Yunbi started voting against all workers except refund/burn workers

[tarantulaz]

 When I saw the 400k refund worker my heart froze... I've been following this project for the last 3 months and all I want to wish is cancer to @bitcrab ... I have come to the conclusion that he, tonyk and many others just want to harm bitshares and profit from that.

The gap between the cultures is huge. I can see it from chinese people that visit or live in European countries. They are simply unable to integrate.

The people of Bitshares have to take action now. I see no other solution than the people who follow the project and who support dilution to sell their shares and fork Bitshares.

Bitcrab was talking earlier about the salary being to high. WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO PAY THE DEV WHEN THE PRICE GOES DOWN? ISN'T THE DEV THE REASON THAT THE PRICE WENT UP? WHY SHOULD WE PAY THE DEV IN $ AND NOT BTS? ISN'T THE GOAL TO GET RID OF THE OLD CURRENCIES?

At least in Dash, the core team is being paid steadily in Dash regardless of the price. And their price is going up. They have problems as to who they are going to vote as well, but nobody complains, EVER! FUCKING EVER! about the increadibly high dilution they have on their chain. They are even talking about adding more dilution because of the awesome projects they are funding. They'll even create the option for monthly contracts and we can't even dilute by 6%/y

BTW there is no point in arguing about Yunbi. It is an exchange. Real investors should know that you never keep your money in an exchange. For Bitshares especially, where your Bitshares can be deposited in the exchange in 1-2 minutes. Speculators have no right to have an opinion, in my opinion.

I thought of things a lot before coming home and I have to clarify a few things. I was quite upset and now that I got back I am even more upset with what I've read. I thought of telling @abit to stop any developement right now. This is getting ridiculous. There is no point for him to develop anything, as I don't think that will ever get paid for any current or future work. The same goes for the developer of cryptofresh (sorry I don't know the username). People really rely on people like abit to see their investments grow, without paying a penny for the development. As Max Keiser says, I'll call you Jihadists. You are J I H A D I S T S. You want to see the project die just to make sure you don't lose money short term. You don't even lose money by the way. You are just useless speculators. If you can't stomach it, do what @Empirical1.2 is doing. Hold no shares. Please give us all your shares so that we can see this project grow.

By the way, there is a new project called Lisk that will use DPOS and Ethereums blockchain. Let's see what we'll do without development against them. I already joined their ICO and in the first day they raised more than 700BTC and they started a day ago. They can take everything that has been built on Bitshares and make it even better - in the way they want and with more funds.

Please understand what the network effect is. Everyone is talking about it. I bet BM is sick of mentioning it all the time just because some people don't get it. We need people to come in. The buy pressure from people coming in because of the liquidity or the interest will be way higher than what we'll pay.

@tonyk Look at NXT! Look at it man. They have no inflation. 0!!! FUCKING 0. Look at their asset exchange. Illiquid. They are losing people, even if they have a fairly good currency and their assets are worth a lot more than the ones on Bitshares. Look at Bitcoin! The miners control everything and the coin is losing its value. But they profit more by the fact that its value falls! Less miners joining and they keep their costs low, sacrifising Bitcoin's health. Do you even get what abit is developing? 0 fees. ZERO. Micropayments will be available for people. Isn't that something worth paying for? I guess not. Useless. @abit please stop developing. You are an idiot abit. Or please do it for free. Free. I like getting but not giving. I <3 capitalism.

Whoever said that we are a lot better than are competitors just made me laugh a lot. No we are not. Dash is currently available to fund straight away ~32K$ a month, to anyone that gets voted. Not by a few delegates, but by 3500. I used to think that we are better, but after I realised how the big holders of Bitshares don't understand the concept of sacrifise. My advice is to play some online videogame in a team or even better some chess. It will open your eyes.

