Author Topic: Against FBA  (Read 13351 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline theredpill

Thank you @Xypher and @merockstar, I'm thinking now should I add "do not be expose to BTS price variation" to that list.

Offline theredpill

What are the differences between future fees or vested dilution? Help me?

1 - Future fees are not known, probably a lot more.

2 - Future fees causes political issues, for instance, the community could decide that the stealth should be the default transfer method and charge more for non stealth transactions, the people or group of people holding stealth FBA would say NO!.

3 - Future fees complicate things, create systemic risks with some people or group owning some network features.

I really think we should be united as BTS as all interests of all participants. And always clear of any form of future debt beside vesting. And knowing all worker costs on advance.
4 - Future fees are a lot easier to pass through the democratic process.

What else? I am missing something?

Can anyone on the driver seat please help out here, @Stan @xeroc @bytemaster? Maybe there something I'm not seeing.


Offline Xypher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 304
    • View Profile
BTS allows freedom of choice.

so we shouldn't discuss it because we can vote?

Yes, you should, why else would I have bumped this thread?  Just to hear you bitch about poor documentation?

If we don't at least talk more about what is already happening today, then how can we expect to ever hope to talk about what is about to happen in the future:

the lion is about to eat the gazelle
the fittest is about to survive while the weakest dies
capitalism uses capital to grow capital
the force of gravity continues acting upon you
others whom you may not agree with will continue developing bitcoin and Bitshares (AND YOU CAN DO NOTHING TO STOP THEM WITHOUT VIOLATING THEIR RIGHTS)

All I'm saying is that if you ever hope to predict the future, then you might want to accept what is happening in the present, and then you might understand the math that predicted it (the present) so that you can use that same math to get rich simply because you predicted the future.  If at anytime in the past you predicted that crypto could be useful to humans, then congratulations, you correctly predicted the future.  Exactly how much money you choose to accept due to your correct prediction depends only upon which current math problems you are choosing to solve CURRENTLY.

BitShares is now being developed weather or not the existing shareholders are paying for it directly.  Your only recourse is to become politically active, and no political process is accurately defined, but it could be if you choose to do something about it besides bitch.  Or you could continue to bitch until someone else takes care of it much later than it would have occurred if you had helped do it yourself today instead of bitching.

But the freedom of choice is yours completely:

Plan A:

Bitch about lack of political documentation for a long time until someone else documents it for your teary ass

Plan B:

Draft a document for peer review which will get the job done sooner than plan A

Which plan is this thread about?

I was hoping for Plan B which was why I first came back from the dead and bumped your thread, but, you know what?  Fuck it, maybe I'll try back in another 6 months, because you obviously have a Plan A fetish and have not learned anything in the past 6 months because we are complaining about the exact (EXACT? yeah, exact like deja vu all over again, the exact) same shit today as we were back then:

Why has the share price not moved since I left here in August?

Why are you guys still talking about the same shit you were talking about nearly a half a year ago?

Do you see a bitch connection yet, or will it take another Bitcoin Jesus 2.O data point 6 months from now to show you what happens to communities that cry about their present situation vs communities that act to change their present situation.

I didn't listen to the hangout, so I'm missing the background on this. But what is the main purpose of BMs proposal?

Either way, the cost benefit analysis is the same.

If somebody wants to burn enough of their personal BTS to fund a project that we all want to happen eventually, and the market cap gets a big boost, then this works even better than advertised! 

To keep things from getting crazy, there should also be  limiter on how much can be burned per vote. I would suggest no more than 1% of your total BTS. 

Why? If I want to completely fund a project that Fuzzy (or any one of your fine furry elected delegates that you all know and love and trust) proposed, and want to burn 100% of my BTS to do it, then don't you think that I might want to go out and buy some BTS later so that I can take financial advantage (like you are doing) of what I just paid to create?  Your logic is senseless.  The extreme scenario is actually financially the best (most lucrative) scenario for you.  The worst case, is nobody plays this game (0%) and nobody wins.  Everybody benefits.  Everybody wins when anybody plays.

