CONTRACT STARTED FOR PHASE 1 & 2 COMPLETION!

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

All I am asking for is to be explicit and transparent.

You said it will be a public service. What does that mean? See the more specific questions I asked above again below:
 

Can you be more clear an explicit about who the referral commissions will go to: You said they will go to miners / they will in the end be added to the bonus payout. Will 100% of the referral commission go to miners? I think the questions in the end is where will profits go when actual profits are made (when it doesn't make any sense to further increase the efficiency of the pool)?

I already answer this here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18253.msg233403.html#msg233403

You said this

The benefits go to all the miners who refer through that wallet provider and the wallet provider is using its profits to make up the bonus payouts instead of the delegate pay.

That didn't clear things up for me.

Then I said this:

Without getting into specific breakdowns, the answer implies that not 100% goes to the referring miner. It is obviously in our interest to want to have the refer be attractive, but in order to generate a margin in order to maintain payouts and bonuses that are competitive we need this as another source. We still don't know what the metrics will be like after 2.0 launch. So until then, I can't even give an accurate breakdown of what % of refer bonus makes it viable to the pool. It is just one source of potential income as another way to squeeze profits out of the pool for bonuses without a network fee.

[santaclause102]

All I am asking for is to be explicit and transparent.

You said it will be a public service. What does that mean? See the more specific questions I asked above again below:
 

Can you be more clear an explicit about who the referral commissions will go to: You said they will go to miners / they will in the end be added to the bonus payout. Will 100% of the referral commission go to miners? I think the questions in the end is where will profits go when actual profits are made (when it doesn't make any sense to further increase the efficiency of the pool)?

I already answer this here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18253.msg233403.html#msg233403

You said this

The benefits go to all the miners who refer through that wallet provider and the wallet provider is using its profits to make up the bonus payouts instead of the delegate pay.

That didn't clear things up for me.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

All I am asking for is to be explicit and transparent.

You said it will be a public service. What does that mean? See the more specific questions I asked above again below:
 

Can you be more clear an explicit about who the referral commissions will go to: You said they will go to miners / they will in the end be added to the bonus payout. Will 100% of the referral commission go to miners? I think the questions in the end is where will profits go when actual profits are made (when it doesn't make any sense to further increase the efficiency of the pool)?

I already answer this here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18253.msg233403.html#msg233403

The benefits go to all the miners who refer through that wallet provider and the wallet provider is using its profits to make up the bonus payouts instead of the delegate pay.

Without getting into specific breakdowns, the answer implies that not 100% goes to the referring miner. It is obviously in our interest to want to have the refer be attractive, but in order to generate a margin in order to maintain payouts and bonuses that are competitive we need this as another source. We still don't know what the metrics will be like after 2.0 launch. So until then, I can't even give an accurate breakdown of what % of refer bonus makes it viable to the pool. It is just one source of potential income as another way to squeeze profits out of the pool for bonuses without a network fee.

The other open question is:

I wouldn't worry if you only had the 7 delegates until next month! But you know how long it takes to vote delegates in AND OUT... Would you step up and ask shareholders to vote out your delegate after that month? If that is an argument you should make that promise explicit.

Overall I am just asking to make things as explicit as possible to shareholders can hold you accountable for things etc.

How soon that happens really depends on how quickly we can move to Phase 3 to become self sustaining. I have already stated how much is being spent on this update (which accounts for the next 6 weeks of delegate pay of all current delegates assuming the stay voted in), and following it we are still reliant on delegate pay to grow, and the pool is still a money loser for us operating it, because it continues to only feed into BitShares.

It's an important milestone though. Will be something nice the community can point others too.. other than 2.0 itself at least.

Phase 3 development is a whole new system to addon to this. My current projections anticipate 2-3 of the delegates completely dedicated to bonus payouts and growth while the others save up bts to complete Phase 3 which would take 4-7 weeks to completion from initial estimates. This doesn't include in-between time where we also have to update for 2.0. With the additional delegates being voted in, the time to getting started on that phase will come faster. With market cap going up, time to that will also come faster.

