Please vote my delegate down

[xeroc]

BTS (currency) would have value because it is scarce (being used as collateral)
BTS (shares) has value because you can drive the direction of the company

not sure how to deal with the profits. You could split them or give all of them to the shares. Eitherway, people would still want to own BTS (currency) because you could short assets with them.

A move to that scheme would also be possible by sharedropping on a 1:1 basis and handing out a BTS currency to every BTS in existence atm.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

We already have vote decay coming with 2.0. So there really is no need to create a split class. You either participate actively or you don't... and if you don't your vote decays. Or you trust in proxies to keep it fresh yourself.

I think we are going to see voting culture/technology evolve in ways people cannot imagine today.

does vote decay mean your amount of BTS goes down if you don't vote (and aren't proxied)? I must have missed that memo.

I agree, no need to create a split class. but I can totally see a bitBTS. it would be nice to be able to short bitBTS when corrections are due. also, creation of an asset pegged to BTS would reduce the amount of voter apathy because then people would go in knowing, "if I want to vote, buy BTS, if I just want to profit buy bitBTS."

Over time (last figure I recall it being is 6 months.. might be 12) after you cast your votes, if they are not refreshed or revoted again over time then the value of your vote declines.

So if someone got 10m bts.. and cast their votes and then forgot about it.. the power of the votes they cast will diminish over time to eventually not carry much if any influence unless and until they cast their vote again.

This is a relatively new feature that has been included in order to keep incumbent situations like we have now from happening.

[tonyk]

No I'm talking about running a company. Almost every single company in the world works like this.

Shareholders own and manage the company. Customers buy/use the products.

The customers of McDonalds/Starbucks/Apple/Barclays/etc.  don't want to run the company, they just want their Big Mac/Latte/Savings account.

I couldn't think of a better way to prove his point about creating an oligarchy if I tried.

We should definitely give proxy voting a chance.

Even if we did separate management from consumers, how would the initial split go down? Some people are buying for returns and some people are buying to hold. How would we decide who gets BTS and who gets bitBTS? Sounds like an uproar waiting to happen.

EDIT: upon thinking about it further. maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to make it so that if you're apathetic and non-proxied for x amount of months then your BTS becomes an equivalent amount of bitBTS.

We already have vote decay coming with 2.0. So there really is no need to create a split class. You either participate actively or you don't... and if you don't your vote decays. Or you trust in proxies to keep it fresh yourself.

I think we are going to see voting culture/technology evolve in ways people cannot imagine today.

The vote decay sounds interesting and may help address the issue.

No I'm talking about running a company. Almost every single company in the world works like this.

Shareholders own and manage the company. Customers buy/use the products.

The customers of McDonalds/Starbucks/Apple/Barclays/etc.  don't want to run the company, they just want their Big Mac/Latte/Savings account.

I couldn't think of a better way to prove his point about creating an oligarchy if I tried.

We should definitely give proxy voting a chance.

Even if we did separate management from consumers, how would the initial split go down? Some people are buying for returns and some people are buying to hold. How would we decide who gets BTS and who gets bitBTS? Sounds like an uproar waiting to happen.

EDIT: upon thinking about it further. maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to make it so that if you're apathetic and non-proxied for x amount of months then your BTS becomes an equivalent amount of bitBTS.

Yeah, I'm just observing that the average user of crypto-currency or any product, financial or otherwise just wants to use a great product & not be responsible for managing or securing the system behind it. As a result, as BTS becomes a popular, widely distributed currency, over time we'll probably see voter participation dropping or control centralising which could make the system less secure, meaning solutions may need to be found.

Some things like vote decay etc. may help address that.

I think it will help (you) greatly if you stop thinking of BTS a currency and in this regard - "So we want to attract millions of customers to use BTS for their crypto-currency needs " -Is not correct in my view.
We do need millions of users to use the BTS system (products, functionality) for their needs (crypto as you call them or otherwise). Most of them will never realize they are actually paying their fees in BTS. There will be a layer covering this from them.
The BTS investors (and so voters) will buy the BTS directly for the pure material interest in owning the stock, and not to acquire the right to use the services provided.

[Empirical1.2]

No I'm talking about running a company. Almost every single company in the world works like this.

Shareholders own and manage the company. Customers buy/use the products.

The customers of McDonalds/Starbucks/Apple/Barclays/etc.  don't want to run the company, they just want their Big Mac/Latte/Savings account.

I couldn't think of a better way to prove his point about creating an oligarchy if I tried.

We should definitely give proxy voting a chance.

Even if we did separate management from consumers, how would the initial split go down? Some people are buying for returns and some people are buying to hold. How would we decide who gets BTS and who gets bitBTS? Sounds like an uproar waiting to happen.

