Proxy: jakub - better execution / implementation / communication of BM's ideas

[santaclause102]

I really like the potential of proxies.

It took me a while to realize how important the proxy concept is.
It's a practical tool to exercise our power to influence the BTS short-term and long-term strategy as opposed to the theoretical power we had before.
(It's worth noting that in 0.x we had a similar concept of voting slates but to me it was too obscure and not clearly promoted on the GUI level)

One simple service to shareholders you could do is to identify which identity (real world or forum id) the delegates (maybe we could establish "delegate" as a term that encompasses witnesses, committee members and workers; helpful of one tries to refer to all three!) and belong to if that is not obvious. The two candidates from your list I have in mind are: bhuz and mrs.agsexplorer.
This takes away a lot of effort (research /ask what ids these belong to) that would have been done by each shareholder indidvually (more or less) otherwise.

I'm looking forward to dposhub being released as I see it as a perfect tool to implement identity differentiation between the delegates.
Right now all I could do is go through the October 5 Test Network thread and check who was doing what.

Undoubtedly @fav is doing a great job of micromanaging the witnesses but I won't be able to approach this level of detail.
Hopefully this won't be necessary once 2.0 settles down.

A natural consequence to me would be to integrate a froum with BTS, a forum (social media focused) webwallet / front end application for Bitshares (as opposed to the exchange interface of openledger). See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=17388.0

[jakub]

I really like the potential of proxies.

It took me a while to realize how important the proxy concept is.
It's a practical tool to exercise our power to influence the BTS short-term and long-term strategy as opposed to the theoretical power we had before.
(It's worth noting that in 0.x we had a similar concept of voting slates but to me it was too obscure and not clearly promoted on the GUI level)

One simple service to shareholders you could do is to identify which identity (real world or forum id) the delegates (maybe we could establish "delegate" as a term that encompasses witnesses, committee members and workers; helpful of one tries to refer to all three!) and belong to if that is not obvious. The two candidates from your list I have in mind are: bhuz and mrs.agsexplorer.
This takes away a lot of effort (research /ask what ids these belong to) that would have been done by each shareholder indidvually (more or less) otherwise.

I'm looking forward to dposhub being released as I see it as a perfect tool to implement identity differentiation between the delegates.
Right now all I could do is go through the October 5 Test Network thread and check who was doing what.

Undoubtedly @fav is doing a great job of micromanaging the witnesses but I won't be able to approach this level of detail.
Hopefully this won't be necessary once 2.0 settles down.

[santaclause102]

I really like the potential of proxies. One simple service to shareholders you could do is to identify which identity (real world or forum id) the delegates (maybe we could establish "delegate" as a term that encompasses witnesses, committee members and workers; helpful of one tries to refer to all three!) and belong to if that is not obvious. The two candidates from your list I have in mind are: bhuz and mrs.agsexplorer.
This takes away a lot of effort (research /ask what ids these belong to) that would have been done by each shareholder indidvually (more or less) otherwise.

[jakub]

PS
Are you a lawyer by any chance?...any way you should be for shure...no shame, fact or reason stand on your way!

No, I'm not. But I am thinking now maybe I should be one if I've somehow managed to get (at least partial) endorsement from tonyk and Thom.
Thank you. I've learned a lot from you.

[alt]

I would have agreed with most (the CH part definitely NOT one I am agreeing with) of the OP, if this sentence was not there:

"Even if things are clearly mismanaged I generally believe that it's our shared responsibility and BM should not take any more blame than anybody else here."

How can I have a shared responsibility with BM?

I personally asked 7 times (do you want me to dig out the posts and PMs?) asking for an explanation of the margin call ratio[I did not know at the time that the short's trap included more new elements than the ration itself]. He did not say a single word until after the fact.

Or maybe sharing responsibilities mean me taking the losses on my short positions and him hiding the facts from the world? What the... crazy logic that is?

I understand your position and that's why in this thread as much as I argued with clout's approach, I did not argue with you saying that the rules had been unexpectedly changed.

What I mean by shared responsibility is that we need to accept BM as a whole, with all his genius and all his drawbacks, and do our best to compensate for those drawbacks.
Hopefully the 2.0 launch was the last time BM was in a position to have too much responsibility without us being able to control it.

you have say what I want to say. so good!