You are asking me to give you a bulls-eye on a fast moving target essentially. Dealing with votes and BTS market cap, I only have so much space to operate within some degree of expected funding. I have already taken a huge risk in pulling the trigger now to get dev underway, but there seems to be this perception that soon as you are voted in you suddenly have millions of BTS that actually doesn't exist yet. If the delegates had been voted in when we first made the bid.. we would have already had phase 3 development done and would probably be driving the vast majority of volume in bitshares today... but we had these phantom delusions of dilution that held it all back... perhaps we needed to the market cap to go as bad as it has to get people considering this? Maybe something else.

To further clarify.. soon as we launch Phase 3, we would likely require one more month with the delegates in order to transition and make a push for more users, and get the miner index established. Once the stats show we are in the black for at least two weeks consistent, I would then exit the delegates. Will reduce them to 3% and give two weeks notice of shutdown. If we are at that stage, the pool would be bringing in somewhere in the neighbourhood of 54 million BTS monthly and growing that would provide liquidity to multiple bitasset markets. Delegate pay in total would have been roughly close to 6 million BTS all in with a good portion going back in bonuses... again though.. changing market cap could change all this.

This volume projection could change however if we included ETH. Looking at that opportunity could mean some significant volume. Depends though if it can be budgeted in. The two delegates still not voted in could possibly make that viable to addon to our current dev.

[santaclause102]

Thanks Jonathan for your answer (avoiding to quote it to save some space).

My overall take on delegates is: In my opinion elmato and bitsharesblocks should not receive their delegate pay anymore since there is now the option to make the development of a wallet a profitable business. At the time they were voted in though there was no referral program. Apart form that itis of strategic importance that core developers (svk, not elmato) / cryptonomex stakeholders hold substantial amounts of bitshares to align interests, that is why I wouldnt vote out svk or other core devs (in the end they also make a private profit with cryptonomex....). 

So, this isn't about active or non-active delegates you been on a rampage about. We are at least two months out from the launch of 2.0, what if it takes even a bit longer than that? You are making decisions about positions about something that isn't even here. People are working NOW... bills and costs are involved NOW.. not after 2.0 comes. This is flawed reasoning.

At the time anybody is voted in today.. there is STILL no referral program either. If we follow this reasoning of operating today based on what may or may not come into existence months from now, well then we might as well just close up shop because if we follow that reasoning to the very end.. we should have nothing but 3% delegates in the 101 TODAY regardless of what function a 100% delegate brings to the network. Sorry devs and all others working for the blockchain, you're fired until 2.0. Now get back to work. 

They had several months of delegate pay to produce results several months later.
We have several delegates now, and producing results next month.

I wouldn't worry if you only had the 7 delegates until next month! But you know how long it takes to vote delegates in AND OUT... Would you step up and ask shareholders to vote out your delegate after that month? If that is an argument you should make that promise explicit.

You are talking about voting them out NOW.. not a month from now. You have stated you are removing your support NOW.. not a month from now. You're reasoning in the previous response was we are living in 2.0 land today. Now you are reasoning that today we are in 1.0 land and getting people voted out is so hard. Which is it? It's easy to reduce a 100% delegate down to 3%. Takes a few key strokes. If the people still like all the volumes, new users, transactions, and market cap we bring and the little 0.1% dilution brings back to BitShares multiples of all that, where is the rub?

I like to get clarification about something in the logic being used here. If we choose to, I could very well just say "hey, look at all the BTS volume etc we are pumping into BitShares through this. Look at the liquidity we are providing to ALL the BitAssets that are going to help BTS grow... this increases our market cap and improves everything for all shareholders.. put more delegate money into this and we keep going and do more of it. We are hired by the blockchain!" ... It seems only because I have designed an exit strategy to not rely on the delegate forever, you have concluded we should not get it to begin with. It suggests that if we choose not to step up and find a way off the Delegate pay, your conclusion would be to support this because it does in fact benefit all shareholders in a very direct and clear way. Only because I found a path from loss to gain and to save BitShares the cost of dilution, we should somehow suddenly take a losing pool and start pour more of our own money into it be denied any access to delegate funds that, as I already stated, do nothing but benefit BitShares. This is how it comes across. The assumption that my own money hasn't and isn't going into the pools dev and operations is also false.

I'd be on the fence to support 1 or 2 delegates for bts-mining if this there was no private profit in the end. 7 delegates for who knows how long is definitely too much given that there is the superior option is finance it as an entrepreneurial effort.

The benefits go to all the miners who refer through that wallet provider and the wallet provider is using its profits to make up the bonus payouts instead of the delegate pay.