EDIT: upon thinking about it further. maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to make it so that if you're apathetic and non-proxied for x amount of months then your BTS becomes an equivalent amount of bitBTS.

We already have vote decay coming with 2.0. So there really is no need to create a split class. You either participate actively or you don't... and if you don't your vote decays. Or you trust in proxies to keep it fresh yourself.

I think we are going to see voting culture/technology evolve in ways people cannot imagine today.

The vote decay sounds interesting and may help address the issue.

No I'm talking about running a company. Almost every single company in the world works like this.

Shareholders own and manage the company. Customers buy/use the products.

The customers of McDonalds/Starbucks/Apple/Barclays/etc.  don't want to run the company, they just want their Big Mac/Latte/Savings account.

I couldn't think of a better way to prove his point about creating an oligarchy if I tried.

We should definitely give proxy voting a chance.

Even if we did separate management from consumers, how would the initial split go down? Some people are buying for returns and some people are buying to hold. How would we decide who gets BTS and who gets bitBTS? Sounds like an uproar waiting to happen.

EDIT: upon thinking about it further. maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to make it so that if you're apathetic and non-proxied for x amount of months then your BTS becomes an equivalent amount of bitBTS.

Yeah, I'm just observing that the average user of crypto-currency or any product, financial or otherwise just wants to use a great product & not be responsible for managing or securing the system behind it. As a result, as BTS becomes a popular, widely distributed currency, over time we'll probably see voter participation dropping or control centralising which could make the system less secure, meaning solutions may need to be found.

Some things like vote decay etc. may help address that. 

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

We already have vote decay coming with 2.0. So there really is no need to create a split class. You either participate actively or you don't... and if you don't your vote decays. Or you trust in proxies to keep it fresh yourself.

I think we are going to see voting culture/technology evolve in ways people cannot imagine today.

does vote decay mean your amount of BTS goes down if you don't vote (and aren't proxied)? I must have missed that memo.

I agree, no need to create a split class. but I can totally see a bitBTS. it would be nice to be able to short bitBTS when corrections are due. also, creation of an asset pegged to BTS would reduce the amount of voter apathy because then people would go in knowing, "if I want to vote, buy BTS, if I just want to profit buy bitBTS."

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

No I'm talking about running a company. Almost every single company in the world works like this.

Shareholders own and manage the company. Customers buy/use the products.

The customers of McDonalds/Starbucks/Apple/Barclays/etc.  don't want to run the company, they just want their Big Mac/Latte/Savings account.

I couldn't think of a better way to prove his point about creating an oligarchy if I tried.

We should definitely give proxy voting a chance.

Even if we did separate management from consumers, how would the initial split go down? Some people are buying for returns and some people are buying to hold. How would we decide who gets BTS and who gets bitBTS? Sounds like an uproar waiting to happen.

EDIT: upon thinking about it further. maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to make it so that if you're apathetic and non-proxied for x amount of months then your BTS becomes an equivalent amount of bitBTS.

We already have vote decay coming with 2.0. So there really is no need to create a split class. You either participate actively or you don't... and if you don't your vote decays. Or you trust in proxies to keep it fresh yourself.

I think we are going to see voting culture/technology evolve in ways people cannot imagine today.

[puppies]

I also think we should see what comes from proxy voting before changing anything else.  Wallet providers will be able to set up a default proxy vote, so ordinary users should never have to do anything unless they feel that proxy is not serving their interests. 

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

No I'm talking about running a company. Almost every single company in the world works like this.

Shareholders own and manage the company. Customers buy/use the products.

The customers of McDonalds/Starbucks/Apple/Barclays/etc.  don't want to run the company, they just want their Big Mac/Latte/Savings account.

I couldn't think of a better way to prove his point about creating an oligarchy if I tried.

We should definitely give proxy voting a chance.

Even if we did separate management from consumers, how would the initial split go down? Some people are buying for returns and some people are buying to hold. How would we decide who gets BTS and who gets bitBTS? Sounds like an uproar waiting to happen.

EDIT: upon thinking about it further. maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to make it so that if you're apathetic and non-proxied for x amount of months then your BTS becomes an equivalent amount of bitBTS.

[Empirical1.2]

We'll agree to disagree. Time will tell.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

voting by everyone is inefficient.

BTS probably needs a currency for lazy customers and shares for active shareholders.

Customers get a no inflation currency and & don't have to vote, pay for, or worry about development. (But they do pay transaction fees.)

Shareholders get a share that pays dividends from income but they have to actively vote (or they will lose shares) and obviously make BTS profitable.

So the you would use the currency as collateral right?

I'm not sure.

I think that long term expecting customers/users to actively manage BTS or any currency is not realistic.
The same way you wouldn't expect someone who bought a Big Mac or a pair of Nike to actively manage McDonalds or Nike.