PS that thing with the selling volume was a bit off. Even when the price went down to ~400satoshi's which was 50% drop, it came back to ~700 which was less than a 10% loss. Also when you refer to people selling all the shares, think just of two things. Do bitcoin miners sell all their coins? No. At least not all of them. If you get 100shares, can you sell more than 100? If you have some money aside though or if you have low costs, you can save 10shares. There is no way to sell more shares than you earn, but you can keep some. Simple.

Edit

I forgot to mention that I've lost a lot of value as I purchased when we were around the 2000 sats and sold half of them for 25% less. One of the reasons that I stayed, was the promise of the 77k$ development funds. I thought that could easily destroy any competitor long term. I was wrong, as I was very wrong not to read the forum about many of the false promises on the main website.

As about dash, 13% inflation and they have 3 times bigger market cap. But we are doing everything perfectly, they are shit.

[svk]

What criteria determines if a worker is voted in or not?  Looking at the voting report on cryptofresh I see that only one worker has > 50% approval, which is svk.  However several others are green.

I "think" it works like this, but someone may need to correct me: There's a fixed amount of funds available to be distributed each day. The top voted worker gets its funds first, then so on down the list, until there's no more to give out (so the last worker funded may only be partially funded). The way you vote against any real person being funded (or at least to set a threshold for how many votes they need in order to be funded) is to vote for the "refund" or "burn" workers. Funds accumulated by the refund worker go back into the "reserve pool" from which the worker funds are paid. Funds collected by the "burn" workers are destroyed (the overall supply of BTS decreases). There's sufficient refund workers to eat up all the available funds to be paid out per day, in which case no real workers get funded.

So voting for a refund worker is making a statement like "I don't want to pay for the current workers at current prices, but it may make sense to pay workers in the future". Voting for a burn worker is more like saying "I think there's too many funds allocated for workers to be paid in the future, let's reduce the supply".

According to http://www.cryptofresh.com/workers, the current daily budget that can be paid to workers is ~315K BTS. Of this, about 87K is being paid to workers, and the rest is being transferred back to the reserve pool by the refund400k worker.

That's correct, it's basically a first come first serve until there are no funds left of the budget, which is around 315k BTS per day right now. If the 400k worker were in 1st place, it would take the whole budget and no one else would get paid.

[dannotestein]

What criteria determines if a worker is voted in or not?  Looking at the voting report on cryptofresh I see that only one worker has > 50% approval, which is svk.  However several others are green.

I "think" it works like this, but someone may need to correct me: There's a fixed amount of funds available to be distributed each day. The top voted worker gets its funds first, then so on down the list, until there's no more to give out (so the last worker funded may only be partially funded). The way you vote against any real person being funded (or at least to set a threshold for how many votes they need in order to be funded) is to vote for the "refund" or "burn" workers. Funds accumulated by the refund worker go back into the "reserve pool" from which the worker funds are paid. Funds collected by the "burn" workers are destroyed (the overall supply of BTS decreases). There's sufficient refund workers to eat up all the available funds to be paid out per day, in which case no real workers get funded.

So voting for a refund worker is making a statement like "I don't want to pay for the current workers at current prices, but it may make sense to pay workers in the future". Voting for a burn worker is more like saying "I think there's too many funds allocated for workers to be paid in the future, let's reduce the supply".

According to http://www.cryptofresh.com/workers, the current daily budget that can be paid to workers is ~315K BTS. Of this, about 87K is being paid to workers, and the rest is being transferred back to the reserve pool by the refund400k worker.

[morpheus]

What criteria determines if a worker is voted in or not?  Looking at the voting report on cryptofresh I see that only one worker has > 50% approval, which is svk.  However several others are green.

[yvv]

I personally would be outraged if I called my stockbroker and ordered 1000 shares of Company A, and found out six weeks later that my stock broker had voted my 1000 shares at Company A's annual meeting to elect a Board which starved Company A of development funds. Although my 1000 shares are stored by the stockbroker, rather than sent to my custody, in order to facilitate trading, they have no right to vote those shares as if they were owned by the broker.

A company stock has your name attached to it. This is not the case with BTS. One who controls a wallet has a vote.

