Paid Workers Proposal for Review

[Stan]

this idea maybe is good , but we cannot change any rule, so it is useless, stop to discussing it , I had loss much, I don`t want to lose all

 

We need to distinguish between property rights (which should always be secure) and system functionality which must continuously advance, or die.

The minute we decide that we cannot change to stay the best, a competitor will emerge that does not suffer under those constraints. 

Would you really want the results of our latest R&D to go to a competitor because BitShares cannot change to incorporate it?

Otherwise, BitShares would suffer the ultimate fate of Bitcoin.  Stuck roaring in the tar pits, failing to adapt, unable to compete.

Ultimately it is for the shareholders to decide.  But the choice is never simply whether to adopt a new technology or not.  It is always whether we want to allow some competitor pick it up and use it against us!

[role]

this idea maybe is good , but we cannot change any rule, so it is useless, stop to discussing it , I had loss much, I don`t want to lose all

 

[sittingduck]

I don't think he was proposing to change the dilution  rate, just the power stakeholders have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

no one can change rule,  this discussing is useless, if the income cannot pay the core developer income ,we have AGS, to pay them , and if change the rule it would make bts price drop so much , delegate income would decrease much.

So you think the ags funds will last that long?   They are mostly gone and at these prices they can only cover for short time. 

The only rule left is stakeholders decide.  From what I see here delegates would be split and their income unchanged.   Going forward shareholders can vote different mixes of funding and block producers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BTSdac]

I don't think he was proposing to change the dilution  rate, just the power stakeholders have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

no one can change rule,  this discussing is useless, if the income cannot pay the core developer income ,we have AGS, to pay them , and if change the rule it would make bts price drop so much , delegate income would decrease much.
 

[sittingduck]

I don't think he was proposing to change the dilution  rate, just the power stakeholders have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BTSdac]

this idea maybe is good , but we cannot change any rule, so it is useless, stop to discussing it , I had loss much, I don`t want to lose all

[santaclause102]

Is it correct that the 101 delegates would keep on existing besides the paid workers and the 101 delegates would just produce blocks whereas the workers would "work" and have nothing to do with block production? Also is it true that workers would be getting paid by dilution whereas delegates are paid by tx fees?

I ask this because in the latest mumble session BM said something (replying to Riverhead's question more towards the end of the hangout) about having workers and delegates side by side until delegates are voted out. That confused me a bit...
 

[yiminh]

16 month and not a stable wallet, the core dev team needs to be fired,the market is doing just that, let the free market work its magic.

Rome wasn't built in 16 months.

Can't wait to be able to vote on those projects because at the end of the day...money talks. (Now is the time to buy if you want to have voting power in the future)

BTS dilution every 2 month, II'll take Fedral Reserve anyday! with any luck someone should takeover the project and put BM and his gang out of their misery, then BTS might have a fighting chance, trust is like vigirlity, once you lose it, you'll never get it back.

[yiminh]

16 month and not a stable wallet, the core dev team needs to be fired,the market is doing just that, let the free market work its magic.

Rome wasn't built in 16 months.

Can't wait to be able to vote on those projects because at the end of the day...money talks. (Now is the time to buy if you want to have voting power in the future)

BTS dilution every 2 month, II'll take Fedral Reserve anyday!

[rgcrypto]

16 month and not a stable wallet, the core dev team needs to be fired,the market is doing just that, let the free market work its magic.

Rome wasn't built in 16 months.

Can't wait to be able to vote on those projects because at the end of the day...money talks. (Now is the time to buy if you want to have voting power in the future)

[yiminh]

There have been many discussions over the past 6 months about having paid workers separate from Delegates as well as changing the maximum income per worker without increasing the dilution limit.   I would like to explore how this might look and see what ideas you all can come up with.

Step 1:   Assume there are at most 432,000 BTS per day available to be paid to workers.  (50 BTS every 10 seconds)
Step 2:   Assume there is a list of projects that specify how much they need paid each day.
Step 3:   Pay out projects in order of total approval once per day until all 432,000 BTS has been consumed.
Step 4:   Have several projects that payout to no one (burning) and thus prevent dilution.