Shareholders however can be expected to take an interest in return for potential dividends & growth.

So I do think BTS probably needs two units, a voting unit, designed to appeal to shareholders and a currency unit designed to appeal to customers. (Which lets millions of customers be completely lazy and just use BTS for its functionality without compromising the security of the system.)

You are talking about creating an oligarchy.. not exactly a freedom loving concept for what BitShares is supposed to be accomplishing.. 'for all'.

No I'm talking about running a company. Almost every single company in the world works like this.

Shareholders own and manage the company. Customers buy/use the products.

The customers of McDonalds/Starbucks/Apple/Barclays/etc.  don't want to run the company, they just want their Big Mac/Latte/Savings account.

Bitcoin/PayPal/Vault users want to save/spend/transfer their money they don't want to be responsible for the security, management and development of that company.

Regardless whether you agree with me, you'll see in practice, customers just want functionality, they don't want to vote, so the more popular & distributed BTS becomes the less people will be voting and the less secure & more vulnerable to attack BTS will be.

Anyway it's a medium term problem, and BTS is good at evolving, so I'm sure it will be able to adapt if it proves necessary.

Proxy voting should help with that I guess. What we could have is an introduction to the wallet when you access it and on top of saying things like it's risky to invest in BTS because it's volatile, we could also have a message pointing to the voting tab saying voting is an important right we have and to prevent people from not voting, that they can, if they want, delegate someone to vote for them. But everyone who does his due diligence before investing knows they have the power to vote and should do so

Yes that may help, though it may cause BitShares to become a bit more centralised around a few people.

Bitshares isn't a company though it's a community.

I don't quite understand the parallels illustrated here with companies and customers... it's suggesting an ownership and a consumer class.. but bitshares is where all of us are owners. The bottom line though is that nothing good comes from creating an elite class that disenfranchise the masses on the premise that they are 'too lazy' or too stupid to have a vote.

Liberty, Freedom, and Property for All.

The issues we face and have faced is primarily a communication one.

Come 2.0 in the not so distant future there will be far more engagement. The past year we have learned a lot.

Proxy voting will be good for the disengaged who choose to be and trust in others. This of course assumes a communication vacuum that will see proxy being used extensively.

I don't think we are going to have this same kind of vacuum much longer though. The 2.0 platform is going to enable us to create solutions that solve this.. like dposhub among other things.

Users tomorrow are not going to be mostly traders either. Demographics are going to be diverse and will be far outside the scope of crypto enthusiasts. So you are going to see a dramatic shift in community culture come about.

I realize the issues of the day are difficult to grapple with when we don't know what tomorrow is going to look like.

Right now all we can do to deal with this dead delegate is to keep putting the message out for people to update their votes and remove him... it's a communication issue,.

Community is always messy and difficult. For those that don't really grow up participating in them it's even more frustrating and appears inefficient and stupid. What is often missed is the patience and understanding learned through the practiced process.

[Akado]

Proxy voting should help with that I guess. What we could have is an introduction to the wallet when you access it and on top of saying things like it's risky to invest in BTS because it's volatile, we could also have a message pointing to the voting tab saying voting is an important right we have and to prevent people from not voting, that they can, if they want, delegate someone to vote for them. But everyone who does his due diligence before investing knows they have the power to vote and should do so

Yes that may help, though it may cause BitShares to become a bit more centralised around a few people.

If it ever does, it's people's own fault, they have the option to vote for whoever they want whenever they want. If that happens people can change their votes the same way a miner changes from mining pool. People can vote, it's up to them to exercise their right, if they don't do it it's their fault. We gave them the tools they need.

[Empirical1.2]

voting by everyone is inefficient.

BTS probably needs a currency for lazy customers and shares for active shareholders.

Customers get a no inflation currency and & don't have to vote, pay for, or worry about development. (But they do pay transaction fees.)

Shareholders get a share that pays dividends from income but they have to actively vote (or they will lose shares) and obviously make BTS profitable.

So the you would use the currency as collateral right?

I'm not sure.

I think that long term expecting customers/users to actively manage BTS or any currency is not realistic.
The same way you wouldn't expect someone who bought a Big Mac or a pair of Nike to actively manage McDonalds or Nike.

Shareholders however can be expected to take an interest in return for potential dividends & growth.

So I do think BTS probably needs two units, a voting unit, designed to appeal to shareholders and a currency unit designed to appeal to customers. (Which lets millions of customers be completely lazy and just use BTS for its functionality without compromising the security of the system.)

You are talking about creating an oligarchy.. not exactly a freedom loving concept for what BitShares is supposed to be accomplishing.. 'for all'.

No I'm talking about running a company. Almost every single company in the world works like this.

Shareholders own and manage the company. Customers buy/use the products.