Can you be more clear an explicit about who the referral commissions will go to: You said they will go to miners / they will in the end be added to the bonus payout. Will 100% of the referral commission go to miners? I think the questions in the end is where will profits go when actual profits are made (when it doesn't make any sense to further increase the efficiency of the pool)?

Say we take this reasoning path and decide you are right.

Kill the pool today, shut it down. Stop all dev, money is all gone.

All delegates are taken offline so you can vote in someone else.

This is essentially what you are arguing for isn't it?

At this stage, I have stated this is a public service. We have no reason to continue to lose money and invest hours everyday other than a desire to keep it going as a benefit to BitShares.

You are arguing that with 2.0 coming, and the opportunities it may or may not afford to the project THEN, we should pull the plug NOW.

Let's follow this reasoning and do just that. Ok.. we are gone. Please give us detailed numbers on how the removal of this project has improved BitShares more than when and what it is providing. This will be the ultimate deciding factor in whatever this arguement you are making really is all about. We have already demonstrated that the amount as it stands now is barely enough, yet provides returns in multiples. So weather its 1-2-7 delegates makes no difference.  Everything else is just dancing around details.

Please provide detailed numbers that demonstrate this position to be superior in order to help voters make transparent and rational decisions in their voting. If you are right, then we need to reverse course right now.

Looking forward to your reply.

All I am asking for is to be explicit and transparent.

You said it will be a public service. What does that mean? See the more specific questions I asked above again below:
 

Can you be more clear an explicit about who the referral commissions will go to: You said they will go to miners / they will in the end be added to the bonus payout. Will 100% of the referral commission go to miners? I think the questions in the end is where will profits go when actual profits are made (when it doesn't make any sense to further increase the efficiency of the pool)?

The other open question is:

I wouldn't worry if you only had the 7 delegates until next month! But you know how long it takes to vote delegates in AND OUT... Would you step up and ask shareholders to vote out your delegate after that month? If that is an argument you should make that promise explicit.

Overall I am just asking to make things as explicit as possible to shareholders can hold you accountable for things etc.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Thanks Jonathan for your answer (avoiding to quote it to save some space).

My overall take on delegates is: In my opinion elmato and bitsharesblocks should not receive their delegate pay anymore since there is now the option to make the development of a wallet a profitable business. At the time they were voted in though there was no referral program. Apart form that itis of strategic importance that core developers (svk, not elmato) / cryptonomex stakeholders hold substantial amounts of bitshares to align interests, that is why I wouldnt vote out svk or other core devs (in the end they also make a private profit with cryptonomex....). 

So, this isn't about active or non-active delegates you been on a rampage about. We are at least two months out from the launch of 2.0, what if it takes even a bit longer than that? You are making decisions on positions in the 101 with something that isn't even here. People are working NOW... bills and costs are involved NOW.. not after 2.0 comes. This is flawed reasoning.

At this time anybody is voted in today.. there is STILL no referral program either. If we follow this reasoning of operating today based on what may or may not come into existence months from now, well then we might as well just close up shop because if we follow that reasoning to the very end.. we should have nothing but 3% delegates in the 101 TODAY regardless of what function a 100% delegate brings to the network. Sorry devs and all others working for the blockchain, you're fired until 2.0. Now get back to work. 

They had several months of delegate pay to produce results several months later.
We have several delegates now, and producing results next month.

I wouldn't worry if you only had the 7 delegates until next month! But you know how long it takes to vote delegates in AND OUT... Would you step up and ask shareholders to vote out your delegate after that month? If that is an argument you should make that promise explicit.

You are talking about voting them out NOW.. not a month from now. You have stated you are removing your support NOW.. not a month from now. You're reasoning in the previous response was we are living in 2.0 land today. Now you are reasoning that today we are in 1.0 land and getting people voted out is so hard. Which is it? It's easy to reduce a 100% delegate down to 3%. Takes a few key strokes. If the people still like all the volumes, new users, transactions, and market cap we bring and the little 0.1% dilution brings back to BitShares multiples of all that, where is the rub?

