Author Topic: Paid Workers Proposal for Review  (Read 43849 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline joele

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
I've described the paid worker solution that I would like to see in this post. I think we should just let the management of project/worker payment be delegated to the elected delegates. The shareholders should make their desires/opinions official known to the delegates via a non-binding proposal system on the blockchain. The delegates are trusted to carry through with the shareholder wishes (in a responsible way), and if they fail to do so they will be voted out. I think giving this responsibility to the delegates rather than the shareholders (essentially adding that level of indirection) should hopefully make the workers feel like they are less likely to get the rug pulled from underneath them due to some chaotic irrational/emotional response from the masses. The delegates essentially act as a check on the shareholders. However, they ultimately answer to the shareholders because they can be easily voted out and replaced by new delegates that will consider shareholder opinion more.

There are also safeguards preventing delegates from just spending as much on a worker as they want (beyond just the hard dilution limit) such as the dilution budget collectively available to them (that they don't necessarily need to all spend) by virtue of being elected with some budget request (which could only be adjusted up by getting a new version of their delegate elected by shareholders) and the fact that a super majority of the delegates need to agree to any change to the worker pay list. One other thing I would add to my linked proposal is that the recipient account in the worker pay list could either be a vesting type or a non-vesting type. The vesting type would have an additional parameter in the tuple defining the vesting period that the recipient needs to wait until they can access the accumulated funds held under their name.

Edit: By the way, if it wasn't clear, the approach described above allows the super majority of the delegates to implement any policy for funding projects (including the one in your post BM). The idea is that the policy isn't encoded as code in the blockchain, and therefore is more dynamic. The non-binding proposal system can allow shareholders to vote for and against any project with a start and end date, for example, and the delegates are responsible for carrying out that policy. It is sort of like the difference between the Turing complete scripts on Ethereum vs smart contracts implemented using a super majority multisig of executors and actually executing the deterministic code off-chain (like Open Transactions' Voting Pools, or Codius smart contracts, or maybe future BitShares smart contracts(?)).

+5%

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
This is what I've been preaching for since day one of BitShares. I am absolutely excited about the new direction and all of you should be too!!!

Thank you, BM for making the right calls in these difficult testing times. Some may not feel the same, but I believe this is a major step in the right direction.

I hope this gets voted in.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Looks like a good idea...
I've always fancied separation of block signers and Paid Workers.
Vesting period on the received funds is a nice touch.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Vested for 5 years? Give them more bits salary! Vested for 3 years give them less bts... dynamic salary :P

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D


Offline freedom

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile

Offline role

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
史诗般的冲刺!你们再也买不到2毛的bts了 :D

Offline jcrubino

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
I think 3 years is a more equitable term to decide if the business project is viable for the devs and the community.

This is the make or break term for normal businesses and I believe the cryptocoin space might be more accelerated in terms of market validation of product. 

Offline crzme

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
    • View Profile

Offline bitmarket

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 369
    • View Profile
    • BitShares TV
re: centralization.

I had centralization as a concern as well because 12% after 5 years is significant.   However a couple of realizations put my mind at ease.

1. Those bts go to one company that distributes it to many people. So it is not as centralized as first thought.
2. The dilution should be in USD's or gold (one way or another, even if it is the project promising to burn leftover).  getting $25k per month in bts in 3 years will be way less than what we imagine today.

I no longer think centralization is a problem.
Host of BitShares.TV and Author of BitShares 101

Offline role

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile

Offline Musewhale

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2881
  • 丑,实在是太丑了 !
    • View Profile
 +5% +5% +5%
great, good idea, i like it, just do it.
MUSE witness:mygoodfriend     vote for me

Offline cube

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Bit by bit, we will get there!
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcube
The OP seems like an overly and unnecessary complicated way of addressing delegate pay dilution. It would not address dilution. In fact, it would do more harm than good to bts.

1) "We have 7 core developers that need at least $25,000 per month (combined)"

Not surprisingly, the core devs needs its funding.  The question is what happened to the ags and pts funding for both Bitshares and Vote.  Have they been used up?  If there are fund left, use them instead of diluting the bitshares supply.

Empirical mentioned ""another 365 million BTS to the core development company (12%+ equity) would add to those concerns I think. "
This concern needs to be addressed.

2) "we would receive 250,000 BTS per day"

250k bts out of a total available 432k bts, you are talking about core devs taking 60% of the available 'dilution-to-fund'.  If the core devs are talking such a major part of 'dilution-to-fund', why not take out this "250k bts per day for the next 5 years" from the bts supply and then you manage this fund separately to pay your core developers?

3) "5 years is long enough that the project is either a success and the dilution is insignificant or a complete failure and the shares are worthless anyway."

To ask the Core Devs to wait for 5 years before they can use their pay is to ask them to bear too much risk unfairly and unnecessarily.  A core dev who has to keep worrying about his pay (in bts going up or down in price) each day is not good.  He should be concentrating on his work and not the bts-price-of-the-day.

And even if the project struggles and manages to be a success at the end of 5 years, dilution is NEVER insignificant.  At least the impact due to the perception of dilution is ALWAYS significant.

If the shares are worthless at the end of 5 years, the core devs get nothing?

It need not be a case of a either-success-or-failure to the Core Devs or the BTS Investors after a long 5-year.  Both the Core Devs and Investors can manage, minimise and share the risk together.

4) As PC pointed out, this new way will disadvantage small non-core workers greatly.

5) "432k bts/day to spend"
A limit and a cap above is unhelpful.  What if the developments needed more fund?  What if we needed more developers? What if the bts price dropped even further? 

6) "Perhaps most importantly, this would still keep the number of block producers decentralized and keep the sell pressure caused by dilution at bay."

Keeping block producers decentralised is good.  But this will not keep away sell pressure because dilution is there.  What you need is building confidence in both the investors and users that this project will turn out to be successful.

Move whatever fund you need to pay for development out of the supply of bts. Better still, find other funding source and bring bts back to zero or near-zero inflation.



« Last Edit: May 04, 2015, 02:36:27 am by cube »
ID: bitcube
bitcube is a dedicated witness and committe member. Please vote for bitcube.

Offline Geneko

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
You do not have to reinvent the wheel. Whatever Bishare need is CEO. There are basically two separate issues. One is collecting funds and the other is proper allocation. There are several methods of collecting funds including dilution but only one person should be responsible for spending. That person should be voted in and out.
We need simple solution. One man responsible for the whole project. We only need to vote for him. Everything else is over complicating and overestimating of ability and motivation of single account to participate in evaluating and decision making. Even average Joe accepts his imaginable role, he would be reasoning as described in Parkinson’s Law of Triviality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
This is good. I hope it's enough money for the developers. Frankly, voting for all these delegates and understanding their roles in the development team has been tiresome. I'd rather someone else manage this and still leave enough money that we can use to bring in new business.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2015, 06:07:37 pm by donkeypong »

zerosum

  • Guest
As for using assets as well.. while I understand the convenience factor to this, I can also see why Dan would suggest BTS only... locking funds in BTS will do more good for the ecosystem as a whole vs. one asset or another perhaps. Each project can convert to whatever asset/fiat of their choosing depending on their preference on their own end. If it's a BTS project though, it should be in BTS. Don't work at GM and drive a Ford so to speak. :)

It should be clear but if it is not - the pay is always in BTS anyway. The assets come useful in many cases in answering the question - how many BTS should we pay this 'worker' today?:
- Hire toast @ $100K/y - every day he receives the amount of BTS to achieve that salary. No matter the BTS price.

The point is - why not give this flexibility to workers (and the system as a whole) when it does not cost much to do this calculation?