Things I don't like about the committee

[jakub]

Committee members don't need to work hard. When they're working hard, most likely they're acting as some kind of market research department of the DAC, which should be paid via worker proposal (I agree with jakub's opinion here).

However, currently, due to voting apathy, and the anti-dilution action, it's a waste of time to wait for approval of such a worker position.

Since we don't have such a market research department, stake holders should work hard to find best business model and/or pricing strategy. When a proposal is proposed, stake holders have to make decisions by themselves, have to judge whether the proposal is good by themselves, then vote. This is very hard and inefficient.

Currently, even nobody proposes committee proposals except the ones in committee, although everyone is allowed to propose committee proposals. The committee members can be lazy and vote for nothing, or vote randomly when a proposal is proposed, and let stake holders judge whom to support. But imo this will do nothing good to the ecosystem.

There have to be someone to work hard, otherwise the platform won't grow. We'd better not blame anyone who is currently working hard for the platform or is willing to work hard for the platform.

I agree.
We are talking about very subtle (yet important) distinctions here.
If BunkerChain says he works hard as a shareholder, that's fine and I appreciate that.
But this has nothing to do with his role as a committee member.

I started this thread to put an end to this myth that adds so much false importance to this role.
The only important aspect of this role consists of your views and opinions.
If you do any extra work beyond discussing and presenting your views, you are doing this as a shareholder but not as a committee member.

[jakub]

IMO, the only thing you are supposed to do (for free) is this: have public discussions and publicly differ in your opinions. That's the whole point.
Not work together (as some kind of governmental body representing the shareholders' interests), but quite the opposite: discuss and publicly defend your views with solid arguments, so that the shareholders can see who is making sense and who is not. So basically do what everybody does here on this forum. Discuss. For free.

Okay, I think I'm beginning to understand what your position is.

Only I think that with this mode of operation no decisions would ever be made. For a decision, some committee member must create a proposal and put it up for voting. I think in most cases, 11 independently thinking and operating committee members would come up with 11 different proposals, and not one of these would have the slightest chance of being voted in.

I think for a decision you must find an agreement first, create a proposal based on the agreement (which will have a good chance of being voted in), and finally have the shareholders approve or disapprove by voting/unvoting committee members.

The thing is, you do not need to seek consensus of the existing committee members, if you have an idea for a committee proposal. Just make the proposal and if there are some committee members who obstruct it but the majority of shareholders like your proposal, it will go through as those committee members blocking it will be voted out.

For that reason I do not understand why xeroc has decided to consult his initial ideas about the new fee schedule only with the current committee members. There is absolutely nothing special about them. They try to make it look like there is something special (e.g. BunkerChain making his mumble "announcement") but it's a myth I wanted to debunk.

The committee member position is extremely transient for a good reason: so that nobody holding this position feels important and has illusion of any power, including emotional power.

[abit]

You are not supposed to "gather feedback" because you are not representing anybody's interests.
You are not supposed to do any "hard work". If hard work was needed for this position, it would have been a paid position.

surely a committee member represent at least a certain part of shareholder's benefits, otherwise he should be voted out.
surely committee need to gather feedback from community when committee is in the process of change something.
whether committee member should "work hard" is not a problem, but committee member really always need to put many time and energy on analysis and discussion.

Committee members don't need to work hard. When they're working hard, most likely they're acting as some kind of market research department of the DAC, which should be paid via worker proposal (I agree with jakub's opinion here).

However, currently, due to voting apathy, and the anti-dilution action, it's a waste of time to wait for approval of such a worker position.

Since we don't have such a market research department, stake holders should work hard to find best business model and/or pricing strategy. When a proposal is proposed, stake holders have to make decisions by themselves, have to judge whether the proposal is good by themselves, then vote. This is very hard and inefficient.

Currently, even nobody proposes committee proposals except the ones in committee, although everyone is allowed to propose committee proposals. The committee members can be lazy and vote for nothing, or vote randomly when a proposal is proposed, and let stake holders judge whom to support. But imo this will do nothing good to the ecosystem.

There have to be someone to work hard, otherwise the platform won't grow. We'd better not blame anyone who is currently working hard for the platform or is willing to work hard for the platform.

[bitcrab]

You are not supposed to "gather feedback" because you are not representing anybody's interests.
You are not supposed to do any "hard work". If hard work was needed for this position, it would have been a paid position.

surely a committee member represent at least a certain part of shareholder's benefits, otherwise he should be voted out.
surely committee need to gather feedback from community when committee is in the process of change something.
whether committee member should "work hard" is not a problem, but committee member really always need to put many time and energy on analysis and discussion.

[Samupaha]

bitcrab is a businessman, not a solution seeker interested in finding good incentive structures.
That's why he got a response like this - for pushing his interests above the interests of the whole system.