I like to get clarification about something in the logic being used here. If we choose to, I could very well just say "hey, look at all the BTS volume etc we are pumping into BitShares through this. Look at the liquidity we are providing to ALL the BitAssets that are going to help BTS grow... this increases our market cap and improves everything for all shareholders.. put more delegate money into this and we keep going and do more of it. We are hired by the blockchain!" ... It seems only because I have designed an exit strategy to not rely on the delegate forever, you have concluded we should not get it to begin with. It suggests that if we choose not to step up and find a way off the Delegate pay, your conclusion would be to support this because it does in fact benefit all shareholders in a very direct and clear way. Only because I found a path from loss to gain and to save BitShares the cost of dilution, we should somehow suddenly take a losing pool and start pour more of our own money into it be denied any access to delegate funds that, as I already stated, do nothing but benefit BitShares. This is how it comes across. The assumption that my own money hasn't and isn't going into the pools dev and operations is also false.

I'd be on the fence to support 1 or 2 delegates for bts-mining if this there was no private profit in the end. 7 delegates for who knows how long is definitely too much given that there is the superior option is finance it as an entrepreneurial effort.

The benefits go to all the miners who refer through that wallet provider and the wallet provider is using its profits to make up the bonus payouts instead of the delegate pay.

Can you be more clear an explicit about who the referral commissions will go to: You said they will go to miners / they will in the end be added to the bonus payout. Will 100% of the referral commission go to miners? I think the questions in the end is where will profits go when actual profits are made (when it doesn't make any sense to further increase the efficiency of the pool)?

Say we take this reasoning path and decide you are right.

Kill the pool today, shut it down. Stop all dev, money is all gone.

All delegates are taken offline so you can vote in someone else.

This is essentially what you are arguing for isn't it?

At this stage, I have stated this is a public service. We have no reason to continue to lose money and invest hours everyday other than a desire to keep it going as a benefit to BitShares.

You are arguing that with 2.0 coming, and the opportunities it may or may not afford to the project THEN, we should pull the plug NOW.

Let's follow this reasoning and do just that. Ok.. we are gone. Please give us detailed numbers on how the removal of this project has improved BitShares more than when and what it is providing. This will be the ultimate deciding factor in whatever this arguement you are making really is all about. We have already demonstrated that the amount as it stands now is barely enough, yet provides returns in multiples. So weather its 1-2-7 delegates makes no difference.  Everything else is just dancing around details.

Please provide detailed numbers that demonstrate this position to be superior in order to help voters make transparent and rational decisions in their voting. If you are right, then we need to reverse course right now.

Looking forward to your reply.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

PS what about ETH mining? Please do it !

I decide to hold off on it.. they maybe moving to POS so it would be a huge waste of resources at this stage. Also they are rather buggy at present. I also been getting feedback from some who have been mining it that the profitability on it is not good either. So for our miners it may not be good.

I totally get the interest. It's why I been considering it. The technical reality of it though is not so attractive.

They will move to POS after 12-18 months
I had no issues with mining and in general I see no complains from their community. Difficulty is rising (8.0T)so the hash rate (over 400 GH/s) in a short period of time (big demand)
About profitability that's not our business, they clearly want to mine this "coin" (clearly they are speculating about the increased future price).
There is clearly a growing/increasing demand to mine ETH (just look hashrate increase https://www.etherchain.org/  )
I would definitely love to mine ETH on a pool that reward's bitASSET's
It's a big opportunity now since the ether pools are only 2 ( popular)  and because of the dangerous hash concentration on them many would flow to our pool for security reasons also
And don't forget that for now there are many solo miners that will be forced the next months (weeks?) to choose a mining pool. It's our greatest opportunity to have our doors open!
And don't forget that we want ethereum lovers to have the bitshares experience in practice. We would convince many of them that bitshares is a good investment only because we gave them the opportunity to use our platform!

Now it is still profitable to do it... In 6 months from now of course not (lost half period & "first" mover advantage)...

These are compelling reasons.. I knew they were switching but not that far out.

What we have budged already is barely enough for what we are working on now. It might make more sense for me to have it reviewed closer to the end of the dev so that by then they will have a more realistic idea of how much more work it is going to take to include it.

If it's going to get done in any timely fashion we likely would need the 2 additional delegates voted in.. I can see how this could be a huge driver for ETH followers to start moving to our pool.. even for just decentralization of the mining. What an ironic twist that would be... and a huge volume driver for BitShares.

