Yunbi started voting against all workers except refund/burn workers

[lil_jay890]

there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community

It is a completely unethical action for an entity that considers itself an exchange.

If you want to change BitShares, then fork and build something yourself.

Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network?  If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.

Some actions may be "legal" and yet still be "unethical". It is unethical for the same reason that fractional reserve banking and naked shorting are unethical. 

The "ethical plank" does not need to be adjusted; it is the rules that need to be adjusted to conform with honesty and fairness.

Do your realize that your understanding of honesty and fairness is very different from what several billion of people on this Earth think?

You have to determine what you think is honest and fair when you do busyness with me, otherwise I will use my definitions.

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 disagree that they should have to post anything... they are taking the risk of holding and securing BTS for their customers.  They should be able to vote however they see fit in order to maintain that security.  If they view dilution as a threat to the value of their customers funds, they should be able to vote against that dilution.

There is a large group of people here that don't see anything wrong with what is happening at Yunbi.  If you don't like what Yunbi is doing, then lobby them to change it.  Don't scream that they are breaking some made up social contract.

Social contracts are weak and not relevant in most cases.  From what I can tell Yunbi never agreed to any social contract that many are screaming they broke.  Did they agree to any terms of service when trading bitshares?  I don't believe any exist, and even if they did there is no one to enforce these terms.

Instead of trying to force the exchanges to state that they will vote with on exchange BTS, maybe there should be a disclaimer on the bitshares homepage or block explorer instead.

[onceuponatime]

there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community

It is a completely unethical action for an entity that considers itself an exchange.

If you want to change BitShares, then fork and build something yourself.

Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network?  If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.

Some actions may be "legal" and yet still be "unethical". It is unethical for the same reason that fractional reserve banking and naked shorting are unethical. 

The "ethical plank" does not need to be adjusted; it is the rules that need to be adjusted to conform with honesty and fairness.

Do your realize that your understanding of honesty and fairness is very different from what several billion of people on this Earth think?

You have to determine what you think is honest and fair when you do busyness with me, otherwise I will use my definitions.

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. 

[muse-umum]

Good job Yunbi. Nice work. Vote them all out !!

[yvv]

there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community

It is a completely unethical action for an entity that considers itself an exchange.

If you want to change BitShares, then fork and build something yourself.

Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network?  If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.

Some actions may be "legal" and yet still be "unethical". It is unethical for the same reason that fractional reserve banking and naked shorting are unethical. 

The "ethical plank" does not need to be adjusted; it is the rules that need to be adjusted to conform with honesty and fairness.

Do your realize that your understanding of honesty and fairness is very different from what several billion of people on this Earth think?

You have to determine what you think is honest and fair when you do busyness with me, otherwise I will use my definitions.

[onceuponatime]

there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community

It is a completely unethical action for an entity that considers itself an exchange.

If you want to change BitShares, then fork and build something yourself.

Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network?  If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.

Some actions may be "legal" and yet still be "unethical". It is unethical for the same reason that fractional reserve banking and naked shorting are unethical. 

The "ethical plank" does not need to be adjusted; it is the rules that need to be adjusted to conform with honesty and fairness.

[yvv]

there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community

It is a completely unethical action for an entity that considers itself an exchange.

If you want to change BitShares, then fork and build something yourself.

Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network?  If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.

[donkeypong]

there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community

It is a completely unethical action for an entity that considers itself an exchange.

If you want to change BitShares, then fork and build something yourself.

[CLains]

I want to see more Chinese worker proposals. 

[helloworld]

If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.

I think the Chinese have a point.  Looks at the scape's video.  How many BTS did they get for that?  1600 views?  I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.

In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain.  At one point I thought it was a cool idea.  Very sci-fi.  Neat stuff.  Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed.  This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.

The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off.  What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released?  How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid.  It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely. 

I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits.  I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features.  I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this.  To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this.  It is just a recipe to not be competitive.

there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community, however, it is not right to say that China stakeholders want to stop development.

anyway, we built the worker proposal mechanism means stakeholders are not supposed to support any development, they will vote based on their judgment. so developers need to explain the necessity and fair price of their work.

yes, as you had said, talented developers do not like to explain, anyway, maybe other people can explain instead of them? under the worker proposal system voters definitely need to understand they are paying for useful and effective job.

for example, AFAIK, most of China stakeholders do not think they need the BSIP10 feature, how they feel when they are aware they need to pay 50k/day for this?

I was also told by one Chinese programmer, "in my view ***'s work make sense, however the quality need to be improved."

please do not be scared by what yunbi did, 4 worker are still there and I think it's not easy to vote them out. and new workers still have chance to be voted in if enough voters are convinced.

 

[Empirical1.2]

If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.

I think the Chinese have a point.  Looks at the scape's video.  How many BTS did they get for that?  1600 views?  I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.

In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain.  At one point I thought it was a cool idea.  Very sci-fi.  Neat stuff.  Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed.  This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.

The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off.  What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released?  How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid.  It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely. 

I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits.  I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features.  I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this.  To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this.  It is just a recipe to not be competitive.

there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community, however, it is not right to say that China stakeholders want to stop development.

anyway, we built the worker proposal mechanism means stakeholders are not supposed to support any development, they will vote based on their judgment. so developers need to explain the necessity and fair price of their work.

yes, as you had said, talented developers do not like to explain, anyway, maybe other people can explain instead of them? under the worker proposal system voters definitely need to understand they are paying for useful and effective job.

for example, AFAIK, most of China stakeholders do not think they need the BSIP10 feature, how they feel when they are aware they need to pay 50k/day for this?

