Author Topic: [Worker Proposal] Percentage-based transfer fees  (Read 17799 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Update:
Jakub has approved the proposal 1.10.309 which will remove him from the authorities of bsip10-worker. See https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.309

Update2:
Above proposal has been approved by the Committee. the bsip-worker account is now a 2/2 multi-sig account controlled by me and the committee (see https://cryptofresh.com/u/bsip10-worker).
« Last Edit: June 07, 2016, 12:24:12 pm by abit »
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
From what I can tell this worker originally wanted 4.5 million BTS... They are going to receive between 3.5 and 3.6 million bts at current rates by the time the worker proposal is finished.
3.5-3.6 is your good will probably. From What I can see, it would be around 2.5.

Quote
Are we getting anything out of this or is it just 3.5 million BTS down the drain because 1 guy, who doesn't appear to be critical to the operation other than holding an owner key, disappeared?
With this special worker, the committee decides finally release the fund or not. The committee is controlled by voters. If they want to give you zero, you won't get more.

Are we getting anything? All code is public, it works fine with an earlier release. If someone wants to finish it, technically it's sure possible. Just me won't get anything.
As I predicted, the worker is voted out right now. Current balance is 2.42M.

Perhaps someone have interest to create a prediction market for this?  :P
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
why is the Threshold 100%?

i would really like to see, that you get this funds, but the failure is the bad design of the worker proposal.

would it be not better to set the threshold to 60%?  now this, funds are locked if jakub is not coming back.

pls choose a better threshold next time.

--

what i don't get is, that the committee decided to pay the funds to make 0 fees happen, and CNX said everything is fine, and without information of the committee CNX and you decide to push this feature back. i don't get why this is handled this way. This is not a call of CNX to decide.

@abit

thanks for your hard work, you are 1 great asset this community have and i hope you will tackle more stuff
in the future.
Thanks.
This worker is not for the 0 fee feature, it's another one.
Perhaps the 0 fee feature will come earlier.

The 100% threshold is set to make the committee be able to make final judgement, it's the idea, to show our confidence, loyalty, etc. Otherwise it's no need to do like that. Maybe an option would be adding another account as 2nd escrow.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
why is the Threshold 100%?

i would really like to see, that you get this funds, but the failure is the bad design of the worker proposal.

would it be not better to set the threshold to 60%?  now this, funds are locked if jakub is not coming back.

pls choose a better threshold next time.

--

what i don't get is, that the committee decided to pay the funds to make 0 fees happen, and CNX said everything is fine, and without information of the committee CNX and you decide to push this feature back. i don't get why this is handled this way. This is not a call of CNX to decide.

@abit

thanks for your hard work, you are 1 great asset this community have and i hope you will tackle more stuff
in the future.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode


Are we getting anything out of this or is it just 3.5 million BTS down the drain because 1 guy, who doesn't appear to be critical to the operation other than holding an owner key, disappeared?

Correction.. one anonymous guy disappeared. Thus bringing me back to my preference that workers be doxable.

He could still show up.. and if the funds become available perhaps it can be brought back to life.

Fact is though this dev working on it for months with no payment now doesn't see a way forward where he doesn't come out screwed despite his best efforts.

For a proxy voter who was overtly critical over the Committees decisions, this certainly doesn't look good for his reputation.. whatever that maybe .. being anonymous.

The work that has been done thus far has been done.. its there.. just not complete.. and the dev hasn't seen another for it and won't.

I have a feeling if there ever comes a point where @jakub does make an appearance again, I think a portion should be sent to abit for whats been done thus far.. and the rest returned to the reserve pool. @jakub shouldn't see anything for effectively derailing this project by abandoning it and also not fulfilling his work obligation. That's just my take though.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Some updates here:

After CNX reviewed the first version of my code, we decided to postpone the development, the most important reason is this feature need to  extend the global fee schedule which I've done in my way, but we think it's best to improve the implementation of fee schedule structure first so it will be easier to be extended both this time and in the future. CNX did make some efforts on the development on fee schedule improvement, but apparently it need more efforts to have the work done. Since now the maintenance worker has been voted out (maybe temporarily), I don't know whether it will affect the development work on CNX side.

Related discussions in github:
* https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/583
* https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/554

Another thing is about @jakub, OP of this thread. Due to some reasons (See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19247.msg278204.html#msg278204), he is no longer active here (maybe temporarily, as well). IMO it's a pity. A part of work of this worker was supposed to be done by him, and he did ask for paid. I don't know if it's still possible to ask him to finish the work. Anyway, most of his work need to done after the code is stable, but now the development itself is paused, so even if he come back right now, he can only finish the work later. But if need to wait too much time, perhaps value of his work will be less than supposed (he supposed to write the first document/tutorial for coding inside Graphene).

Jakub is one of the owner authorities of creator of this worker (see https://cryptofresh.com/u/bsip10-worker), which means nobody can get payment from this worker without his approval (unless hardfork). From this POV, his inactivity is a bit annoying to other developers (mostly to me).

Yet another thing is about voting. Recently this worker became not fully funded, and probably be voted out very soon. Yes, this is the game, worker proposal is not contract, even if some parties agreed the proposal at start, nobody will guarantee the agreement will be kept to the end. Asking the committee as escrow is also a joke, since the members of committee can change every hour, so the committee can't guarantee anything. An "approved" BSIP means nothing as well. If we see BitShares as a company, it's really bad reputation.