Only do this if you want to cap your benefits.  But then so why would you even do this at all to any degree then?  I think that you all are so used to getting scammed that you can't see an obvious gold nugget in front of your face.  Because let's face it kids, this is the California gold rush all over again.  This is the crypto revolution and it is like the industrial revolution, but this time, we are the mother fucking steam engine about to lay claim to the easiest and most "profitable dynamic and interactive user controlled crypto community" cash geysers :

Step aside nobody (our current competition in this space), we are claiming this cash geyser first.  Anybody here who does not want to claim this giant fucking paperweight is either a pussy or competitor.





This shit that BM is proposing is just like laying claim to the biggest fucking nuggets that the crypto world has ever seen.  Free fucking money here.  He said that he is concentrating on building the most profitable crypto community rule set that the world will ever need to know, and who here thinks that BM has no clue? Go ahead speak up and say that BM wouldn't know an economics problem if John Maynard himself was smacking him upside the head.  Where would this community be without B to the mother fucking M?  He's the main reason why you even give a shit about my vomit.

What.... You don't trust BM?  He's the most god damn open book honest to god goody two shoes I ever blessed.  He is a mirror to good and evil.  You are what you think of him to be.  He is a soul gauge.  A tool for you to measure exactly how much of a tool you are.  If you think that he is fucking you, then you, my friend, are the fucker.

Well, it has been nearly half a year since you began crying about what is happening around you (FBA) instead of embracing that which makes you stronger than those who want you to continue to deny the existence of gravity so that they can be the first to discover the law of gravity which you refuse to monetize:

Factom, IOTA, and Ethereum

Go ahead, and bitch about FBA for another 6 months and see where your competitors are then...

If you're lucky, I'll drop by just to plot the next data point number 3 and plot you an accurate trajectory that will mathematically show you the future of those who bitch rather than act

Am in to assist and support with plan B.

r


unreadPostsSinceLastVisit

  • Guest
If you don't like FBA, then support a committee that votes against FBA.

If you support FBA then vote for a committee member who likes FBA.

BTS allows freedom of choice.

so simple

so we shouldn't discuss it because we can vote?

I found the perfect place for you to work, the DNC:

https://www.democrats.org/about/work-with-us

Xypher, regarding points 4 and 5, BTS 2.0 has been out for a grand total of 3-4(?) months now? We haven't had time to see how worker proposals can pan out in the future, we haven't failed to attract talent and infuse capitol, we haven't even had time to try yet. This is like going fishing for ten minutes and being like, "oh shit, well i guess the fish aren't biting. time for plan B, if you go to the supermarket and buy me a fish I'll give you a cut of all future fish I catch." All the time and effort put into BTS1.0 doesn't count now. Graphene is completely new. We rebooted.

Offline Xypher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 304
    • View Profile
If you don't like FBA, then support a committee that votes against FBA.

If you support FBA then vote for a committee member who likes FBA.

BTS allows freedom of choice.

so simple

Quoting from earlier.



2. We do have something that's almost close to a decentralized form of governance with the committee system in place, but there's literally no documentation whatsoever nor a means for a person that's not a dev to really partake in it. In addition, its not sensitive to the needs of a global user base. For instance, there's no way we can have a committee with representations from key markets like China or a major demographic like gamers.



-
-Xypher
« Last Edit: December 27, 2015, 05:42:10 pm by Xypher »

Offline Xypher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 304
    • View Profile
I'm the only one that think this is bad idea?

Nope. I feel outnumbered here too.

What are the difference between future fees or vested dilution? Help me?

1 - Future fees are not known, probably a lot more.

2 - Future fees causes political issues, for instance, the community could decide that the stealth should be the default transfer method and charge more for non stealth transactions, the people or group of people holding stealth BTA would say NO!.

3 - Future fees complicate things, create systemic risks with some people or group owning some network features.

I really think we should be united as BTS as all interests of all participants. And always clear of any form of future debt beside vesting. And knowing all workers cost on advance.

Very elegantly said. I don't see the point of even having a blockchain if we're just going to sell out every incoming feature to those willing to put cash on the table. That's how the centralized financial system currently works and I'm here because I favor a paradigm change.

To someone of communist mindset this FBA is offensive.

I'm not a communist and I find the FBA proposition offensive.

We've seen how capitalism works with regulations, checks and balances, and we're seeing how it works when you let investors and businesses control everything. I favor the former, but believe this is a step towards the later.

inb4 patronizing posts telling me to sell and leave if I don't like: I've already adjusted my holdings and I'm spending less time at these forums. "this is 'murca and if you don't like it you can GIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT OUT!"  It's sad that the most promising prospect for change that I've ever seen is opting to go this route. It really bothers me. Sorry for having an opinion and expressing it.

