Worker Proposal Review

[theredpill]

If you think about is the taker that is paying the fee anyway, by putting the fee only in the taker you just simplify the system eliminating the need of charge back the fee to the maker every time he cancels one order.

[Akado]

I thought you said bond market would be part of 1st proposal?  Where is that?

Bytemaster must add a bond market or any high net worth stakeholders are not going to care about these features involving fees.

UI is nice but add a bond market as a must have priority feature. The prediction market is a must have priority feature for people who aren't high net worth but who want a way to interact with and earn money.

Otherwise how do we sell Bitshares even with a new interface?

I think fees are not that big of a deal really. If you have a good product people will pay for it. Of course they could be a little lower, yes, but not worth all this huge discussions.

What I think is people need to be able to do something with their money in 2.0 They can keep their money safe, ok, that's good, but what else? That's not enough incentive for people to try it.  Just like you said, people need a way to interact and earn money. They can trade sure, that's why I think UI and API for bots are important, but Bond Markets should also be a priority. People need to use 2.0, it needs to provide services. Not to mention with Bond Markets people who dont like to trade or simply dont have the skills can also use their money to provide liquidity by lending it and receiving interest. That way we will have less money sitting around doing nothing and more money on 2.0 and at the same time, being used, providing liquidity. Then it should theoretically snowball.

[luckybit]

I thought you said bond market would be part of 1st proposal?  Where is that?

Bytemaster must add a bond market or any high net worth stakeholders are not going to care about these features involving fees.

UI is nice but add a bond market as a must have priority feature. The prediction market is a must have priority feature for people who aren't high net worth but who want a way to interact with and earn money.

Otherwise how do we sell Bitshares even with a new interface?

[luckybit]

BitShares Development Proposal
by BunkerChain Labs and Cryptonomex, Inc

The purpose of this proposal is to define a statement of work for taking BitShares to the next step.  Our goal is to make the user experience of BitShares equal to or better than existing exchanges, and enhance the current referral program to become more profitable.
This proposal is divided into several independent features that will be paid for upon completion.

Cryptonomex has identified the following mini-projects with fixed pricing.  BunkerChain Labs will be overseeing the project and acting as an intermediary between Cryptonomex and BitShares.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12hWyasMJ5mL1fboAt9ZK8FEf0c7o_q-1bwm5ItsLNGo/edit#

We would like some community feedback on the proposal before we actually create the workers and open it up for voting.

We need the UI for prediction markets, and margin trading. If that isn't put in place then there will remain the low liquidity problem and it will be hard to attract users even with a nice UX/UI.

If those elements are put in then I'll support the worker proposal but how much would it cost?

Interested in knowing this as well.
btw, could you get something like this for the API? At least later on once it's complete. Looks clean and easy to understand https://github.com/ripple/ripple-api-docs

I'm not really complaining about fees and besides the fact that we can't use bots I don't think the fee structure is the issue. I think sure solve the fee problem but give us bond and prediction markets otherwise Bitshares will have a nice interface but nothing to do on it.

Why would we park our money into Bitshares if there is no where to park to get interest?

[CryptoPrometheus]

it is foolish to "hire someone who has little to no track record of writing code for graphene, and then just assume that some (nonexistant) qualified graphene experts are just sitting around waiting to offer their code auditing skills for "next to nothing".

Dammit, you've convinced me. <--- that's me being sarcastic.

I'm now going to run with the herd again, because it's futile to do otherwise and remain a part of this Community herd.

Hay guise, good talk!  So m000000n!  (oh wait, that's BTC getting hammered by some whale)

And remember guise ... Dan's the only answer ... never forget!!!

Everyone else is just a random coder that can't figure out Graphene, so don't even consider it, much less bring it up on the forum.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings Tuck, it was not my intent. Again, I am looking at what is in front of me, not what exists in some golden land of potential. In that land, Everything exists, so its kind of pointless to use in an argument.

Believe me, I want to see more people come in and code for BitShares too. I hope this happens as soon as possible. I share your frustration that nobody else has stepped forward, I am just not as apt at wearing it on my sleeve as you are   

[theredpill]

But please let's not charge fees of makes...

By doing this and only 0.1 bts order our network is going to float in bots to capture any diference on spreed, provide liquidity while still charging 0.2 per on the taker side and making profits of it

The makers benefits too because they wanna that asset whatever is and can get for just 0.2% fee!

[jakub]

Oh please, take a look at the marketcap and if you are still blind I cant help. Of course I am sure you will have a lot of excuses ready (you see, it is all those evil market manipulators - waaaa!!!).

Let me ask again, would you be burning the extra BTS if price recovers? After all, you have said you want to be paid around the market rates. Or are you telling us you want the market rates now as well as all the potential upside?

I think you should be paid in USD. $90 a day (or lower if they can haggle you down) for a year.

