Paid Workers Proposal for Review

[role]

谈钱之前，咱能先把内盘大姨妈治好吗？

内盘大姨妈已经止住了

bitusd区去看看再说

[helloworld]

The delegate voting system is OK.

BTS price falling down and down, Thare must be something wrong was happened, but it could't made by the delegate voting system.

The system run well

So , think about the real reason why the price continue falling down!

Let's the free market decide something' price.
Let‘s the shareholders decide BTS where will go.

[Ben Mason]

Delegates are currently being paid to do all sorts of things including their primary role of block production. Delegates are paid with a % of tx fees up to 100%. The delegate voting system is being used not only to fund block production, but also other critically important activities like development.

Bm's proposal is to enable the seperation of block production (delegates) and other important activities (workers.) 

Where does the daily pool of worker/project funding come from?

Delegates are being paid with a percentage of tx fees plus dilution of max 50 BTS/block. BM's proposal separates the funding of delegates and other workers by paying delegates from tx fees, and other workers from dilution at a rate of max 50 BTS/block.

Thanks pc!

[pc]

Delegates are currently being paid to do all sorts of things including their primary role of block production. Delegates are paid with a % of tx fees up to 100%. The delegate voting system is being used not only to fund block production, but also other critically important activities like development.

Bm's proposal is to enable the seperation of block production (delegates) and other important activities (workers.) 

Where does the daily pool of worker/project funding come from?

Delegates are being paid with a percentage of tx fees plus dilution of max 50 BTS/block. BM's proposal separates the funding of delegates and other workers by paying delegates from tx fees, and other workers from dilution at a rate of max 50 BTS/block.

[Ben Mason]

I'd love some help getting my head around this please!

Delegates are currently being paid to do all sorts of things including their primary role of block production. Delegates are paid with a % of tx fees up to 100%. The delegate voting system is being used not only to fund block production, but also other critically important activities like development.

Bm's proposal is to enable the seperation of block production (delegates) and other important activities (workers.) 

Where does the daily pool of worker/project funding come from?
Why is VC funding more likely with a split between delegates and workers?

Assuming the above is accurate, I support the proposal because whatever has encouraged this innovation, I have always liked the idea of delegates having a specific block production role which is easy for bts holders to assess and vote on. This is the most critical function that resists subversion. I also like the idea of voting in workers with additional, measurable objectives with defined requirements, remuneration and timescales. As others have pointed out, reputation within the system will become very valuable and help to maintain high standards. The developers need additional funding at this stage, however, the innovation will be very useful for the future so rather than voting in more core dev delegates, we might as well deal with it now.

I support all efforts to innovate, though I agree with all others who insist on adhering to clearly defined priorities or at the very least a fairly  open re-evaluation of them. Proposal discussions and testing ideas is essential to the health of the Bitshares community and ensuring our competitive edge.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Some interesting responses here.

I think we are approaching a tipping point for BitShares.

[lzr1900]

谈钱之前，咱能先把内盘大姨妈治好吗？

内盘大姨妈已经止住了

[BTSdac]

you gays do not know marketing  ,stupid discussing

[fuzzy]

Are the shareholders likely to prioritise keeping BitShares free, open and anonymous?

That is a fantastic question and cuts to the very heart of our corrupt society.

Rhetorical question:

What do shareholders in traditional companies vote for? (short term profit or long term profit)

I'd imagine it depends, but is skewed generally toward short-term. 

[role]

谈钱之前，咱能先把内盘大姨妈治好吗？

[Method-X]

Are the shareholders likely to prioritise keeping BitShares free, open and anonymous?

That is a fantastic question and cuts to the very heart of our corrupt society.

Rhetorical question:

What do shareholders in traditional companies vote for? (short term profit or long term profit)

[Permie]

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!

Evolution is an iterative process. Getting it right on the first attempt is nearly impossible. To have the best product out there and outpace the competition, Bitshares needs to be agile and focused on always improving the product as well as the market rules. Liquidity and 3rd party development will come naturally if Bitshares is the best offer out there, creating a whole ecosystem around the plaform. That's when network effect will start to have a significant impact. At that point, "Powered by Bitshares" will be a sign people will look at with confidence and trust.

But that scenario won't and can't happen if Bitshares' stakeholders automatically vote against what might be good ideas, in fear that change might have a negative impact on their investment. I, too, took a hit with the merger. But as I said, getting it right on the first attempt is nearly impossible, and only those who evolve ultimately survive.

Stan!

So long as we don't stray so far from our principles that we cease to further the cause of financial freedom for all in favor of "the greatest profit / broadest adoption".

I agree, "you gotta do what you gotta do to survive", but if you can't survive while sticking to your goals & principles, what's the point? IMO you're just paper in the wind, going here & there not by your own will but rather by the will others impose on you that you acquiesce to. Yet it's not easy to know how to strike the proper balance.