Really important point here.
Going to speak on a personal basis - and am sorry if the following post offends anyone. I don't intend to piss people off, just want to share my honest opinion.


1. We have the groundwork for an amazing crypto here. A vibrant community, decentralized decision making via committees (although voting is not clear to me) and most importantly, insanely quick transactions that can scale to the needs of a global user base.

2. We do have something that's almost close to a decentralized form of governance with the committee system in place, but there's literally no documentation whatsoever nor a means for a person that's not a dev to really partake in it. In addition, its not sensitive to the needs of a global user base. For instance, there's no way we can have a committee with representations from key markets like China or a major demographic like gamers.

3. The FBA system is incredible - from the pov of someone that's about to raise funds. Yes, I can "theoretically" pledge my "theoretical" tx fees from the future to users here and "theoretically" raise funds. I use theoretically, because hey.. we haven't had a successful fund raise yet. In terms of legality, i don't know how different this is from a UIA, where I can simply say "I'll pledge my ref to the backers of the project" , or we can go the route of traditional VC's and say, I pledge x percent to the backers . Again, the legality of this is largely in murky waters because its not clear yet. From the eyes of an average consumer, this is a very innovative way to raise funds, but from what I know of banking..organizations repeatedly find ways to raise funds via multiple complicated systems when there's no actual economic growth going on. Remember subprime mortgage and the tech stock crash of 2000's? This is what it truly reminds me of.

4. Worker proposals are cool. Agreed. But beyond CNX and a few others that have been involved with the community for years we have neither attracted talent nor had individuals putting forward proposals. From my experience, I find worker proposals a zero sum game because it takes time to raise funds that way and in most cases given the declining markets of BTS (currently) - associated risks are way too high when we take exchange rates into consideration.

5. It is sad that CNX would focus on what an individual would offer them to build instead of having the collective requirements of us as a community needs. I am by no means blaming CNX here, but pointing the fact that our ecosystem may not be as vibrant as it should be. We have collectively failed to attract talent, infuse capital and build an ecosystem where we don't have to depend solely on CNX to build the things we need.  The reason for this being
(i) complexity of understanding the system
(ii) lack of documentation
(iii) on-going politics and underlying personal motivations and agendas

6. If we are to see a change in the way things are, we'll need
(i) - effective forms of governance and decision making.
CNX has laid the groundwork with the committee system but I am yet to see how its effective

(ii) Effective means of fund raising and backing projects
-How come only a handful of projects have fund raised with UIA's ? Nxt's ecosystem is a very good example of this.
SecureAE is an extremely efficient system in handling such user cases (although I've experienced bugs)

(iii) Open towards International Communities
Solely releasing PR in 15 languages won't do the job. We'll need to understand user cases and local markets efficiently to penetrate markets. Resource persons from each demographic need to be bought on board, paid if need be - and learned from to create better products.

(iv) Empower entrepreneurs
As an entrepreneur, I can attest the fact that yes, this ecosystem is very confusing. We need to put individuals that are reliable, trustworthy and capable to help onboard businesses and nurture businesses within the ecosystem. Why don't we have a community backed accelerator of sorts. Pooled funds to invest into x number of startups for y amount of equity. Performance tracked every quarter. This will be largely capitalistic in nature, but its something we should look into. I am happy to dedicate time into something of this nature if we are up for it.

FBA isn't about capitalism vs socialism. Its about our combined failure to create redundant systems that are non reliant solely on CNX to define the future of what a decentralized currency that works almost at the speeds of NASDAQ can be.

My .32 bts, because as mentioned earlier... I can't send you guys 2 and 30 bts would now go to the network.
-Xypher
« Last Edit: December 27, 2015, 05:05:24 pm by Xypher »

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
To someone of communist mindset this FBA is offensive.

I am communist. FBA is not offensive to me. You better not put labels on people, especially if you have no idea what communism is.

Offline theredpill

What are the difference between future fees or vested dilution? Help me?

1 - Future fees are not known, probably a lot more.