And what have you done to raise the marketcap?
Take responsibility for your life and stop blaming others for your failures.
We are being offered a deal by BM, we can take it or leave it.
BM (and everybody else here) owes you nothing. Take your "demands" elsewhere.

[Tuck Fheman]

wow, this is the second post that makes me think you might be suffering from  tonyk's syndrome. Very dangerous condition according to the... crowds! Be advised seek help immidiately! Symptoms include thinking for yourself, voicing your thoughts and quite a distaste for brown nosing, among others.

I took 2 pills to solve it, but I forgot to call Dan in the morning. 

And on the main subject - while Dan and co might be the only one qualified and willing to do the job, this does not mean they should simply propose something... not even explain why that thing is needed or bother to answer any questions asked regarding their unclear proposal.

  ... errrrr, I mean, dafuq you talking about man? Don't you know Dan's the only person that can do this job?! Haven't you been paying attention?

If they do not get it yet, with every passing hour they just sit and behave like they are simply entitled to do it  the picture looks more and more like this:

They created a company to do software development. They do something to about 80%. Wait 5 min and decide they will change it and get themselves paid to code another change [necessary or not] and whatever they change does not have to pass any other test but just to involve more coding. They vote themselves to do the work and all is good...at 80% the work done, rinse and repeat.

ProtoShares : "If we build it, they will come!"
BitShares : "If we change it and the name, they will come!"
BitShares 2.0 : "If we change it again, they will come!"
BitShares 3.0 : "If we change it one more time, they will come!"

errrrrr ... I mean ...

[CryptoPrometheus]

All told CNX has spent about $60,000 developing the existing GUI.

In total this amounts to about 20M BTS.

We can open source it for everyone connecting to BitShares which will help Open Ledger, Meta, Bunker, Banx, Blocktrades, BitCash, and others by doubling their potential revenue by not having to license from CNX. This means higher referral rewards for users. Use for other blockchains would still be reserved to CNX.

We would be prepared to accept 10M BTS vesting over 1 year.  This will avoid creating any downward sell pressure for the next year and I think would be widely supported by all of the major partners.

This is less than 30,000 BTS per day.

Hopefully this will help kickstart a bunch of businesses and remove artificial barriers while helping to fund ongoing maintenance and improvements.  Just $90 per day.

This is a proposal for review.

I would vote for this proposal. IMO the sooner we open source the wallet software the better. Could be a huge draw for potential businesses. Out of curiosity, I wonder if someone could devise a way for the community to haggle your price?

Not so fast pinkie!
Let's see how much is left from the affiliate program after lowering the fees across the board, leaving only % fees on trading...and only trading fees on BTS it seems (so 50% and probably less of the trading volume). Leaving most of the people out of the desire for LM, and possibly even making it not profitable for traders to upgrade.
Giving up on 50% of revenue (of pretty much no revenue) in exchange for cash, in this case is like selling something worth [now] close to nothing as income stream for hard money. And it does not matter  if it cost you 100K  to  produce it. If it offers no income stream,  we are not paying your 100K  just cause you incur that much expenses.

Alright Professor K, if your argument is that we should focus on cementing our income stream before we go spending money on other things, then I would agree in principal. However, we are talking about vesting the shares for a year, in exchange for a true "out of the box" platform for attracting other coders and businessmen to the ecosystem. Weren't you just complaining that Cryptonomex has too much of a monopoly in this regard?

As far as the trading & transfer fees, this is a separate issue. If you are asking for my opinion (I assume you are, since you brought it up), then I would say that transfer fees should stay the same as they are now. This includes all assets, Smart, UIA or Core. This has nothing to do with the exchange, and I am not sure why this got mixed up into the discussion. No centralized exchange (that I know of) allows users to transfer funds back and forth between each other, so we don't need to compete with them. As far as competing with other "cryptocurrencies", I would say that we are offering a premium platform, so we are justified to charge more premium fees. The only thing I think about transfer fees that I feel could be improved is the way that fee pools are funded, but I will leave that for another discussion.

Volume based fees on the other hand, IMO (contrary to proposal #2) should ALL pay out through referral program, whether they are SmartCoins or Core asset. Perhaps UIA volume fees can be exempt from this, because their market value is not always easy to determine, but volume fees on SmartCoins is potentially a huge income stream. Handing these fees to the committee members to spend as they see fit, regardless of whether voting is involved, is not the answer. At this time, I do not have the answer, I only have a feeling about what is NOT the answer. Usually I have to think about these things for awhile and I don't like going on about something unless I have an idea about the solution, but since you ask I am happy to share my unfinished thought process.

[Akado]

BitShares Development Proposal
by BunkerChain Labs and Cryptonomex, Inc

The purpose of this proposal is to define a statement of work for taking BitShares to the next step.  Our goal is to make the user experience of BitShares equal to or better than existing exchanges, and enhance the current referral program to become more profitable.
This proposal is divided into several independent features that will be paid for upon completion.