For some weird reason, you continue to miss the point.

I don't think so.

[tbone]

I personally would be outraged if I called my stockbroker and ordered 1000 shares of Company A, and found out six weeks later that my stock broker had voted my 1000 shares at Company A's annual meeting to elect a Board which starved Company A of development funds. Although my 1000 shares are stored by the stockbroker, rather than sent to my custody, in order to facilitate trading, they have no right to vote those shares as if they were owned by the broker.

A company stock has your name attached to it. This is not the case with BTS. One who controls a wallet has a vote.

For some weird reason, you continue to miss the point. 

[yvv]

I personally would be outraged if I called my stockbroker and ordered 1000 shares of Company A, and found out six weeks later that my stock broker had voted my 1000 shares at Company A's annual meeting to elect a Board which starved Company A of development funds. Although my 1000 shares are stored by the stockbroker, rather than sent to my custody, in order to facilitate trading, they have no right to vote those shares as if they were owned by the broker.

A company stock has your name attached to it. This is not the case with BTS. One who controls a wallet has a vote.

[Empirical1.2]

I personally would be outraged if my called my stockbroker and ordered 1000 shares of Company A, and found out six weeks later that my stock broker had voted my 1000 shares at Company A's annual meeting to elect a Board which starved Company A of development funds. Although my 1000 shares are stored by the stockbroker, rather than sent to my custody, in order to facilitate trading, they have no right to vote those shares as if they were owned by the broker.

AFAIK your broker is allowed too & often will vote as they see fit with your shares unless you've specifically instructed them to do otherwise. (Edit: After further reading I see brokers are only able to vote on 'routine matters' which are pretty limited)

Given that the general Chinese sentiment seems to be in favour of limited development, Yunbi are most likely voting in line with majority customer sentiment. (To do otherwise would be negative for their business.)

Personally I don't mind exchanges voting as it should give people another reason to move their BTS to the DEX. I mean the concentration of BTS on exchanges and the ability of those exchanges to vote makes BTS look as bad as BTC mining pools in terms of centralization & our exposure to them makes the USP of the DEX itself much weaker. This is why I'm also in favour of SmartCoin yield because even if people engage in yield harvesting they will be removing their BTS from centralized exchanges to do so.

[inertia]

Possibly. Please expand upon your analogy so that we can discuss.

I don't know where I was going with my analogy.

I just discovered BitShares, and of all things, the top discussion is this.  But it really helped me wrap my head around DPOS.  And I am not at all turned off, although the mention of social contracts makes me giggle.

I suppose if I bought Apple shares on E*TRADE, then E*TRADE turned around and used their profits to lobby against Apple, that'd be problematic.  But I wouldn't expect E*TRADE to disclose their lobbying practice to me.  It's my job to investigate people I do business with.

If E*TRADE hid my Apple stockholder voting options (though, I believe that's a SEC violation), that would also be problematic, but again, I think it's my job to investigate people I do business with.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I personally would be outraged if my called my stockbroker and ordered 1000 shares of Company A, and found out six weeks later that my stock broker had voted my 1000 shares at Company A's annual meeting to elect a Board which starved Company A of development funds. Although my 1000 shares are stored by the stockbroker, rather than sent to my custody, in order to facilitate trading, they have no right to vote those shares as if they were owned by the broker.

VERY accurate comparison!  The voting element to BTS are not like other crypto-currencies.. they are shares in the Bitshares DAC... and the act of absconding their voting power like this is the same as the situation you have just described.

I use the word absconding also because they are doing this secretly through a username that doesn't even clearly identify them/their exchange as the voting party.

[onceuponatime]

If I were to create a centralized exchange, call it Alphabet Soup Exchange, and I wanted to ethically offer trading pairs for BTS, would this forum approve if I added a checkbox with an "I Agree" option and a text box with the following statement, before displaying the account/memo needed for deposits?

"I agree to deposit BitShares with the full knowledge that Alphabet Soup Exchange is delegated a temporary stake until these funds are withdrawn."

