Author Topic: My preferred solution for delegates  (Read 11939 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Employee or big contributors really don't need to maintain the delegate themselves, because bitsuperlab provides such hosting service.
Besides, I support the opinion that we should set a variable payrate/block reward for delegate, according to the market cap.
but we need to ensure that we have > 30 (prefereably alot more) businesses running the delegates as a service.

else this will lead back to centralization ..
I agree with you that we need to consider decentralization..
However maintaining a delegate is not too hard from a technical point of view. Bitsuperlab can provide such service, others could also provide likely service. Just an example.
Agreed .. we should set some rules for those service providers.. such as "they have to reveal their costumers i.e. running delegates"
or .. each delegate should have a public field (much like the version field) that states the service provider, if not run on it's own machine


Quote
By the way I think the voter-delegate-contributor model make the system too complex, and maybe financial inefficient. How can we measure the amount of contribution of a delegate, or say why he deserve the payrate? When the marketcap changes, does all the delegates still deserve their payrate?
I already recommended somewhere that the payrate could be set by a DAPP .. in bitUSD .. the dapp exchanges the BTS pay into bitUSD accordingly at the market and burns the rest automatically ..

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
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.
This make sense. +5%
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Employee or big contributors really don't need to maintain the delegate themselves, because bitsuperlab provides such hosting service.
Besides, I support the opinion that we should set a variable payrate/block reward for delegate, according to the market cap.
but we need to ensure that we have > 30 (prefereably alot more) businesses running the delegates as a service.

else this will lead back to centralization ..
I agree with you that we need to consider decentralization..
However maintaining a delegate is not too hard from a technical point of view. Bitsuperlab can provide such service, others could also provide likely service. Just an example.

By the way I think the voter-delegate-contributor model make the system too complex, and maybe financial inefficient. How can we measure the amount of contribution of a delegate, or say why he deserve the payrate? When the marketcap changes, does all the delegates still deserve their payrate?
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline monsterer

The preferred solution in the OP faces the chicken and egg problem. If you want a delegate to just be someone who hires other devs to complete jobs, how does this delegate get elected in the first place? He would have to already have found a selection of devs *with* project plans in order to begin his election campaign.

IMO it is more natural to have the delegates be devs initially and then to transition into mini companies who hire employees to complete jobs which are voted in by the community.

That way you have a pool of wish list tasks/jobs that the community wants to see done and a bunch of mini companies who are ready to take on new work as it presents itself.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile



The main problem here is that while you are preventing fraudsters from showing up and telling people what they want to hear, you're also making legitimate people have to make a judgement of "Is this worth the gamble on me being voted in and remaining for greater than 2 weeks".  That is a huge roadblock for so many people.

What happens when the policy is changed? 

For example -  I say "ok.. I'll give it a shot, here is my $1200."  3 weeks later devs come to their senses.  Refunds anyone? 
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile

I ranted or "went off half-cocked" the other day.  This was in opposition to the delegate fee being the same as 2 weeks average income.  My thought at the time was that if you had 100% payrate on, then you had to pay the average for 2 weeks 100%.  Is this true or is the fee the same regardless of your payrate? 

Before I rant again, I would like to see this clarified.

I think it is just as you said. I think this is a waste. I believe the funds vested by the delegate initial registration should be stored instead of burned and these funds should be used to reward delegates.

The logic here seems similar to the logic of burning donations.

Is it even necessary to have this big fee as some sort of incentive to not be a fraudster?  You're also dissencentiving (is that a word?) people who don't want to put up $1250 (and growing) to hope their platform is voted in for 2 weeks so they break even.

I suppose this is a policy meant for when the amounts become truly significant? This is actually works ok with centralized voting power.  ::)

Maybe this is good, maybe it is bad.  Not very happy.

In my view of the world, I would be able to say "I'll work on X,Y, or Z for 20 hours a week.  Shareholders - decide" .. or some similar proposition.  Then people vote me in.  I for sure am not going to put up $1200 (and growing) over the judgement of people then take 2 weeks to break even.

Maybe it is a psychological thing and my bias to attach to the negative aspect of things misleads me.

So shoot me !
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Employee or big contributors really don't need to maintain the delegate themselves, because bitsuperlab provides such hosting service.
Besides, I support the opinion that we should set a variable payrate/block reward for delegate, according to the market cap.
+5%
but we need to ensure that we have > 30 (prefereably alot more) businesses running the delegates as a service.

else this will lead back to centralization ..

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Employee or big contributors really don't need to maintain the delegate themselves, because bitsuperlab provides such hosting service.
Besides, I support the opinion that we should set a variable payrate/block reward for delegate, according to the market cap.
+5%
Why not just pay bitUSD instead of BTS? It's more stable.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2014, 08:47:37 am by abit »
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG

I ranted or "went off half-cocked" the other day.  This was in opposition to the delegate fee being the same as 2 weeks average income.  My thought at the time was that if you had 100% payrate on, then you had to pay the average for 2 weeks 100%.  Is this true or is the fee the same regardless of your payrate? 

Before I rant again, I would like to see this clarified.