No, bitcrab received the response he did because some people think it's more productive to attack the person rather than the idea. It was an embarrassing thread to read.

Personal attacks on bitcrab shame this community. Discussion and arguments should not be about personal attacks but about ideas.
Those who attacked personally bitcrab using vulgar language should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm not ashamed. Bitcrab has shown many times that he is not interested in cooperative discussions. He is interested only in his own agenda and he doesn't give a shit about anybody else – or the whole system, which is most important thing here. Toxic people like him should be driven away from any community that wants to function properly. I'm horrified that so few other members of this community are seeing it.

[vegolino]

bitcrab is a businessman, not a solution seeker interested in finding good incentive structures.
That's why he got a response like this - for pushing his interests above the interests of the whole system.

No, bitcrab received the response he did because some people think it's more productive to attack the person rather than the idea. It was an embarrassing thread to read.

Personal attacks on bitcrab shame this community. Discussion and arguments should not be about personal attacks but about ideas.
Those who attacked personally bitcrab using vulgar language should be ashamed of themselves.

Please offer some understanding to people who have put their time and money on the line to build business around BitShares, not to be wiped out by a sudden change of rules.
They react passionately because they've risked a lot and have a lot to lose. Whereas it's easy for you to stay calm and advise them to be ashamed, as you have much less to lose.

I lost a lot with BTS ( in fiat terms ) probably more than most, but I do not use vulgar language in disagreements. Once we start to use vulgarities we have already lost an argument. 

[clayop]

Please offer some understanding to people who have put their time and money on the line to build business around BitShares, not to be wiped out by a sudden change of rules.

I can tell this same statement back to you. Bitcrab also put, or maybe much more money and effort to build business on BitShares.
Ashamed is ashamed.

[jakub]

bitcrab is a businessman, not a solution seeker interested in finding good incentive structures.
That's why he got a response like this - for pushing his interests above the interests of the whole system.

No, bitcrab received the response he did because some people think it's more productive to attack the person rather than the idea. It was an embarrassing thread to read.

Personal attacks on bitcrab shame this community. Discussion and arguments should not be about personal attacks but about ideas.
Those who attacked personally bitcrab using vulgar language should be ashamed of themselves.

Please offer some understanding to people who have put their time and money on the line to build business around BitShares, not to be wiped out by a sudden change of rules.
They react passionately because they've risked a lot and have a lot to lose. Whereas it's easy for you to stay calm and advise them to be ashamed, as you have much less to lose.

[vegolino]

bitcrab is a businessman, not a solution seeker interested in finding good incentive structures.
That's why he got a response like this - for pushing his interests above the interests of the whole system.

No, bitcrab received the response he did because some people think it's more productive to attack the person rather than the idea. It was an embarrassing thread to read.

Personal attacks on bitcrab shame this community. Discussion and arguments should not be about personal attacks but about ideas.
Those who attacked personally bitcrab using vulgar language should be ashamed of themselves.

[jakub]

Next time we can of course ask every shareholder to spend 5 days straight and find a good fee schedule .. would that make sense?

@xeroc ,

As I suggested in my previous posts, IMO if this task requires this much work, it should have gone through a worker proposal.

IMO in reality there are only a few values in the fee schedule that are politically sensitive.
These are:
- the flat transfer fee and AM/LTM price
- place/cancel order trading fee
There are hundreds of other fees but I don't even remember their values, which suggests that they do not really matter to me (and I guess most other users) as long as they are within some reasonable limits.

So whatever you are going to present next week, I'll look at those 4-5 numbers and I'll read the logical justification you offer for the new schedule.
If the justification offers a good explanation why those 4-5 numbers need to change, I'll accept the whole package.

So my question is this: why on earth couldn't we have started from the discussing justification first?
*Before* you and several other people needed to "spend 5 days straight" working on tweaking numbers, whose current value I don't even remember.

IMHO, we, the DAC, the BitShares platform, need an over all review of the whole fee schedule. I am saying this as if I am a stake holder.

Your personal opinion, no matter on a few fees or all fees, have nothing to do with my opinion. I do what I want, not what you want.

I have a committee member account, I vote for what I think is better. You have stake, you vote for the committee member who have same opinion with you. This is the game.

Saying anything as representative of the committee, or against the committee, is totally non sense, since the structure, the members in the committee can change every maintenance interval, or say every hour. The committee is totally unstable.

Can we stop arguing on this?

I'm not saying anything against the committee or any particular member of the committee.
All I'm saying is that the committee has assumed a role which I did not expect it to have.

[jakub]

He presented his "idea" badly and without the slightest attempt to offer logical justification (apart from "lower fees = more users") and without the slightest attempt to take into consideration the interests of businesses other than those similar to his own.

(1)
So, if one person present his personal idea without too much "hard work" in finding rational and logical justification and only with the purpose to start a public discussion about it on the forum, it is bad and he deserves what bitcrab got.