[tonyk]

I would have agreed with most (the CH part definitely NOT one I am agreeing with) of the OP, if this sentence was not there:

"Even if things are clearly mismanaged I generally believe that it's our shared responsibility and BM should not take any more blame than anybody else here."

How can I have a shared responsibility with BM?

I personally asked 7 times (do you want me to dig out the posts and PMs?) asking for an explanation of the margin call ratio[I did not know at the time that the short's trap included more new elements than the ration itself]. He did not say a single word until after the fact.

Or maybe sharing responsibilities mean me taking the losses on my short positions and him hiding the facts from the world? What the... crazy logic that is?

I understand your position and that's why in this thread as much as I argued with clout's approach, I did not argue with you saying that the rules had been unexpectedly changed.

What I mean by shared responsibility is that we need to accept BM as a whole, with all his genius and all his drawbacks, and do our best to compensate for those drawbacks.
Hopefully the 2.0 launch was the last time BM was in a position to have too much responsibility without us being able to control it.

@tonyk, I've had another go at this issue and arrived at two conclusions:

(1) We must admit that BM offered a thorough explanation of the 2.0 shorting rules 2 days before the short squeeze occurred (and then BM discussed it further in the mumble session). I agree it should have been announced (and discussed and made sure everybody is aware) before Oct 13th but still there were more than 24 hours to grasp the new rules and act (but on the other hand maybe the price drop was the result of bit-assets shorters exiting their positions when they understood the new rules). I'm not trying to defend BM, just trying to be objective.

(2) You said you didn't like the CH part, but this is exactly what I meant when I wrote "I wish we had CH on-board" - that we need a better communication policy and this equally refers to communicating new concepts to the community and making sure people understand the rules before they might affect them.

And this is how the proxy vote can help us to prevent such issues from happening ever again: next time we have a new feature about to be deployed and my judgement tells me it hasn't been communicated well, I'll vote to postpone it.

Absolutely man!


PS
Are you a lawyer by any chance?...any way you should be for shure...no shame, fact or reason stand on your way!

[jakub]

I would have agreed with most (the CH part definitely NOT one I am agreeing with) of the OP, if this sentence was not there:

"Even if things are clearly mismanaged I generally believe that it's our shared responsibility and BM should not take any more blame than anybody else here."

How can I have a shared responsibility with BM?

I personally asked 7 times (do you want me to dig out the posts and PMs?) asking for an explanation of the margin call ratio[I did not know at the time that the short's trap included more new elements than the ration itself]. He did not say a single word until after the fact.

Or maybe sharing responsibilities mean me taking the losses on my short positions and him hiding the facts from the world? What the... crazy logic that is?

I understand your position and that's why in this thread as much as I argued with clout's approach, I did not argue with you saying that the rules had been unexpectedly changed.

What I mean by shared responsibility is that we need to accept BM as a whole, with all his genius and all his drawbacks, and do our best to compensate for those drawbacks.
Hopefully the 2.0 launch was the last time BM was in a position to have too much responsibility without us being able to control it.

@tonyk, I've had another go at this issue and arrived at two conclusions:

(1) We must admit that BM offered a thorough explanation of the 2.0 shorting rules 2 days before the short squeeze occurred (and then BM discussed it further in the mumble session). I agree it should have been announced (and discussed and made sure everybody is aware) before Oct 13th but still there were more than 24 hours to grasp the new rules and act (but on the other hand maybe the price drop was the result of bit-assets shorters exiting their positions when they understood the new rules). I'm not trying to defend BM, just trying to be objective.

(2) You said you didn't like the CH part, but this is exactly what I meant when I wrote "I wish we had CH on-board" - that we need a better communication policy and this equally refers to communicating new concepts to the community and making sure people understand the rules before they might affect them.

And this is how the proxy vote can help us to prevent such issues from happening ever again: next time we have a new feature about to be deployed and my judgement tells me it hasn't been communicated well, I'll vote to postpone it.

[IOHKCharles]

Virtual Hoskinson? He'd suffer a hostile divestment and be pushed out by virtual DL....this is getting really meta and really weird.