In other words, it just draws attention to the facts and nothing about the intent.

The above is better than nothing, but Once's disclaimer is better. It leaves out any mention of a specific intent, but is explicit on stating the exchange is given power through the deposit to vote as they please, which may or may not coincide with the depositor's best interests.

Leaving that out is manipulative IMO.

Got it, and will we expect Bitshares to also display non-manipulative disclaimers when it offers trade pairs for future DPOS sidechains?

Possibly. Please expand upon your analogy so that we can discuss.

I personally would be outraged if I called my stockbroker and ordered 1000 shares of Company A, and found out six weeks later that my stock broker had voted my 1000 shares at Company A's annual meeting to elect a Board which starved Company A of development funds. Although my 1000 shares are stored by the stockbroker, rather than sent to my custody, in order to facilitate trading, they have no right to vote those shares as if they were owned by the broker.

[inertia]

If I were to create a centralized exchange, call it Alphabet Soup Exchange, and I wanted to ethically offer trading pairs for BTS, would this forum approve if I added a checkbox with an "I Agree" option and a text box with the following statement, before displaying the account/memo needed for deposits?

"I agree to deposit BitShares with the full knowledge that Alphabet Soup Exchange is delegated a temporary stake until these funds are withdrawn."

In other words, it just draws attention to the facts and nothing about the intent.

The above is better than nothing, but Once's disclaimer is better. It leaves out any mention of a specific intent, but is explicit on stating the exchange is given power through the deposit to vote as they please, which may or may not coincide with the depositor's best interests.

Leaving that out is manipulative IMO.

Got it, and will we expect Bitshares to also display non-manipulative disclaimers when it offers trade pairs for future DPOS sidechains?

[Thom]

If I were to create a centralized exchange, call it Alphabet Soup Exchange, and I wanted to ethically offer trading pairs for BTS, would this forum approve if I added a checkbox with an "I Agree" option and a text box with the following statement, before displaying the account/memo needed for deposits?

"I agree to deposit BitShares with the full knowledge that Alphabet Soup Exchange is delegated a temporary stake until these funds are withdrawn."

In other words, it just draws attention to the facts and nothing about the intent.

The above is better than nothing, but Once's disclaimer is better. It leaves out any mention of a specific intent, but is explicit on stating the exchange is given power through the deposit to vote as they please, which may or may not coincide with the depositor's best interests.

Leaving that out is manipulative IMO.

[inertia]

If I were to create a centralized exchange, call it Alphabet Soup Exchange, and I wanted to ethically offer trading pairs for BTS, would this forum approve if I added a checkbox with an "I Agree" option and a text box with the following statement, before displaying the account/memo needed for deposits?

"I agree to deposit BitShares with the full knowledge that Alphabet Soup Exchange is delegated a temporary stake until these funds are withdrawn."

In other words, it just draws attention to the facts and nothing about the intent.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I fully realize that my understanding  of honesty and fairness does not match that of billions of people in this world. That is why I went "all in"  first in Bitcoin and now in BitShares. I assumed that Satoshi and Bytemaster were building ethical platforms. But there is no getting around the machinations of inferior humans. Superior humans will hopefully continue to build the platforms in ways that they become as trustless as possible - because you just can't trust most people to do what is ethical (ie. not to use deceptive practices and to follow the non-aggression principle). And to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or, perhaps better, do not do unto others what you do not want done onto you.

At a minimum, Yunbi should state very clearly on their deposit page, before taking a deposit, that they intend to vote the stake of the depositor as they see fit  which may or may not conform with the depositor's wishes.

 

I fully agree there should be disclosure. If they are not putting that front and center on their deposit page they are acting surreptitiously vs. transparently. There is no excuse that makes it justifiable otherwise.  This is common place and even a legal requirement in many districts for their type of business.

It's one thing to be a NEW exchange and take this action with new depositors... it's another to be an existing exchange for a long time and then CHANGE the way you operate without any disclosure.