I think it is just as you said. I think this is a waste. I believe the funds vested by the delegate initial registration should be stored instead of burned and these funds should be used to reward delegates.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile

I ranted or "went off half-cocked" the other day.  This was in opposition to the delegate fee being the same as 2 weeks average income.  My thought at the time was that if you had 100% payrate on, then you had to pay the average for 2 weeks 100%.  Is this true or is the fee the same regardless of your payrate? 

Before I rant again, I would like to see this clarified.
I speak for myself and only myself.

sumantso

  • Guest
Employee or big contributors really don't need to maintain the delegate themselves, because bitsuperlab provides such hosting service.
Besides, I support the opinion that we should set a variable payrate/block reward for delegate, according to the market cap.

Thats centralizing. We want the block producers to have a low barrier of entry and spread pout so that the network survives in case of problems.

Block producing is essential for the network. Providing value improves it but is not essential for survival - the two things are different.

Offline ripplexiaoshan

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: jademont
Employee or big contributors really don't need to maintain the delegate themselves, because bitsuperlab provides such hosting service.
Besides, I support the opinion that we should set a variable payrate/block reward for delegate, according to the market cap.
BTS committee member:jademont

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
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 think every shareholder is a potential employee. Honestly if you want to work for Bitshares then form a legal Bitshares cooperative, then accept donations, then hire traditional employees that way.

I think you can do employees as delegates only if you have cooperative delegates.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I too have some concerns about block signing delegates and employees being one and the same thing. Perhaps I need to take more time to understand the proposal.

But as it stands it seems that we are proposing to have only 101 employees or employee representatives and this seems arbitrary and limiting. I get that it is probably a high enough number if we're just talking about block signing delegates securing the network. But for employees?

If BitShares hits the market cap of Bitcoin what would be the maximum that each delegate could earn? My guess based on the $2,500 month that is being bandied about on the current BitShares valuation is that we'd be looking at something like $325,000 per month. Can anyone confirm?

Presumably when we get to this stage there's going to need to be more than one person working for each delegate/employee position otherwise things will starts to look very top heavy in terms of who is being recompensed for work. What  does that look like? Can we move towards something that will allow for transparency and is built in to the codebase? Don't we think this is important? Perhaps not - perhaps it's fine that we just have 101 delegates who effectively become 'Directors/Managers' of various employee divisions within the BitShares ecosystem.  We then just trust them with our votes to employ the right people. But this just doesn't seem granular enough to me and means that the codebase will unnecessarily require the promotion of teams/fiefdoms for every bit of work that is done to build BitShares up going forwar. It means there's no room for the little guy to work alone and be paid directly by the network.

Why don't we just separate out employees and allow for more granularity? Otherwise people not inside the 101 delegate positions who do not want to join an existing team may have to rely on handouts or bounties. Sounds like a precarious position to put yourself in even if you're a dyed in the wool supporter and want to grow the ecosystem. Rockstar employees/leaders such as BM will of course end up leading teams that consist of more than one person, but for others is the requirement strictly necessary?

If we're going to stick with the creation of this chimera of the two things then the only way I can see it working is to have some form of transparent nesting. So I can join one of the 101 'Teams', but everyone can see what what slice of the teams budget I am being allocated for my role within that team. There is some merit in this in that it provides an incentive for smaller guys to get on board with a 'Team' in order to be under the protective wing of one of the 101 trusted delegates/team managers.

It does make me ponder whether this all relies too much on individuals. When whole networks of people come to rely on their income from the 101 delegate positions and the figure-heads who represent those 101 positions can we be sure that everyone will be voting or campaigning for the good of the network or is it more likely to act through self interest. If the two were separate I'd have no problem with them acting in their own self interest, but when it starts to interfere with block signing then it becomes a different matter. Perhaps I'm wrong and that the self interest part is a recognized necessity and this is why the current proposal is what is being suggested.

Am I missing something obvious here? Please feel free to explain if I've missed something fundamental.

This is why I advocate forming a cooperative. Employees can be members of the cooperative. Cooperatives can get funding from any source they want whether private or public. It would rely on the traditional legal structures to form a cooperative but I don't see why a cooperative can't be used for these purposes since credit unions are basically financial cooperatives.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
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.

I would love to hear if my proposal is possible, and if so how costly it would be.  I believe that a variable pay rate would save delegates numerous headaches and fees in the long run. 

Imagine two scenarios.  One with the current system.

I have a 3% delegate.  I have found something that I feel should be funded at a higher rate than I and my fellow delegates can fund.  I must start a new delegate.  put up a months worth of funding for that pay rate and convince shareholders to vote for it.  with no guarantee of any funds to offset my initial outlay. 

or

I have a 3% delegate.  I have found something that I feel should be funded at a higher rate than I and my fellow delegates can fund.  I raise my delegate pay rate from 3% to lets say 50%.  I still pay a hefty fee.  I am however able to collect at the new pay rate (unless I am voted out) for 3/4 of the first months.  At the end of that 3 weeks I need to have been able to convince enough of my voters to rebroadcast to keep me in office.  Otherwise I am a net loser.

Outside of the blockchain requirements it is a question of how much capital should be thrown at growing the system and which proportion of expended capital should be recovered  by the expending party. 
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads