Yunbi started voting against all workers except refund/burn workers

[tbone]

While we may not think it's a good idea to have exchanges vote, you could also argue that as long as the exchange accounts are public and we know who they're voting for, anyone keeping their funds in that exchange implicitly agrees to their votes. If they do not agree they should move their funds elsewhere.

You can't really expect Yunbi's users who hold BTS to know exactly what is going on.  For all they know, they are just trading a cryptocurrency.  So unless Yunbi is informing their users about this very controversial action, then they are acting in an extremely unethical manner and should pay a serious price. 

[svk]

While we may not think it's a good idea to have exchanges vote, you could also argue that as long as the exchange accounts are public and we know who they're voting for, anyone keeping their funds in that exchange implicitly agrees to their votes. If they do not agree they should move their funds elsewhere.

I also fail to see how you can use Fox and Azure as an argument for worker dilution, on the contrary it's a great example of how people who are not workers can make important contributions and add value to the network. As far as I know the only direct compensation he received was from people (like myself) who made donations following the Azure announcement.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

bm change the total supply of BTS without consent too

What the hell this is supposed to mean?

He means many unpopular dilutionary changes were pushed through by a minority of BTS stake that was actually voting, on the basis of 'Silence means consent'. So too with this, if BTS users don't remove their stake from Yunbi or enough BTS votes can't be raised to counteract them then 'Silence means consent.'

So that happened like 2014? And these people haven't got over it and want to revenge for Bytemaster and other developers because of that? And they don't care if Bitshares is destroyed at the same time? Really, what the fuck is wrong with these people? They don't make any sense.

Their argument with the consent issue is that they've always been told if you don't like it, don't just complain that it's not fair/bad for BitShares, get the shareholder votes to support your POV otherwise silence means consent (Also reference in Dec 2015, not just 2014) So now they have the votes to do what they believe is in the best interest of BTS and we shouldn't change the rules/ban them from the forum but rather argue for the other side and get the necessary votes for our POV. 

My impression is that they believe dilution for development is draining the price in the short term. (I agree to an extent that $50 000 spent on development can drop BTS by much more than $50k because of the selling pressure it creates and the value of that development is only realised in the future.) So they think BTS is pretty good where it is atm and deserves a higher valuation and that now we should attract more supporters attracted by a stable/rising share price. At a higher valuation a $50k dev job is relatively much more affordable.

Personally I don't think their strategy will have the desired effect, because vesting merger shares are probably having a much bigger impact than development dilution is at this stage. We've also seen with Fox's effort to add us to Azure, which ironically was low/no paid gave us a $6 million volume day and took us from $10-20 million in less than a week and still 50% higher. So there are clearly some development type efforts that can add massive value to BTS and worth the cost.

 

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I think the developers have gained enough profit.LINUX strong is not to rely on others to pay wages. I agree with Yunbi.

https://www.quora.com/Do-Linux-developers-get-paid-If-so-is-it-on-par-with-the-pay-that-software-professionals-are-paid

In case you don't want to really look at all the information.. how about we focus on the average salary scale provided in the same informtion:

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Skill=Linux/Salary

Now look at our workers in comparison.

Better start voting for all those workers now if we really are like LINUX as your supposition suggests.

If Yunbi or others voting against workers are telling this story that LINUX is being developed by unpaid workers.. then it is based on false information about how Linux is in fact developed with very much expense paid.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Yunbi voting against the workers could be looked at as them protecting their customers.  By voting against the workers, they are preventing the dilution of their customers bts. Dilution has direct negative price pressure and adds an additional variable to trading.  Workers and development doesn't necessarily mean higher price.

Also there is no "social contact" that the exchanges need to follow, and constant vilifying of exchanges is going to hurt the bts price much more than an exchange actually using the system the way it was designed.

Yes.. there is.. BTS is a unique token beyond others that are on central exchanges. It comes with voting power to influence what happens in Bitshares. If someone is to be able to use an exchange, they are using it to exchange, not to have the voting power absconded by that exchange. This is along the same lines as the exchange taking any snapshots of sharedrops for themselves.

We have a mechanism for proxy voting... and if Yunbi can show that all their depositors accounts are in fact proxying to them because they want Yunbi voting for them, then there is nothing to argue here. This is being done with consent... even if it was a majority percentage and not everyone then I would accept that.. If not though, then this is being done without consent. Lets take a look:

http://cryptofresh.com/u/laomao

Yeah.. nothing but themselves.

Exchanges shouldn't be vilified.. I think they are a very important part to the virtual currency world.

Yunbi has far more understanding and familiarity with Bitshares compared to other exchanges, and they understand better than others the trust being placed with BTS holders in centralized exchanges in regards to voting power. They have somehow arrived at some twisted conclusion that now it is OK for them to vote with their stake.

A year ago when they were delegates taking money from Bitshares for their exchange they understood very well that using their balance to vote would not be well received. Why suddenly they think its ok when in the past it never was? What changed?

The only change now is that the voting power placed with Bitshares holders is far greater. So the message seems from Yunbi is, if you allow someone to have to much power available to them, they will take it without consent for their own purposes.

Again.. there are no arguments against this action if the individual account holders proxy their vote to yunbi in show of support. That would indicate a social consensus in support of them voting.

[Empirical1.2]

bm change the total supply of BTS without consent too

What the hell this is supposed to mean?

He means many unpopular dilutionary changes were pushed through by a minority of BTS stake that was actually voting, on the basis of 'Silence means consent'. So too with this, if BTS users don't remove their stake from Yunbi or enough BTS votes can't be raised to counteract them then 'Silence means consent.'

So that happened like 2014? And these people haven't got over it and want to revenge for Bytemaster and other developers because of that? And they don't care if Bitshares is destroyed at the same time? Really, what the fuck is wrong with these people? They don't make any sense.

Their argument with the consent issue is that they've always been told if you don't like it, don't just complain that it's not fair/bad for BitShares, get the shareholder votes to support your POV otherwise silence means consent (Also reference in Dec 2015, not just 2014) So now they have the votes to do what they believe is in the best interest of BTS and we shouldn't change the rules/ban them from the forum but rather argue for the other side and get the necessary votes for our POV. 

My impression is that they believe dilution for development is draining the price in the short term. (I agree to an extent that $50 000 spent on development can drop BTS by much more than $50k because of the selling pressure it creates and the value of that development is only realised in the future.) So they think BTS is pretty good where it is atm and deserves a higher valuation and that now we should attract more supporters attracted by a stable/rising share price. At a higher valuation a $50k dev job is relatively much more affordable.

Personally I don't think their strategy will have the desired effect, because vesting merger shares are probably having a much bigger impact than development dilution is at this stage. We've also seen with Fox's effort to add us to Azure, which ironically was low/no paid gave us a $6 million volume day and took us from $10-20 million in less than a week and still 50% higher. So there are clearly some development type efforts that can add massive value to BTS and worth the cost.

[lil_jay890]

Yunbi voting against the workers could be looked at as them protecting their customers.  By voting against the workers, they are preventing the dilution of their customers bts. Dilution has direct negative price pressure and adds an additional variable to trading.  Workers and development doesn't necessarily mean higher price.

Also there is no "social contact" that the exchanges need to follow, and constant vilifying of exchanges is going to hurt the bts price much more than an exchange actually using the system the way it was designed.

You're a complete idiot.  You've proven that over and over again.

Lol

[puptothekit]

Yunbi voting against the workers could be looked at as them protecting their customers.  By voting against the workers, they are preventing the dilution of their customers bts. Dilution has direct negative price pressure and adds an additional variable to trading.  Workers and development doesn't necessarily mean higher price.

Also there is no "social contact" that the exchanges need to follow, and constant vilifying of exchanges is going to hurt the bts price much more than an exchange actually using the system the way it was designed.

You're a complete idiot.  You've proven that over and over again.

[lil_jay890]

Yunbi voting against the workers could be looked at as them protecting their customers.  By voting against the workers, they are preventing the dilution of their customers bts. Dilution has direct negative price pressure and adds an additional variable to trading.  Workers and development doesn't necessarily mean higher price.

Also there is no "social contact" that the exchanges need to follow, and constant vilifying of exchanges is going to hurt the bts price much more than an exchange actually using the system the way it was designed.

[abit]

That‘s no doubt about that poloniex、btc38 had make a contribution to the BTS，I think they can creat a worker and vote himself ,
Maybe you will say they are crazy ,but The capital market is always crazy.
assuming that some has many BTS, or he can get many votes like this ,creat a worker and vote hinself , but he doesn't work ,so what?
Rely on the moral ? or rely on the rule ?

If this will come sooner or later, better sooner than later. Let them do it, drive the price down, so real believers can buy in cheaper.

You wanted this, didn't you？  @abit

You want me to support you or not?

[Samupaha]

bm change the total supply of BTS without consent too

What the hell this is supposed to mean?

He means many unpopular dilutionary changes were pushed through by a minority of BTS stake that was actually voting, on the basis of 'Silence means consent'. So too with this, if BTS users don't remove their stake from Yunbi or enough BTS votes can't be raised to counteract them then 'Silence means consent.'

So that happened like 2014? And these people haven't got over it and want to revenge for Bytemaster and other developers because of that? And they don't care if Bitshares is destroyed at the same time? Really, what the fuck is wrong with these people? They don't make any sense.

[abit]

Yunbi's cold/warm wallet's voting proxy is set to laobao.
Personal suggestion: if you support development , please withdraw your funds from yunbi.

its laomao (not ***bao)

Thanks.  Updated.  The link is correct anyway.

[Empirical1.2]

bm change the total supply of BTS without consent too

What the hell this is supposed to mean?

He means many unpopular dilutionary changes were pushed through by a minority of BTS stake that was actually voting, on the basis of 'Silence means consent'. So too with this, if BTS users don't remove their stake from Yunbi or enough BTS votes can't be raised to counteract them then 'Silence means consent.'

What we've got is an ideal case of "silence means consent".  If there is ever a case when apathy turns to anger, then the majority has the ability to remove the benevolent dictator by raising as little as 5% or 10% worth of opposition.   That is less power than the captain of a ship has.  And captains are given such authority for good reasons.
...
I would not invest in a company directed by its shareholders.

All is swell.  If not, sell. 

If there are enough votes for and everyone else abstains - silence means consent.
If there are not enough votes and everyone else abstains - silence means dissent.

[Moon]

I think the developers have gained enough profit.LINUX strong is not to rely on others to pay wages. I agree with Yunbi.

Then explain what incentives the developers have? Linux is totally different kind of project, explain how we can make the development happen like it does? Bitshares is more like a company than a open source project. Our goal is to make money. Don't you agree with that?

This kind of short oneliners don't help to convince anybody. You have to EXPLAIN how you think Bitshares can go on when funding for  development is stopped.

 

[Samupaha]

I think the developers have gained enough profit.LINUX strong is not to rely on others to pay wages. I agree with Yunbi.

Then explain what incentives the developers have? Linux is totally different kind of project, explain how we can make the development happen like it does? Bitshares is more like a company than a open source project. Our goal is to make money. Don't you agree with that?

This kind of short oneliners don't help to convince anybody. You have to EXPLAIN how you think Bitshares can go on when funding for  development is stopped.