[nethyb]

...
Here are some of the major updates that will be completed:
[/size]

• A shiny new updated design
• 18 of the most profitable coins will be made available including support for sha256, script, x11, and quark
• Backend of mining pool updated with new code and mining techniques to improve profitability
• Multipool Mining enabled including pools like Nicehash
• Upstream pool proxy mining enabled
• Improved Stratum port DDoS protection
• Updated code and security measures
• Website Translated to other languages including Manderin, Hindi, Spanish, Russian to expand market reach
• Miner Payout Lookups
• Miner Real Time Hash Rate stats along with estimated daily payouts
• Automated Daily Payouts that incorporate dynamic ‘highest profitability’ bonus to payouts.
• Allow miners the flexibility to choose the BitAasset currency in which they get paid
• The major assets they can get paid in include: BTS, bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY, bitGold, bitSilver, bitCAD, bitGBP, bitBTC, bitLTC

 

WOW - This will be a heroic effort to develop in two months! Congrats on finding the great devs.

Can't wait to give the new pool a spin with the TITAN...

[liondani]

PS what about ETH mining? Please do it !

I decide to hold off on it.. they maybe moving to POS so it would be a huge waste of resources at this stage. Also they are rather buggy at present. I also been getting feedback from some who have been mining it that the profitability on it is not good either. So for our miners it may not be good.

I totally get the interest. It's why I been considering it. The technical reality of it though is not so attractive.

They will move to POS after 12-18 months
I had no issues with mining and in general I see no complains from their community. Difficulty is rising (8.0T)so the hash rate (over 400 GH/s) in a short period of time (big demand)
About profitability that's not our business, they clearly want to mine this "coin" (clearly they are speculating about the increased future price).
There is clearly a growing/increasing demand to mine ETH (just look hashrate increase https://www.etherchain.org/  )
I would definitely love to mine ETH on a pool that reward's bitASSET's
It's a big opportunity now since the ether pools are only 2 ( popular)  and because of the dangerous hash concentration on them many would flow to our pool for security reasons also
And don't forget that for now there are many solo miners that will be forced the next months (weeks?) to choose a mining pool. It's our greatest opportunity to have our doors open!
And don't forget that we want ethereum lovers to have the bitshares experience in practice. We would convince many of them that bitshares is a good investment only because we gave them the opportunity to use our platform!

Now it is still profitable to do it... In 6 months from now of course not (lost half period & "first" mover advantage)...

[santaclause102]

Thanks Jonathan for your answer (avoiding to quote it to save some space).

My overall take on delegates is: In my opinion elmato and bitsharesblocks should not receive their delegate pay anymore since there is now the option to make the development of a wallet a profitable business. At the time they were voted in though there was no referral program. Apart form that itis of strategic importance that core developers (svk, not elmato) / cryptonomex stakeholders hold substantial amounts of bitshares to align interests, that is why I wouldnt vote out svk or other core devs (in the end they also make a private profit with cryptonomex....). 

They had several months of delegate pay to produce results several months later.
We have several delegates now, and producing results next month.

I wouldn't worry if you only had the 7 delegates until next month! But you know how long it takes to vote delegates in AND OUT... Would you step up and ask shareholders to vote out your delegate after that month? If that is an argument you should make that promise explicit.

I like to get clarification about something in the logic being used here. If we choose to, I could very well just say "hey, look at all the BTS volume etc we are pumping into BitShares through this. Look at the liquidity we are providing to ALL the BitAssets that are going to help BTS grow... this increases our market cap and improves everything for all shareholders.. put more delegate money into this and we keep going and do more of it. We are hired by the blockchain!" ... It seems only because I have designed an exit strategy to not rely on the delegate forever, you have concluded we should not get it to begin with. It suggests that if we choose not to step up and find a way off the Delegate pay, your conclusion would be to support this because it does in fact benefit all shareholders in a very direct and clear way. Only because I found a path from loss to gain and to save BitShares the cost of dilution, we should somehow suddenly take a losing pool and start pour more of our own money into it be denied any access to delegate funds that, as I already stated, do nothing but benefit BitShares. This is how it comes across. The assumption that my own money hasn't and isn't going into the pools dev and operations is also false.

I'd be on the fence to support 1 or 2 delegates for bts-mining if this there was no private profit in the end. 7 delegates for who knows how long is definitely too much given that there is the superior option is finance it as an entrepreneurial effort.