I was also told by one Chinese programmer, "in my view ***'s work make sense, however the quality need to be improved."

please do not be scared by what yunbi did, 4 worker are still there and I think it's not easy to vote them out. and new workers still have chance to be voted in if enough voters are convinced.

I think Graphene is already pretty solid and right now the focus should be, getting a tight peg on key SmartCoins (subsidized liquidity) and make them attractive to hold (BitUSD Yield)

BitCrab what do you think the general sentiment among the Chinese community is on subsidizing liquidity and yield?

a) BitAsset Liquidity https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21544.0.html

b) BitAsset Yield   https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html


STEEM is potentially a BitUSD competitor that may have both subsidized liquidity and yield/interest.

The SBD (which seems to be a USD pegged asset with a possible interest rate bonus on top) is interesting. There is a DEX on the network with just a single market STEEM/SBD (plus there are subsidies to liquidity providers which is great addition)

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22125.0.html

I believe diluting for interest/yield in particular is self-funding and will create demand for BitUSD (BTS) and raise the price of BTS from the outset. If we don't do it, competitors will bootstrap their USD product first. Are some at least in favour of diluting for liquidity &/or yield?

[gamey]

I just think you guys are doing more damage than good when you blindly vote against developers without any consideration.  It isn't productive from what I see.  It doesn't help the process.

if really without any consideration, all the workers have been voted out.
I appreciate dannotestein's opinion: "I do want to say that I don't feel any animosity towards those voting against the workers: I understand their position and have even agreed with some of their arguments",  both sides need to try to understand their counter party in a game.

On a case by case basis, there is no consideration being given in Yunbi's vote if they are voting everyone out.  I'm quite sure people mostly understand why you guys don't want dilution, assuming the reasons are as stated.  We just disagree.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I just think you guys are doing more damage than good when you blindly vote against developers without any consideration.  It isn't productive from what I see.  It doesn't help the process.

if really without any consideration, all the workers have been voted out.
I appreciate dannotestein's opinion: "I do want to say that I don't feel any animosity towards those voting against the workers: I understand their position and have even agreed with some of their arguments",  both sides need to try to understand their counter party in a game.

Very diplomatic and politically correct words that have no real solution to follow unfortunately.

It's like saying you need to understand why someone who killed another was justified in their reasoning to do it. Ok.. I understand their side now.. didn't make them right or absolved of the crime of taking anothers life.

Likewise, anybody can say they understand why you might want to vote the way you do, but it doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Stopping all the work will have no impact on our current market rates to cause them to go up in any manner, which has been the #1 reasoning claim I have seen time and again... current market cap.

Continuing to develop strategic elements will however increase the adoption of bitshares, and make it more attractive to businesses looking to utilize it knowing that it is has a healthy ongoing maintenance from it's community. Counter argument has been to use free workers, that have not appeared.

Some of the complaints have been about programmers charging too much, yet no developers out of lower pay rated economies have stepped up to take advantage of this situation as a competitive advantage. The only reasonable conclusion is because the message in China is that no work will be supported no matter what, so don't even try.

I would like to see more accountability .. not just from Workers.. but from Proxies .. on their reasons for how they are voting. How that takes form though still remains to be seen.

[bitcrab]

I just think you guys are doing more damage than good when you blindly vote against developers without any consideration.  It isn't productive from what I see.  It doesn't help the process.

if really without any consideration, all the workers have been voted out.
I appreciate dannotestein's opinion: "I do want to say that I don't feel any animosity towards those voting against the workers: I understand their position and have even agreed with some of their arguments",  both sides need to try to understand their counter party in a game.

[gamey]

yes, as you had said, talented developers do not like to explain, anyway, maybe other people can explain instead of them? under the worker proposal system voters definitely need to understand they are paying for useful and effective job.

I'm not sure that is what I meant to say.  It is more like talented developers will realize they can simply be paid more with less headache elsewhere.  Otherwise I don't disagree.  All paid work should be explained to some degree.

for example, AFAIK, most of China stakeholders do not think they need the BSIP10 feature, how they feel when they are aware they need to pay 50k/day for this?

No idea, but no one is paying 50k a day. I am not sure about the proposal / timeframe.  Discussions like this are useful though.  Supporting selective judgement is all I am asking for.
I was also told by one Chinese programmer, "in my view ***'s work make sense, however the quality need to be improved."

What is your point? Most code can always be improved, but there are trade-offs. Too many back seat drivers.  Too many bosses. 

please do not be scared by what yunbi did, 4 worker are still there and I think it's not easy to vote them out. and new workers still have chance to be voted in if enough voters are convinced.
I just think you guys are doing more damage than good when you blindly vote against developers without any consideration.  It isn't productive from what I see.  It doesn't help the process.

Responses in bold...  Well good luck guys.  Sorry for being so harsh and throwing around the word 'stupid' so much. With such an extreme position being taken, my harshness seemed justified.  I expect nothing from this community but wish for the best for all the great people I met. (and surely some I didn't meet).  I'd also like to see the project get real traction.

[Pheonike]

If there are Chinese workers who feel they can do the needed work cheaper and better, where are they? I have yet to see any worker proposals from them. Until I see what work the Chinese feel is necessary and a proposal to accomplish that work cheaper with current/better quality, I will assume they only want stop development at all cost. I will assume they dont care about BitShares and only wish to destroy it at this point.