2 - Future fees causes political issues, for instance, the community could decide that the stealth should be the default transfer method and charge more for non stealth transactions, the people or group of people holding stealth BTA would say NO!.

3 - Future fees complicate things, create systemic risks with some people or group owning some network features.

I really think we should be united as BTS as all interests of all participants. And always clear of any form of future debt beside vesting. And knowing all workers cost on advance.
4 - Future fees are a lot easier to pass through the democratic process.

What else? I am missing something?

Offline theredpill

The proposals are still voted in, so it's still "democratic"... The only difference is the shareholders aren't directly paying for it through dilution. No dilution and a new feature is no doubt good for the price. The committee should control the fee so bitshares still has control over the feature, and also just for UI purposes I think the FBA should be listed next to the proposal with the total value, but other than those criticisms, I just see it as more money and features for all of us.
No it is not, maybe on literal sense of the word, but this is type of the wrong use of democracy that permits you to trick the system to vote in something hiding the costs. The stealth proposal for instance, CNX tried to pass this proposal charging something to do the job and fail. Then instead of discuss with the community and understand what was not working, they just made other proposal hiding the same costs or more so the people that do not understand right can vote for a future larger loss in revenue. If you have any doubt about this just read the comments on both proposal and you will find something like this: "just $300 dollars? let's do it".

To someone of communist mindset this FBA is offensive.

The FBA is born out of a capitalist methodology, and so those who agree in some way with capitalism they will be agreeable with the FBA.

Fact is that not everyone in the world agrees with capitalism and therefore will argue up and down over every point about the FBA because it is another departure from a purely socialized feature of BitShares.

I think what you are seeing in this thread is that clash.

However, if you look at how the FBA has been setup, I believe that there has been a good attempt at taking the best of both worlds of thought to create something new and stronger than one ideal or the other that stand alone. If it really works the way it should or not once implemented is another story.

Good news though, we can always vote to make improvements.

Until then though, discussions like this of throwing the baby with the bathwater don't go in the right direction.

Creating new innovations like FBA are exactly what we should be aspiring to do in BitShares.
I am as capitalist as you are or more, I just think is better for us to have only one token to not incentivise people trying to push one feature over other but the system as a whole.

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
inb4 patronizing posts telling me to sell and leave if I don't like: I've already adjusted my holdings and I'm spending less time at these forums. "this is 'murca and if you don't like it you can GIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT OUT!"  It's sad that the most promising prospect for change that I've ever seen is opting to go this route. It really bothers me. Sorry for having an opinion and expressing it.

Meh, I won't be telling you that. At least you are respectful while voicing your opposition. The only person I'be told that is tonyk, and if you look through his recent post history he has been very mean and nasty towards everyone for a long time. It wasn't simply the fact that he disagreed.

I know how you feel though. I was very vocal against dilution and the community decided to go against my opinion. I had to come to terms with that... you don't always get what you want. Eventually, I even came around to their way of thinking and now think it is a nice feature. You should stick around because perhaps the same will happen with you once you see a few neat features implemented because of FBA with no added dilution.
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

unreadPostsSinceLastVisit

  • Guest
I'm the only one that think this is bad idea?

Nope. I feel outnumbered here too.

What are the difference between future fees or vested dilution? Help me?

1 - Future fees are not known, probably a lot more.

2 - Future fees causes political issues, for instance, the community could decide that the stealth should be the default transfer method and charge more for non stealth transactions, the people or group of people holding stealth BTA would say NO!.

3 - Future fees complicate things, create systemic risks with some people or group owning some network features.

I really think we should be united as BTS as all interests of all participants. And always clear of any form of future debt beside vesting. And knowing all workers cost on advance.

Very elegantly said. I don't see the point of even having a blockchain if we're just going to sell out every incoming feature to those willing to put cash on the table. That's how the centralized financial system currently works and I'm here because I favor a paradigm change.

To someone of communist mindset this FBA is offensive.

I'm not a communist and I find the FBA proposition offensive.

We've seen how capitalism works with regulations, checks and balances, and we're seeing how it works when you let investors and businesses control everything. I favor the former, but believe this is a step towards the later.

inb4 patronizing posts telling me to sell and leave if I don't like: I've already adjusted my holdings and I'm spending less time at these forums. "this is 'murca and if you don't like it you can GIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT OUT!"  It's sad that the most promising prospect for change that I've ever seen is opting to go this route. It really bothers me. Sorry for having an opinion and expressing it.

