Author Topic: BTS  (Read 7395 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline freedom

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

Offline EstefanTT

I like it more this way, just for proposals.

I think this poll should come after another asking people if they think it's a good idea.

Somethink like :

O - yes, ASAP
O - no, never
O - let's discuss it afterthe release of bts 2.0

When I read that, I feel like it's been already decided.

IMHO, it's a good idea but I feel there is no need to rush it.
Bit20, the cryptocurrency index fund http://www.bittwenty.com
(BitShares French ConneXion - www.bitsharesfcx.com)

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
almost no-one is going to burn their funds without a certain agenda. and do we want people to have the power alone to force their proposals?

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
I also put x10 but as I don't know the bts distribution per person, like Ander, I feel it's a bit of a guess.

Also, burning should be awarded more votes than locking up. Can we have both?

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
In effort to become profitable, and supply users with more degrees of freedom than any other community, Bytemaster just let us know that we can "sell hard fork votes" (votes on proposals)(not votes for delegates or parameter changes) by either burning BTS, or locking BTS up for a pre-determined period.   

Such an initiative would only affect "which proposals get funded next" while simultaneously funding development and temporarily reducing BTS supply.  Since these additional purchased votes cannot be used to elect the delegates that set the proposals in motion, or vote on changing any internal parameters (both of which could potentially steer BitShares in a negative direction), there cannot be any negative influence on the system becasue the community obviously supports each and every proposal to some degree otherwise the delegates would be fired.

This is just another way that we can monetize the time and money of our community that does not create any avenue for bad actors to hurt our community.

Here are BM's own words from an initial thread I created without knowing that BM could indeed limit the purchased votes to"

"just allowing them to be applied to the proposal voting process"

(and not actually be used for delegate or parameter voting both of which are critical to the security of the system)

"Proposal voting" is like choosing which flavor of ice cream you want:  one positive and harmless outcome vs another positive and harmless, but different, outcome.

We can set the parameters based on the cost of one or more proposal votes.

You can also vote to "defund a worker" at any time.   

The examples in the OP are not realistic unless you are referring to a hard-fork decision.   But even that requires massive consensus prior to, during, and after.   

It really comes down to this:

1. what is the value of a vote?
2. what is the value of locking up funds?

If we knew the value of a "vote", then we could simply sell additional votes in exchange for burned stake.    Someone with 100M BTS may be willing to burn 1M BTS to double their vote it it will cause their remaining 99M BTS to rise in value or prevent it from falling in value.   

Locking up funds means the individual looses liquidity, which has some non-0 value.   If everyone with BTS was forced to lock up their funds for 90 days except delegate pay, then delegate pay would be the only source of liquid BTS which would make it more valuable.   Hence, locking up funds has some non-0 value to those with liquid funds.   It would be like EtherCoin being valued higher than ETH because it was liquid while ETH was not.   

So shareholders have to balance these complex valuations when they set policy.   

If we pay people to lock up funds today it can increase the potential purchasing power of the funds we pay to witnesses/delegates/workers today.   In effect, is paying interest to borrow money from the future.
assuming you refer to the last mumble hangout with BM wasn't the proposal to get more votes for locking up BTS instead of for selling them?


Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Given that it is only for votes on proposals, and thus it cannot really be used for an attack very well, this could probably work and help reduce BTS supply.   I like burning better than just locking up, it has a lot more impact I think.   People who lock up were those who didnt expect to want to sell anyway.

The correct answer is the one that maximizes profit (incentivizes people enough that they want to burn, but not so much that they can just burn a tiny amount and get what they want), and also doesn't allow fraudulent activities like setting up a bad proposal to get paid X shares for doing nothing and then voting it in by burning less than X shares.  (This probably cant happen unless the multiple is very large).

I voted 10x as a guess at what would work well, but I really dont know.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline BitcoinJesus2.O

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
BTS
 :)
« Last Edit: March 09, 2018, 05:41:19 am by BitcoinJesus2.O »