Cryptonomex has identified the following mini-projects with fixed pricing.  BunkerChain Labs will be overseeing the project and acting as an intermediary between Cryptonomex and BitShares.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12hWyasMJ5mL1fboAt9ZK8FEf0c7o_q-1bwm5ItsLNGo/edit#

We would like some community feedback on the proposal before we actually create the workers and open it up for voting.

We need the UI for prediction markets, and margin trading. If that isn't put in place then there will remain the low liquidity problem and it will be hard to attract users even with a nice UX/UI.

If those elements are put in then I'll support the worker proposal but how much would it cost?

Interested in knowing this as well.
btw, could you get something like this for the API? At least later on once it's complete. Looks clean and easy to understand https://github.com/ripple/ripple-api-docs

[Tuck Fheman]

it is foolish to "hire someone who has little to no track record of writing code for graphene, and then just assume that some (nonexistant) qualified graphene experts are just sitting around waiting to offer their code auditing skills for "next to nothing".

Dammit, you've convinced me. <--- that's me being sarcastic.

I'm now going to run with the herd again, because it's futile to do otherwise and remain a part of this Community herd.

Hay guise, good talk!  So m000000n!  (oh wait, that's BTC getting hammered by some whale)

And remember guise ... Dan's the only answer ... never forget!!!

Everyone else is just a random coder that can't figure out Graphene, so don't even consider it, much less bring it up on the forum.

[Xeldal]

All told CNX has spent about $60,000 developing the existing GUI.

In total this amounts to about 20M BTS.

We can open source it for everyone connecting to BitShares which will help Open Ledger, Meta, Bunker, Banx, Blocktrades, BitCash, and others by doubling their potential revenue by not having to license from CNX. This means higher referral rewards for users. Use for other blockchains would still be reserved to CNX.

We would be prepared to accept 10M BTS vesting over 1 year.  This will avoid creating any downward sell pressure for the next year and I think would be widely supported by all of the major partners.

This is less than 30,000 BTS per day.

Hopefully this will help kickstart a bunch of businesses and remove artificial barriers while helping to fund ongoing maintenance and improvements.  Just $90 per day.

This is a proposal for review.

the open source licensing change, to me, is worth a great deal and is a good move. 

I think 10M is reasonable @ $.0033/BTS for 2 months,  and you stand to gain whatever market value the upgrades actually add over a year.   I'm not sure how difficult some of this work is though.  For a qualified person familiar with the code I don't see why some of it couldn't be tackled in an afternoon or 2 .  This is my unqualified, inexperienced opinion of course, as I have no idea.

I_like_fees : =  .5BTS + (.1%fee * transAmt)
or maybe... fees = min(max(1BTS,  .1%fee * transAmt),  100BTS)
with spam protection set with rate limit.  simple and easy.

cheaper than an exchange.
transfers more than 40,000BTS would be equivalent fees or greater then we have now.  Allows for cheap small trades.  Referrer earns more from his larger capital referrals as well as from active traders. High enough to prevent spam, with rate limit.
 

[Pheonike]

Are you suggesting that the BTS stakeholder vote to guarantee us $30,000 regardless of any price declines?

I would prefer that, though obviously a lower amount. $30,000 should give something much more valuable.

$90 (or whatever is accepted) a day for a year in your USD. At least it will put your failcoins to some use.

And the winner for Troll of the day is



NotSmart

[luckybit]

BitShares Development Proposal
by BunkerChain Labs and Cryptonomex, Inc

The purpose of this proposal is to define a statement of work for taking BitShares to the next step.  Our goal is to make the user experience of BitShares equal to or better than existing exchanges, and enhance the current referral program to become more profitable.
This proposal is divided into several independent features that will be paid for upon completion.

Cryptonomex has identified the following mini-projects with fixed pricing.  BunkerChain Labs will be overseeing the project and acting as an intermediary between Cryptonomex and BitShares.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12hWyasMJ5mL1fboAt9ZK8FEf0c7o_q-1bwm5ItsLNGo/edit#

We would like some community feedback on the proposal before we actually create the workers and open it up for voting.

We need the UI for prediction markets, and margin trading. If that isn't put in place then there will remain the low liquidity problem and it will be hard to attract users even with a nice UX/UI.

If those elements are put in then I'll support the worker proposal but how much would it cost?

[Akado]

We can open source it for everyone connecting to BitShares which will help Open Ledger, Meta, Bunker, Banx, Blocktrades, BitCash,

Completely off topic but anyone heard of this bitcash or was this just unintentionally leaked?
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bitcash-inc
http://bitcash.org/
https://www.facebook.com/bitcashinc/

Never heard of it lol Just take into consideration a google search already reveals a bitcoin messaging app so that might not be the best name. And honestly it sucks. One more "bit" prefix and... "cash"