The benefits go to all the miners who refer through that wallet provider and the wallet provider is using its profits to make up the bonus payouts instead of the delegate pay.

Can you be more clear an explicit about who the referral commissions will go to: You said they will go to miners / they will in the end be added to the bonus payout. Will 100% of the referral commission go to miners? I think the questions in the end is where will profits go when actual profits are made (when it doesn't make any sense to further increase the efficiency of the pool)?

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

PS what about ETH mining? Please do it !

I decide to hold off on it.. they maybe moving to POS so it would be a huge waste of resources at this stage. Also they are rather buggy at present. I also been getting feedback from some who have been mining it that the profitability on it is not good either. So for our miners it may not be good.

I totally get the interest. It's why I been considering it. The technical reality of it though is not so attractive.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Just out of curiosity do you know how many votes were you waiting for to put you over the edge?

That's difficult to answer because it is constantly changing. I know at one point we were just 120k bts away from being in the 101 with an additional delegate. Generally though from the 101 to 102 it is often a difference of over 1 million bts. For example as I write this, media.bitscape has been dropping and they are now sitting at 100. If they lose 2.5 million more BTS votes, we will have our minebts2 delegate voted back in.

On the other hand.. we can have minebts2 and minebts6 GAIN 2.5 million BTS more votes.. and then that will also drop media.bitscape out of the 101.

The voting space is dynamic and changing day to day especially if you are hanging around the lower regions of the 101. Others that rocket to +50 positions have more than 100 million additional BTS votes solidifying their positions.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Once we get these updates complete we will be the most profitable multipool for miners!

I guess that the whole superb profitability argument of the pool depends on the substitution that is paid from the delegate pay and not because of the superb technology. Or am I getting this wrong?

A bit of both. Pool profits are relative to a number of factors, including the size of the mining pool. The bigger the better. Which is why you see a lot of small pools startup and die so quickly.. because miners can find better payouts at other pools that are bigger and or charge less fees etc. Most pools payout in straight BTC/LTC with little cost. Paying out in bitAssets however is not without added cost in comparison.

At that time we will be updating the pool to incorporate the BunkerDEX to increase the pools profitability and bringing additional features so that we no longer need to rely on the delegate pay. We also will become a wallet provider at that stage as part of our delegate exit strategy

That sounds great to me Sounds like entrepreneurship.
THEN THE LEGETIMATE QUESTION IS: If bitshares-mining in the end benefits the one operating this wallet provider, why should all the costs in developing this be paid by all bitshares holders through delegate pay?

The benefits go to all the miners who refer through that wallet provider and the wallet provider is using its profits to make up the bonus payouts instead of the delegate pay. This project started out of personal sacrifice to support the growth of BitShares. I took it over so that it didn't die and then I did what I do and created a plan to make it something sustainable and profitable instead of a money loser, which is all it is now. I have already detailed in my previous response the various issues with utilizing BitShares for mining that make it's value proposition challenging and makes little sense to anyone attempting to create a competitive and sustainable mining pool. Therefore at this stage, the mining pool has to be viewed as a public service that is supported by the community. It exists only to grow the community and benefit everyone, except the operator at this point.

With JUST the mining activity, not factoring in other usage and more community, and votes etc., each miner contributes a total of 51,345 BTS of volume to BitShares for every 2700 BTS spent on them. This is all calculated based on our current terrible market cap. Even with an improved market cap, the numbers still show astronomical value for each miner we bring to BitShares.

1 Delegate has a 100% capacity to support 51 Miners based on these averages. 140,000 BTS bonus spend brings in 2.62 million BTS volume per month. Take away even the collateralized volume created, and you still have 873,000 BTS for every 140,000 BTS Delegate spent.

This is all based on the assumption that no one every pays out anything. I would buy the argument that less than 5% will cash which makes it net money inflow to Bitshares. Agreed here. And thanks for the numbers!!

The Conclusion hinges on the question who the referral commission goes to that are generated in this whole process at some point.
I mean elmato and bitsharesblocks may end up doing that too but they don't have 7 delegates to fund development. I am convinced that such a for profit effort is best funded by investing own capital and delegate pay is put towards general infrastructure that generates revenue for shareholders. 

