My preferred solution for delegates

[Riverhead]

This is where the expertise of BM, toast, Nathan, Vikram, etc. come in. They know very well what is costly and what isn't from a blockchain perspective.

[puppies]

I am a fan of variable pay rates.  I propose that raising of your pay rate requires a fee equal to the increased pay for an entire month.  And that it causes all votes for you to decay after three weeks time if not rebroadcast.

I like that idea but I think it'd be pretty expensive once transaction counts per block start to rise.

I'm not sure what you mean?  My understanding of the new pay structure is that all fees are burned and delegate pay at a certain pay rate is pre determined as measured in bts.  What am I missing.

Think of it like a turn based strategy game and each block is when the game changes state. The more rules that are baked into the system the more computations each transaction requires. There is a window to release a block before it will be rejected by the network. With 10 second blocks that window is fairly small. So as the number and complexity of rules increase the hardware required to produce a timely block increases.

understood.  You're talking about the cost to the blockchain as born by the delegates to secure that blockchain.  I can imagine the degrading vote might be costly.  I'm not exactly sure how to enact that.  The variable fee would be pretty cheap and straight forward though.

[puppies]

What is the argument against separation of delegates and employees?

BM mentioned once about some scaling issues, never heard anything more concrete. I feel keeping the roles separate is better for the long run.

I like to think of it as everyone is an employee of the shareholders, especially the delegates. There's a saying in sports, "Owners don't fire players. Owners fire coaches". I feel that works well for the relationship between a delegate and the shareholders.

To that end I can see the forum moving from discussing allocations, bugs, etc. to discussing projects, funding, and pay rates. It wouldn't be one delegate going it alone trying to field a team. It would be a community where someone posts up an idea and everyone posts up about the proposed budget and the delegates can voice their thoughts on their ability to pay for the project and as a community the work is given the green light once support and funding are in place.

I think we need an on blockchain means for delegates to communicate and collaborate.  Like an irc board that only active delegates can see. 

[Riverhead]

I am a fan of variable pay rates.  I propose that raising of your pay rate requires a fee equal to the increased pay for an entire month.  And that it causes all votes for you to decay after three weeks time if not rebroadcast.

I like that idea but I think it'd be pretty expensive once transaction counts per block start to rise.

I'm not sure what you mean?  My understanding of the new pay structure is that all fees are burned and delegate pay at a certain pay rate is pre determined as measured in bts.  What am I missing.

Think of it like a turn based strategy game and each block is when the game changes state. The more rules that are baked into the system the more computations each transaction requires. There is a window to release a block before it will be rejected by the network. With 10 second blocks that window is fairly small. So as the number and complexity of rules increase the hardware required to produce a timely block increases.

[Riverhead]

What is the argument against separation of delegates and employees?

BM mentioned once about some scaling issues, never heard anything more concrete. I feel keeping the roles separate is better for the long run.

I like to think of it as everyone is an employee of the shareholders, especially the delegates. There's a saying in sports, "Owners don't fire players. Owners fire coaches". I feel that works well for the relationship between a delegate and the shareholders.

To that end I can see the forum moving from discussing allocations, bugs, etc. to discussing projects, funding, and pay rates. It wouldn't be one delegate going it alone trying to field a team. It would be a community where someone posts up an idea and everyone posts up about the proposed budget and the delegates can voice their thoughts on their ability to pay for the project and as a community the work is given the green light once support and funding are in place.

[puppies]

I am a fan of variable pay rates.  I propose that raising of your pay rate requires a fee equal to the increased pay for an entire month.  And that it causes all votes for you to decay after three weeks time if not rebroadcast.

I like that idea but I think it'd be pretty expensive once transaction counts per block start to rise.

I'm not sure what you mean?  My understanding of the new pay structure is that all fees are burned and delegate pay at a certain pay rate is pre determined as measured in bts.  What am I missing.

[sumantso]

What is the argument against separation of delegates and employees?

BM mentioned once about some scaling issues, never heard anything more concrete. I feel keeping the roles separate is better for the long run.

[Riverhead]

I am a fan of variable pay rates.  I propose that raising of your pay rate requires a fee equal to the increased pay for an entire month.  And that it causes all votes for you to decay after three weeks time if not rebroadcast.

I like that idea but I think it'd be pretty expensive once transaction counts per block start to rise.

