not clear from where these 20% of ALL fees would come from.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 23 queries.