PS: I am trying to keep my answers as short and on point as possible so you can get the central argument quickly. It would help me if you tried the same so it's not about who can read and write more and the crucial arguments in the discussion are not lost. Shortness = transparency.

I thought I had included it as part of the mix, but in order to make the pool competitive and profitable with bonus pay that makes it the most profitable pool, I have to squeeze profitability out of anywhere that it can be had except for the the network fee. So the pool has to use it's refer bonuses as part of how it generates profitability for the entire pool, while providing bonuses to each miner that do the referring.

Lets compare apples to apples regarding elmato and bitsharesblocks then since you want to compare them to what we are doing:

elmato - How much has their one delegate provided them that is only today beginning to show us a wallet? - Over 1 million BTS

bitsharesblocks - Dispite generating profits from every trade, they provided a much needed channel as an on/off ramp for BTS. How much did that one delegate provide them since being elected? - Over 1.2 million BTS

They had several months of delegate pay to produce results several months later.

We have several delegates now, and producing results next month.

I like to get clarification about something in the logic being used here. If we choose to, I could very well just say "hey, look at all the BTS volume etc we are pumping into BitShares through this. Look at the liquidity we are providing to ALL the BitAssets that are going to help BTS grow... this increases our market cap and improves everything for all shareholders.. put more delegate money into this and we keep going and do more of it. We are hired by the blockchain!" ... It seems only because I have designed an exit strategy to not rely on the delegate forever, you have concluded we should not get it to begin with. It suggests that if we choose not to step up and find a way off the Delegate pay, your conclusion would be to support this because it does in fact benefit all shareholders in a very direct and clear way. Only because I found a path from loss to gain and to save BitShares the cost of dilution, we should somehow suddenly take a losing pool and start pour more of our own money into it be denied any access to delegate funds that, as I already stated, do nothing but benefit BitShares. This is how it comes across. The assumption that my own money hasn't and isn't going into the pools dev and operations is also false.

By the same reasoning.. bitsharesblocks and elmato should have never received the delegate pay that they did to use your example.. is this correct?

Is this your overall outlook regarding 'all' 100% delegates?

My answers are above in 12px + bold.

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

Just out of curiosity do you know how many votes were you waiting for to put you over the edge?

[santaclause102]

Once we get these updates complete we will be the most profitable multipool for miners!

I guess that the whole superb profitability argument of the pool depends on the substitution that is paid from the delegate pay and not because of the superb technology. Or am I getting this wrong?

At that time we will be updating the pool to incorporate the BunkerDEX to increase the pools profitability and bringing additional features so that we no longer need to rely on the delegate pay. We also will become a wallet provider at that stage as part of our delegate exit strategy

That sounds great to me Sounds like entrepreneurship.
THEN THE LEGETIMATE QUESTION IS: If bitshares-mining in the end benefits the one operating this wallet provider, why should all the costs in developing this be paid by all bitshares holders through delegate pay?

With JUST the mining activity, not factoring in other usage and more community, and votes etc., each miner contributes a total of 51,345 BTS of volume to BitShares for every 2700 BTS spent on them. This is all calculated based on our current terrible market cap. Even with an improved market cap, the numbers still show astronomical value for each miner we bring to BitShares.

1 Delegate has a 100% capacity to support 51 Miners based on these averages. 140,000 BTS bonus spend brings in 2.62 million BTS volume per month. Take away even the collateralized volume created, and you still have 873,000 BTS for every 140,000 BTS Delegate spent.

This is all based on the assumption that no one every pays out anything. I would buy the argument that less than 5% will cash which makes it net money inflow to Bitshares. Agreed here. And thanks for the numbers!!

The Conclusion hinges on the question who the referral commission goes to that are generated in this whole process at some point.
I mean elmato and bitsharesblocks may end up doing that too but they don't have 7 delegates to fund development. I am convinced that such a for profit effort is best funded by investing own capital and delegate pay is put towards general infrastructure that generates revenue for shareholders. 

PS: I am trying to keep my answers as short and on point as possible so you can get the central argument quickly. It would help me if you tried the same so it's not about who can read and write more and the crucial arguments in the discussion are not lost. Shortness = transparency.