[puppies]

I am a fan of variable pay rates.  I propose that raising of your pay rate requires a fee equal to the increased pay for an entire month.  And that it causes all votes for you to decay after three weeks time if not rebroadcast. 

[Riverhead]

...and wise.  Those volunteers who are prudently able to save their part time pay for the first year may find they actually drew more than full-time pay when they see what its worth next year.   

That will be the line to walk. The shareholders will see you earning an income and sitting on it while others are posting grand plans in their campaigns.

An interesting web you folks have woven.

[Xeldal]

My preferred solution for delegates:

1) They are trusted and able to maintain the network
2) They publish a budget on who they plan to fund and generally don't do work themselves.
3) They coordinate with other delegates.

If the role of delegates is to manage up to 1% of the spendable budget then we can hire many delegates.   Lets keep it really simple, if you don't know how to run a node ask for funding from a delegate that does run a node.   If the delegate thinks it is worth while and won't cause him to lose his spot then he can support you.

Thus at the end of the day you only have to trust that a delegate can make wise evaluations about the performance of the real workers while maintaining a node.

I agree with this.  though...

I think this begs for variable pay rates or perhaps multi-sig delegate pay over 3%?  Or do you see delegates just haveing multiple sub accounts.  100%/80%/50%/25%/3%   ... or just a 100% and a 3% and a promise to burn.  Or just a 100% and a promise to burn.

What i fear is a delegate gets 100% pay for some project.  Its completed, but the pay remains.  Rather than lose his spot, the delegate feverishly searches for somewhere else to spend the cash.  Fills up his project board with candidates etc.  (Its surely easier to keep 100% pay once you've got it, and usually leads to waste/inefficiencies)  Or do you campaign again to have your 3% delegate re-elected.  ... or promise to burn the 97%(multisig could force burn)

voter apathy should default to base 3% pay, not full 100% pay based on prior projects. 

[Stan]

Don't get me wrong, I think this is innovative - but it is also difficult to pull off since it relies on some serious organizers. Those people that are best qualified will require a lot of money in order for it to be worth their time. $2500/month won't be enough money for serious entrepreneurs to do anything yet. At this point, it's basically paying smallish projects and development. We just need equity to increase at a rate greater than is being paid out. That's the hard part, don't know if this new system will pull it off - but it is innovative.

I imagine it will be mostly volunteers for the next year or so. People who are dedicated and passionate.

...and wise.  Those volunteers who are prudently able to save their part time pay for the first year may find they actually drew more than full-time pay when they see what its worth next year.   

[puppies]

at current market cap, a 100% delegate should get about $25k per year. 

So the questions are.
1)  what is an acceptable rate of return for that $25000 investement?
      I would suggest at least a 2-1 ratio.  So $25000 spent out should result in a market cap growth of at least $50000. 
2) How do we measure this?
     Do we take unique users into account?  Do we look at businesses integrating BitUSD?  Specifically how do we measure an individual delegate teams results?
3) What ideas do we currently have worth funding?

I recall someone posting about renting billboards.  Perhaps as a delegate team we could get together and divide the country into different sections.  Each of us would be responsible for renting billboards in a certain locale.  We could collaborate on message and design.

[Method-X]

Don't get me wrong, I think this is innovative - but it is also difficult to pull off since it relies on some serious organizers. Those people that are best qualified will require a lot of money in order for it to be worth their time. $2500/month won't be enough money for serious entrepreneurs to do anything yet. At this point, it's basically paying smallish projects and development. We just need equity to increase at a rate greater than is being paid out. That's the hard part, don't know if this new system will pull it off - but it is innovative.

I imagine it will be mostly volunteers for the next year or so. People who are dedicated and passionate.

[zerosum]

Don't get me wrong, I think this is innovative - but it is also difficult to pull off since it relies on some serious organizers. Those people that are best qualified will require a lot of money in order for it to be worth their time. $2500/month won't be enough money for serious entrepreneurs to do anything yet. At this point, it's basically paying smallish projects and development. We just need equity to increase at a rate greater than is being paid out. That's the hard part, don't know if this new system will pull it off - but it is innovative.

Yes I foresee several [maybe even 10] delegates to unite to fund a single project/idea, at the early stages. As the market cap grows, we will gradually move to the other choice - one delegate paying for a project employing more than one person.