I tend to think that if everything this ecosystem is to become is left solely up to shareholders (with BM / Stan / Devs only there to implement what shareholders dictate), it will become just another heavily regulated, mainstream tool that would accomplish very little towards the goal of financial freedom for everyone.

However, I do believe proposal voting is a very important tool and should be implemented. When is debatable, and how / who will control of the proposals is also an important consideration.

I myself would like to see a proposal / voting system that provides formal, qualitative and quantitative information about proposals. Many people have put forth their ideas on how to do this. I believe shareholder input should be considered with more weight than it has been in the past, but not so much that it completely dictates and defines what the BitShares ecosystem is. I say this to convey that my confidence is much greater in BM than in the shareholders, of which I have little idea who the major players are or what principles guide them. I am more willing to trust BM because I am more informed of the principles that guide his decisions, which in general I agree with, so I would like him & his team to still have a strong, dominant role in the trajectory of this ecosystem.

I see a well thought out proposal system as being necessary in BitShares' evolution. It would be a very useful tool in the hands of an open minded management team to help guide them and make informed decisions, as well as fostering a spirit of community, and empowerment to individuals to influence what BitShares is.

The principles upon which the BitShares ecosystem was started, are the same principles that started bitcoin, are the same as those that fueled this ecosystem's growth, and will continue to motivate it's continued growth and evolution into the future, if necessary by fork and redeployment as a new ecosystem if need be. You can't extinguish the inner craving for freedom.

Does anybody know who the major stakeholders are likely to be?
I'm wondering if they invested in Dan's vision for Bitshares or merely as a profit-seeking investment.
Are the shareholders likely to prioritise keeping BitShares free, open and anonymous?

[Thom]

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!

Evolution is an iterative process. Getting it right on the first attempt is nearly impossible. To have the best product out there and outpace the competition, Bitshares needs to be agile and focused on always improving the product as well as the market rules. Liquidity and 3rd party development will come naturally if Bitshares is the best offer out there, creating a whole ecosystem around the plaform. That's when network effect will start to have a significant impact. At that point, "Powered by Bitshares" will be a sign people will look at with confidence and trust.

But that scenario won't and can't happen if Bitshares' stakeholders automatically vote against what might be good ideas, in fear that change might have a negative impact on their investment. I, too, took a hit with the merger. But as I said, getting it right on the first attempt is nearly impossible, and only those who evolve ultimately survive.

Stan!

So long as we don't stray so far from our principles that we cease to further the cause of financial freedom for all in favor of "the greatest profit / broadest adoption".

I agree, "you gotta do what you gotta do to survive", but if you can't survive while sticking to your goals & principles, what's the point? IMO you're just paper in the wind, going here & there not by your own will but rather by the will others impose on you that you acquiesce to. Yet it's not easy to know how to strike the proper balance.

I tend to think that if everything this ecosystem is to become is left solely up to shareholders (with BM / Stan / Devs only there to implement what shareholders dictate), it will become just another heavily regulated, mainstream tool that would accomplish very little towards the goal of financial freedom for everyone.

However, I do believe proposal voting is a very important tool and should be implemented. When is debatable, and how / who will control of the proposals is also an important consideration.

I myself would like to see a proposal / voting system that provides formal, qualitative and quantitative information about proposals. Many people have put forth their ideas on how to do this. I believe shareholder input should be considered with more weight than it has been in the past, but not so much that it completely dictates and defines what the BitShares ecosystem is. I say this to convey that my confidence is much greater in BM than in the shareholders, of which I have little idea who the major players are or what principles guide them. I am more willing to trust BM because I am more informed of the principles that guide his decisions, which in general I agree with, so I would like him & his team to still have a strong, dominant role in the trajectory of this ecosystem.

I see a well thought out proposal system as being necessary in BitShares' evolution. It would be a very useful tool in the hands of an open minded management team to help guide them and make informed decisions, as well as fostering a spirit of community, and empowerment to individuals to influence what BitShares is.

The principles upon which the BitShares ecosystem was started, are the same principles that started bitcoin, are the same as those that fueled this ecosystem's growth, and will continue to motivate it's continued growth and evolution into the future, if necessary by fork and redeployment as a new ecosystem if need be. You can't extinguish the inner craving for freedom.

[Chuckone]

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!

Evolution is an iterative process. Getting it right on the first attempt is nearly impossible. To have the best product out there and outpace the competition, Bitshares needs to be agile and focused on always improving the product as well as the market rules. Liquidity and 3rd party development will come naturally if Bitshares is the best offer out there, creating a whole ecosystem around the plaform. That's when network effect will start to have a significant impact. At that point, "Powered by Bitshares" will be a sign people will look at with confidence and trust.

But that scenario won't and can't happen if Bitshares' stakeholders automatically vote against what might be good ideas, in fear that change might have a negative impact on their investment. I, too, took a hit with the merger. But as I said, getting it right on the first attempt is nearly impossible, and only those who evolve ultimately survive.

[nomoreheroes7]

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!

This. Adapt and evolve, or stagnate and die. It's that simple.

Gotta do what you gotta do.