Offline phillyguy


I'm the only one that think this is bad idea? I mean, I very appreciate the BM try to find a funding solution for things but this is so bad for BTS that for the first time ever I have consider moving on of this project, In the past after search all crypto projects at the time I end up here thanks of our community and values, and I would argue that FBAs are against both.

1 - Community or comum unity, our community token is BTS, creating other tokens means divide the community, make us not one set of values and goals anymore, now BTS have someone name in the chain and are in debt with then. If our value is to create a fair system, the FBA makes no sense.

2 - What the problem with dilution? - I mean, even if (is a big IF) that means a little short term drop in the price, if you are like me and really believe in the project, whats the matter? You can even buy some more at discount.

3 - Promises - Each token is like a promise, we cannot go on forever making promises upon promises to people, I understand that CNX have now little stake on the project, but this is not excuse for trying to use the BTS for making profit like that, to be honest I think is even disrespectful to old holders like me that lost more then 80% waiting things get done, now that they are, because of lack of capacity to approve things democratically, try to compromise future revenue streams like that. This smells like FED.

As an old stakeholder that sincere belief on the values of this project I urge the community to vote against this type of thing, BTS 2.0 is here and is great, now is time to democratize things, if we need funds we dilute, straightforward if we make money we burn, as one community, one token, one set of values. If you no matter who want a feature, raise the necessary approval in BTS terms, Will be my pleasure vote for you.

Let's price things in BTS not USD here please.

I would like to candidate myself as a proxy voter too, if you agree, my bts is theredpill.

What particular values do you feel are not being fulfilled?

BitShares 2.0 is a superDAC platform for multiple profitable DACs designed to attract entrepreneurs with a profit motive.  This provides a magnet to bring more resources into the ecosystem.

The first DAC built on that platform was a decentralized exchange providing a set of backbone services and utilities for other businesses to build on.

Now we are into the phase of attracting more businesses - which will pay fees to use the platform's services making that platform more valuable.  The more businesses that "lock up" BitShares in their pipelines the fewer shares in circulation and the more valuable they become.  The more businesses that stimulate transactions the more fees and liquidity the platform earns.

Meanwhile, the STEALTH and Mutual Aid Society (MAS) functions start building up the capabilities we all crave for independence from The World System.

It the ultimate system, BitShares becomes an incorruptible alternative for much of that system.  But to do that, more businesses must be inside than outside the platform.

Ultimately, Fee Backed Assets are much more interesting to investors than User Issued Assets, so there are more reasons to get an account and trade here.

So we wind up with the functional equivalent of many interoperable blockchains.

Profitable, incorruptible, interoperable businesses with low barriers to entry and shared network effect all managed by its owners in a decentralized manner - just as the original vision in Bitcoin and the Three Laws of Robotics.

So, again, What particular values do you feel are not being fulfilled?

An actual user base?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

To someone of communist mindset this FBA is offensive.

The FBA is born out of a capitalist methodology, and so those who agree in some way with capitalism they will be agreeable with the FBA.

Fact is that not everyone in the world agrees with capitalism and therefore will argue up and down over every point about the FBA because it is another departure from a purely socialized feature of BitShares.

I think what you are seeing in this thread is that clash.

However, if you look at how the FBA has been setup, I believe that there has been a good attempt at taking the best of both worlds of thought to create something new and stronger than one ideal or the other that stand alone. If it really works the way it should or not once implemented is another story.

Good news though, we can always vote to make improvements.

Until then though, discussions like this of throwing the baby with the bathwater don't go in the right direction.

Creating new innovations like FBA are exactly what we should be aspiring to do in BitShares.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline SpiritofJefferson

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
The proposals are still voted in, so it's still "democratic"... The only difference is the shareholders aren't directly paying for it through dilution. No dilution and a new feature is no doubt good for the price. The committee should control the fee so bitshares still has control over the feature, and also just for UI purposes I think the FBA should be listed next to the proposal with the total value, but other than those criticisms, I just see it as more money and features for all of us.

Offline theredpill

I would buy 1 billion BTS for .00001 cent each before selling any BTS if things stay fairly and democratic as have been because I know they rest will catch up when the time came.