Next define each project in terms of the following parameters:

1) Start Date
2) Fundings to Receive Per Day
3) End Date for Funding
4) Vesting Period for Funds Received

Next give each account the ability to vote *FOR* or *AGAINST* each funding proposal.
Sort all projects by NET votes including the burn projects.
Each projects funding would flow to an account with multi-sig authority (for serious projects that demand accountability).

Under this model I would propose the following project:
We have 7 core developers that need at least $25,000 per month (combined) just to pay for Food, Shelter, and Clothing and earning 1/4 what they could make on the free market.  These 7 core developers form a company that produces a wallet and profits from referral income.   This company would have a funded project with a roadmap for BTS and would receive 250,000 BTS per day that their project is in the top list of  projects for 4 years.   The funds would not vest for 5 years which means the core company would not sell their 250,000 BTS/day for 5 years.    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.   Either way existing BTS holders benefit from work today that is ultimately paid for in 5 years.  Each year the devs can re-negotiate their project funding and shareholders can vote in new terms as the vote down the old terms. 

At any time this developer company could be fired by giving more votes to a burn proposal or an alternative set of developers.  When they are fired they stop receiving new income but must still wait for 5 years before they can touch any of the BTS they have already earned.   

This would have the core devs consuming about half of the available dilution (3% per year) and allowing the community room to fund other projects with the remaining half of the funds.   

Currently the Core DEVs have about 15 paid delegate slots and their pay vests immediately.   Under this new approach their combined pay would be 3x higher but it wouldn't vest for 5 years.   Perhaps most importantly, this would still keep the number of block producers decentralized and keep the sell pressure caused by dilution at bay.  Additionally it makes it easier for shareholders to vote for one "company" than for individual developers which may come and go without accountability.   

By having VOTES AGAINST a project it becomes easier for stakeholders to vote down projects they explicitly don't want funded in the event of a change in circumstances.

Thoughts?

16 month and not a stable wallet, the core dev team needs to be fired,the market is doing just that, let the free market work its magic.

[Permie]

Thanks BM for sharing the idea. I think voting by project is great. Consider the idea of making each project open to many bidders. We can all vote on which projects are the best ideas and approximately how much we are all willing to chip-in. Then many developers can come along and bid on each project by detailing their proposals. This way we will also have backup providers in case something goes wrong with first developer/group.

[bitmarley]

FromOP:
"Step 2:   Assume there is a list of projects that specify how much they need paid each day.

Next define each project in terms of the following parameters:

1) Start Date
2) Fundings to Receive Per Day
3) End Date for Funding
4) Vesting Period for Funds Received
"

Thanks BM for sharing the idea. I think voting by project is great. Consider the idea of making each project open to many bidders. We can all vote on which projects are the best ideas and approximately how much we are all willing to chip-in. Then many developers can come along and bid on each project by detailing their proposals. This way we will also have backup providers in case something goes wrong with first developer/group. 

[ronald]

Good idea   There also have to be budget for marketing initiatives

Step 1:   Assume there are at most 432,000 BTS per day available to be paid to workers.  (50 BTS every 10 seconds)

Ammendement: a BitUSD budget a day available to be paid to workers instead of BTS; frozen for 2 years

Those new BitUSD are created by issuing new BTS shares at marktconform price

[cass]

The  rumour is it is actually itBit !!! https://www.itbit.com/

Nice try.  

But, itbit is pretty bullish for Bitcoin and the whole sector imo.

I do not know...judge for yourself.

Ever since the time when we all thought the on/off ramps are in the pipeline last year, BM is saying that "the problem with all partners is they are startup(s) too, so they have to go through regulation step and licensing. The current once do not want extra trouble...and I do not blame them." 
UIA allowing regulatory compliance of future partners is arguable the most heavily developed feature for the last what?... any way a lot of months...
Stan start talking about an exiting times this summer, but he cannot actually talk about them. BM is exited about affiliate program + privatized bitAssets (and I guess the said UIAs).
BM talked about a week or so ago with somebody integrating BTS on their (exchange/gateway do not remember exactly).
BM gives the firs clue (in a    form) it is a gateway (at least partly).
bitBIT gets its license.
I become aware of this this rumour - itBit is the partner BM is hinting about and Stan can't talk about....

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/358wcb/itbits_exchange_allows_frontrunning/