(2)
At the same time, if one or more person try to pulicly share an idea and present it with in-depth analysis and rational and logical argumentations (from their pov ofc), it is also bad because they put too hard work in it and should have shared the general idea first: point (1)

I am totally lost here.

bitcrab is a businessman, not a solution seeker interested in finding good incentive structures.
That's why he got a response like this - for pushing his interests above the interests of the whole system.

Do you even know about his business?!
Bitcrab do not gain nothing from a lower transfer fee from the point of view of his business.

Maybe you did not realize that bitcrab is also one of the biggest proxy from chinese community.

The transfer fee debate is coming from a big part of our community, not from a man running his business

Why do you insist on playing the victim so much?
It does not matter if his motivation is his business or the community that supports him.
This is what matters: whether your are perceived as someone who tries to arrive at a universal solution which is fair for the whole ecosystem.
bitcrab clearly lacks this quality. He has earned this image of non-solution-seeker and now it's hard to change it. 
I've tried several times to engage him in a solution-seeking discussion and he never seemed interested.

It does not take a genius to know that when you propose a change of rules that dismantles somebody else's business and you offer no indication whatsoever about taking into consideration those consequences, you are not likely to engage people in a productive discussion.

[abit]

Next time we can of course ask every shareholder to spend 5 days straight and find a good fee schedule .. would that make sense?

@xeroc ,

As I suggested in my previous posts, IMO if this task requires this much work, it should have gone through a worker proposal.

IMO in reality there are only a few values in the fee schedule that are politically sensitive.
These are:
- the flat transfer fee and AM/LTM price
- place/cancel order trading fee
There are hundreds of other fees but I don't even remember their values, which suggests that they do not really matter to me (and I guess most other users) as long as they are within some reasonable limits.

So whatever you are going to present next week, I'll look at those 4-5 numbers and I'll read the logical justification you offer for the new schedule.
If the justification offers a good explanation why those 4-5 numbers need to change, I'll accept the whole package.

So my question is this: why on earth couldn't we have started from the discussing justification first?
*Before* you and several other people needed to "spend 5 days straight" working on tweaking numbers, whose current value I don't even remember.

IMHO, we, the DAC, the BitShares platform, need an over all review of the whole fee schedule. I am saying this as if I am a stake holder.

Your personal opinion, no matter on a few fees or all fees, have nothing to do with my opinion. I do what I want, not what you want.

I have a committee member account, I vote for what I think is better. You have stake, you vote for the committee member who have same opinion with you. This is the game.

Saying anything as representative of the committee, or against the committee, is totally non sense, since the structure, the members in the committee can change every maintenance interval, or say every hour. The committee is totally unstable.

Can we stop arguing on this?

[jakub]

Next time we can of course ask every shareholder to spend 5 days straight and find a good fee schedule .. would that make sense?

@xeroc ,

As I suggested in my previous posts, IMO if this task requires this much work, it should have gone through a worker proposal.

IMO in reality there are only a few values in the fee schedule that are politically sensitive.
These are:
- the flat transfer fee and AM/LTM price
- place/cancel order trading fee
There are hundreds of other fees but I don't even remember their values, which suggests that they do not really matter to me (and I guess most other users) as long as they are within some reasonable limits.

So whatever you are going to present next week, I'll look at those 4-5 numbers and I'll read the logical justification you offer for the new schedule.
If the justification offers a good explanation why those 4-5 numbers need to change, I'll accept the whole package.

So my question is this: why on earth couldn't we have started from the discussing justification first?
*Before* you and several other people needed to "spend 5 days straight" working on tweaking numbers, whose current value I don't even remember.

[TravelsAsia]

bitcrab is a businessman, not a solution seeker interested in finding good incentive structures.
That's why he got a response like this - for pushing his interests above the interests of the whole system.

No, bitcrab received the response he did because some people think it's more productive to attack the person rather than the idea. It was an embarrassing thread to read.

[pc]

IMO, the only thing you are supposed to do (for free) is this: have public discussions and publicly differ in your opinions. That's the whole point.
Not work together (as some kind of governmental body representing the shareholders' interests), but quite the opposite: discuss and publicly defend your views with solid arguments, so that the shareholders can see who is making sense and who is not. So basically do what everybody does here on this forum. Discuss. For free.

Okay, I think I'm beginning to understand what your position is.

Only I think that with this mode of operation no decisions would ever be made. For a decision, some committee member must create a proposal and put it up for voting. I think in most cases, 11 independently thinking and operating committee members would come up with 11 different proposals, and not one of these would have the slightest chance of being voted in.

I think for a decision you must find an agreement first, create a proposal based on the agreement (which will have a good chance of being voted in), and finally have the shareholders approve or disapprove by voting/unvoting committee members.