The customers of McDonalds/Starbucks/Apple/Barclays/etc.  don't want to run the company, they just want their Big Mac/Latte/Savings account.

Bitcoin/PayPal/Vault users want to save/spend/transfer their money they don't want to be responsible for the security, management and development of that company.

Regardless whether you agree with me, you'll see in practice, customers just want functionality, they don't want to vote, so the more popular & distributed BTS becomes the less people will be voting and the less secure & more vulnerable to attack BTS will be.

Anyway it's a medium term problem, and BTS is good at evolving, so I'm sure it will be able to adapt if it proves necessary.

Proxy voting should help with that I guess. What we could have is an introduction to the wallet when you access it and on top of saying things like it's risky to invest in BTS because it's volatile, we could also have a message pointing to the voting tab saying voting is an important right we have and to prevent people from not voting, that they can, if they want, delegate someone to vote for them. But everyone who does his due diligence before investing knows they have the power to vote and should do so

Yes that may help, though it may cause BitShares to become a bit more centralised around a few people. 

[Akado]

Proxy voting should help with that I guess. What we could have is an introduction to the wallet when you access it and on top of saying things like it's risky to invest in BTS because it's volatile, we could also have a message pointing to the voting tab saying voting is an important right we have and to prevent people from not voting, that they can, if they want, delegate someone to vote for them. But everyone who does his due diligence before investing knows they have the power to vote and should do so

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

voting by everyone is inefficient.

BTS probably needs a currency for lazy customers and shares for active shareholders.

Customers get a no inflation currency and & don't have to vote, pay for, or worry about development. (But they do pay transaction fees.)

Shareholders get a share that pays dividends from income but they have to actively vote (or they will lose shares) and obviously make BTS profitable.

So the you would use the currency as collateral right?

I'm not sure.

I think that long term expecting customers/users to actively manage BTS or any currency is not realistic.
The same way you wouldn't expect someone who bought a Big Mac or a pair of Nike to actively manage McDonalds or Nike.

Shareholders however can be expected to take an interest in return for potential dividends & growth.

So I do think BTS probably needs two units, a voting unit, designed to appeal to shareholders and a currency unit designed to appeal to customers. (Which lets millions of customers be completely lazy and just use BTS for its functionality without compromising the security of the system.)

You are talking about creating an oligarchy.. not exactly a freedom loving concept for what BitShares is supposed to be accomplishing.. 'for all'.

[Empirical1.2]

voting by everyone is inefficient.

BTS probably needs a currency for lazy customers and shares for active shareholders.

Customers get a no inflation currency and & don't have to vote, pay for, or worry about development. (But they do pay transaction fees.)

Shareholders get a share that pays dividends from income but they have to actively vote (or they will lose shares) and obviously make BTS profitable.

Except that currency wouldn't have any value then. It would have non zero value yes, but no one would have any incentive to use it.

We already have currencies for costumers and not shareholders and those are market pegged assets.

No. Bitcoin works on the same principle but it  has a value of  $3.4 billion.

Customers of Bitcoin don't have to worry about securing the system. That job falls to miners in exchange for dilution and fees. (They don't do a very good job and it's very expensive.)

But the concept is the same. Customers/Users of crypto-currency want simple functionality and they are willing to pay either transaction fees/dilution/combo for others to effectively secure the system. (The same way someone wants to buy/use a product say a Big Mac does not want to have to make decisions about the company that is providing it. Eg. Nearly every company in the whole world.)   

We already have currencies for costumers and not shareholders and those are market pegged assets.

So you don't want millions of customers around the world buying BTS the way they buy, hold, spend and send Bitcoin?

Good luck convincing people of that. Even though you're right, my point is, people won't see it as such. Suddenly you'll have mass exodus from BitShares because of more "dillution". That's how people will see that.


Regarding your last quote:
BitShares is more of an equity while Bitcoin can be seen as a currency, or, once again, that's how people see it. The way to get people to move massive amounts of BitShares around is by doing so with BitAssets and other assets.

BitShares wasn't built with the same objective of Bicoin, they have different purposes so you can't expect them to behave the same. The way to get tons of transactions is, isntead of having people to spend BitShares to buy something (we have BitAssets for that), is to have people to do massive trades of assets, just like an exchange. Like I said, they have different purposes, they can't behave the same.

I see a big future for BitAssets.

However just like other crypto-currencies, the more people that buy and use BTS the more valuable it will become.

So we want to attract millions of customers to use BTS for their crypto-currency needs and BitAssets for their pegged asset needs. (We don't want to say that if you want BitUSD come to us, but if you want a crypto-currency, buy Bitcoin.)

The problem is that millions of people using and adopting BTS will make the system less secure over time, because customers are not shareholders and won't frequently vote nor should customers/users be burdened with that complication.