[jakub]

I've added to my witnesses rnglab for his (her?) role in the tests (and also 2.0 internationalization efforts) and datasecuritynode for his great overall commitment to BTS.

[jakub]

I would have agreed with most (the CH part definitely NOT one I am agreeing with) of the OP, if this sentence was not there:

"Even if things are clearly mismanaged I generally believe that it's our shared responsibility and BM should not take any more blame than anybody else here."

How can I have a shared responsibility with BM?

I personally asked 7 times (do you want me to dig out the posts and PMs?) asking for an explanation of the margin call ratio[I did not know at the time that the short's trap included more new elements than the ration itself]. He did not say a single word until after the fact.

Or maybe sharing responsibilities mean me taking the losses on my short positions and him hiding the facts from the world? What the... crazy logic that is?

I understand your position and that's why in this thread as much as I argued with clout's approach, I did not argue with you saying that the rules had been unexpectedly changed.

What I mean by shared responsibility is that we need to accept BM as a whole, with all his genius and all his drawbacks, and do our best to compensate for those drawbacks.
Hopefully the 2.0 launch was the last time BM was in a position to have too much responsibility without us being able to control it.

[jakub]

I agree with a lot of what was stated aside from a few points that I don't think really have any place in regards to bitshares future and how votes should be directed. (ie. the infatuation with CH). It does give me some insight into who you turn to for answers, and thus will impact the proxy vote. So for CH fans it answers their need for this.

Regarding CH, I respect his opinions but it's not the case that I agree with everything he says. But actually CH's views are not important here. What matters for me is that someone like him would constitute a perfect complement to BM's talent and a healthy counterbalance. So I'm talking here more as an HR manager (though I'm not one). For me, CH's skills start where BM's skills end: BM invents great things and CH perfectly communicates them to the outside world. IMO we badly need some form of CH here (though Stan has been doing an amazing job lately) and hopefully the improved DPOS system and proxy votes will finally enable the community to play this role.

What would be your preferred method of communication as a proxy in terms of how you are deciding on certain votes? Or will it just be something you will do without any discussions or revealing your positions on matters?

I value discussions. So the ideal sequence of events will be first to discuss, then announce how I'm going to vote and then do the actual voting.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I agree with a lot of what was stated aside from a few points that I don't think really have any place in regards to bitshares future and how votes should be directed. (ie. the infatuation with CH). It does give me some insight into who you turn to for answers, and thus will impact the proxy vote. So for CH fans it answers their need for this.

What would be your preferred method of communication as a proxy in terms of how you are deciding on certain votes? Or will it just be something you will do without any discussions or revealing your positions on matters?

I am asking this more along the lines of what would you find ideal.. rather than trying to fit into one way or another.

 

[tonyk]

I would have agreed with most (the CH part definitely NOT one I am agreeing with) of the OP, if this sentence was not there:

"Even if things are clearly mismanaged I generally believe that it's our shared responsibility and BM should not take any more blame than anybody else here."

How can I have a shared responsibility with BM?

I personally asked 7 times (do you want me to dig out the posts and PMs?) asking for an explanation of the margin call ratio[I did not know at the time that the short's trap included more new elements than the ration itself]. He did not say a single word until after the fact.

Or maybe sharing responsibilities mean me taking the losses on my short positions and him hiding the facts from the world? What the... crazy logic that is?

[Thom]

An excellent post jakub, I agree with 95%  of it.

I'm inclined to switch my proxy from fav to you, but will not for now b/c I believe monitoring the witnesses is an important role right now, and fav is doing great at it.

I strongly agree with the sentiment you expressed concerning the transition from CNX control of business decisions / policy to the decentralized model of governance they built for us. As I posted elsewhere, if we as a community are "too busy" or otherwise won't / can't setup to take charge this ecosystem and it's vision will slowly either grind to a halt and disappear or some other leadership with a different vision / agenda will take over and go in a direction  t h e y want, which may not be one which is a principled or freedom supporting.

We've been given the opportunity to go to the moon, will you climb aboard or just watch the rocket disappear into the sky? The choice is up to each one of us.

I applaud your initiative jakub and believe you're on the right track. 

[xeroc]

nice summary ..