I for one am glad they got voted in.  With that said, I love the idea that all projects getting funded by bitshares create their own UIA that gives a certain % to the community.  This would also be a Let's make it mutually beneficial in a clearly decentralized way.  The only concern I ever have is the one I bolded...and that is not to say data is not trustworthy or working hard. It is just to say that we should always be careful about anyone having too much control at any stage to development.  With DPOShub ownership (Are you part owner?) Along with minebitshares...that is a large % of the influence in the ecosystem. 
This is just based on my own philosophy though. 

Seriously think you guys should consider the UIA thought that helps spreads ownership to a community that helped make it happen by voting for the funds. This would also be a great thing to give some of the original community donators who put up funds to help get it started!

From this perspective, Elmato and svk could do something similar for their platforms.  I personally am interested in finding a way to do this as well for beyond bitcoin in the future.

Cryptoprometheus, though, seemed at least interested in this concept of giving a large portion of tokens to the community who pays for projects to be developed when I was talking to him about DPOShub.  Perhaps you could talk with him behind the scenes?

Sounds balanced.

In the end it's pretty simple: The profits should always go to those that provided the capital (bts holders) and the sweat (sometimes capital buys sweat sometimes sweat provides itself).
Spending other ppl's money and making all the profits is obviously not desirable. Maybe there is a terrible flaw in my thinking but I wonder how no one points this out (pretty obvious). I guess the reason is that Jonathan has a good general reputation.
However, you do it, it think it is mandatory to be explicit, transparent and up front with respect to these questions

[fuzzy]

Once we get these updates complete we will be the most profitable multipool for miners!

I guess that the whole superb profitability argument of the pool depends on the substitution that is paid from the delegate pay and not because of the superb technology. Or am I getting this wrong?

At that time we will be updating the pool to incorporate the BunkerDEX to increase the pools profitability and bringing additional features so that we no longer need to rely on the delegate pay. We also will become a wallet provider at that stage as part of our delegate exit strategy

That sounds great to me Sounds like entrepreneurship.
THEN THE LEGETIMATE QUESTION IS: If bitshares-mining in the end benefits the one operating this wallet provider, why should all the costs in developing this be paid by all bitshares holders through delegate pay?

With JUST the mining activity, not factoring in other usage and more community, and votes etc., each miner contributes a total of 51,345 BTS of volume to BitShares for every 2700 BTS spent on them. This is all calculated based on our current terrible market cap. Even with an improved market cap, the numbers still show astronomical value for each miner we bring to BitShares.

1 Delegate has a 100% capacity to support 51 Miners based on these averages. 140,000 BTS bonus spend brings in 2.62 million BTS volume per month. Take away even the collateralized volume created, and you still have 873,000 BTS for every 140,000 BTS Delegate spent.

This is all based on the assumption that no one every pays out anything. I would buy the argument that less than 5% will cash which makes it net money inflow to Bitshares. Agreed here. And thanks for the numbers!!

The Conclusion hinges on the question who the referral commission goes to that are generated in this whole process at some point.
I mean elmato and bitsharesblocks may end up doing that too but they don't have 7 delegates to fund development. I am convinced that such a for profit effort is best funded by investing own capital and delegate pay is put towards general infrastructure that generates revenue for shareholders. 

PS: I am trying to keep my answers as short and on point as possible so you can get the central argument quickly. It would help me if you tried the same so it's not about who can read and write more and the crucial arguments in the discussion are not lost. Shortness = transparency.

I for one am glad they got voted in.  With that said, I love the idea that all projects getting funded by bitshares create their own UIA that gives a certain % to the community.  This would also be a Let's make it mutually beneficial in a clearly decentralized way.  The only concern I ever have is the one I bolded...and that is not to say data is not trustworthy or working hard. It is just to say that we should always be careful about anyone having too much control at any stage to development.  With DPOShub ownership (Are you part owner?) Along with minebitshares...that is a large % of the influence in the ecosystem. 
This is just based on my own philosophy though. 

Seriously think you guys should consider the UIA thought that helps spreads ownership to a community that helped make it happen by voting for the funds. This would also be a great thing to give some of the original community donators who put up funds to help get it started!

From this perspective, Elmato and svk could do something similar for their platforms.  I personally am interested in finding a way to do this as well for beyond bitcoin in the future.

Cryptoprometheus, though, seemed at least interested in this concept of giving a large portion of tokens to the community who pays for projects to be developed when I was talking to him about DPOShub.  Perhaps you could talk with him behind the scenes?