OK, some personal words (or complaints) at the end. Perhaps I am the only loser because I've put much efforts into the work already but will get no return in the end (except so-called knowledge, skills, experience etc). For me, right now, if I found it's impossible to get what I asked 3M BTS which was accepted by whoever in this system, I won't work on this feature anymore. In addition, I tend to start working after I got 1.5M BTS (half paid) to my account (not the multi-authority account). Whatever, who cares. Will I work on other items in the system? We will see.

So you are gong to discontinue working on this, while still getting paid at the 57% funding rate??

Perhaps you missed this part in a rather large report with numerous things to address.. he didn't get paid.. he can't get paid because the other guy involved who created this worker has abandoned it. So at this point he doesn't see how everything he has done is even going to result in him getting paid anything at all unless the maker of the worker decides to show up and do something.

It would be a lot easier to handle situations like this if there was even a degree of accountability that had some semblance to the real world. ie. we have the full name, address, and contact info of the Worker prior to approving them. By maintaining an anonymous profile, it makes it that much easier to just up and leave with zero consequence.

But this worker is going to continue receiving pay correct?  Is it really the BTS shareholders fault that one of the owners disappeared?  We are paying the group of Dev's to implement the feature, once the money is in their hands the obligation should be that it is finished.  The process of how they pay each other shouldn't fall on shareholders shoulders.

From what I can tell this worker originally wanted 4.5 million BTS... They are going to receive between 3.5 and 3.6 million bts at current rates by the time the worker proposal is finished.
3.5-3.6 is your good will probably. From What I can see, it would be around 2.5.

Quote
Are we getting anything out of this or is it just 3.5 million BTS down the drain because 1 guy, who doesn't appear to be critical to the operation other than holding an owner key, disappeared?
With this special worker, the committee decides finally release the fund or not. The committee is controlled by voters. If they want to give you zero, you won't get more.

Are we getting anything? All code is public, it works fine with an earlier release. If someone wants to finish it, technically it's sure possible. Just me won't get anything.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline Pheonike

Dont blame the worker. It was the BitShares stake holders who changed the conditions of agreement by voting it out.

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
Some updates here:

After CNX reviewed the first version of my code, we decided to postpone the development, the most important reason is this feature need to  extend the global fee schedule which I've done in my way, but we think it's best to improve the implementation of fee schedule structure first so it will be easier to be extended both this time and in the future. CNX did make some efforts on the development on fee schedule improvement, but apparently it need more efforts to have the work done. Since now the maintenance worker has been voted out (maybe temporarily), I don't know whether it will affect the development work on CNX side.

Related discussions in github:
* https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/583
* https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/554

Another thing is about @jakub, OP of this thread. Due to some reasons (See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19247.msg278204.html#msg278204), he is no longer active here (maybe temporarily, as well). IMO it's a pity. A part of work of this worker was supposed to be done by him, and he did ask for paid. I don't know if it's still possible to ask him to finish the work. Anyway, most of his work need to done after the code is stable, but now the development itself is paused, so even if he come back right now, he can only finish the work later. But if need to wait too much time, perhaps value of his work will be less than supposed (he supposed to write the first document/tutorial for coding inside Graphene).

Jakub is one of the owner authorities of creator of this worker (see https://cryptofresh.com/u/bsip10-worker), which means nobody can get payment from this worker without his approval (unless hardfork). From this POV, his inactivity is a bit annoying to other developers (mostly to me).

Yet another thing is about voting. Recently this worker became not fully funded, and probably be voted out very soon. Yes, this is the game, worker proposal is not contract, even if some parties agreed the proposal at start, nobody will guarantee the agreement will be kept to the end. Asking the committee as escrow is also a joke, since the members of committee can change every hour, so the committee can't guarantee anything. An "approved" BSIP means nothing as well. If we see BitShares as a company, it's really bad reputation.

OK, some personal words (or complaints) at the end. Perhaps I am the only loser because I've put much efforts into the work already but will get no return in the end (except so-called knowledge, skills, experience etc). For me, right now, if I found it's impossible to get what I asked 3M BTS which was accepted by whoever in this system, I won't work on this feature anymore. In addition, I tend to start working after I got 1.5M BTS (half paid) to my account (not the multi-authority account). Whatever, who cares. Will I work on other items in the system? We will see.

So you are gong to discontinue working on this, while still getting paid at the 57% funding rate??

Perhaps you missed this part in a rather large report with numerous things to address.. he didn't get paid.. he can't get paid because the other guy involved who created this worker has abandoned it. So at this point he doesn't see how everything he has done is even going to result in him getting paid anything at all unless the maker of the worker decides to show up and do something.

It would be a lot easier to handle situations like this if there was even a degree of accountability that had some semblance to the real world. ie. we have the full name, address, and contact info of the Worker prior to approving them. By maintaining an anonymous profile, it makes it that much easier to just up and leave with zero consequence.

But this worker is going to continue receiving pay correct?  Is it really the BTS shareholders fault that one of the owners disappeared?  We are paying the group of Dev's to implement the feature, once the money is in their hands the obligation should be that it is finished.  The process of how they pay each other shouldn't fall on shareholders shoulders.

From what I can tell this worker originally wanted 4.5 million BTS... They are going to receive between 3.5 and 3.6 million bts at current rates by the time the worker proposal is finished.

Are we getting anything out of this or is it just 3.5 million BTS down the drain because 1 guy, who doesn't appear to be critical to the operation other than holding an owner key, disappeared?

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Some updates here:

After CNX reviewed the first version of my code, we decided to postpone the development, the most important reason is this feature need to  extend the global fee schedule which I've done in my way, but we think it's best to improve the implementation of fee schedule structure first so it will be easier to be extended both this time and in the future. CNX did make some efforts on the development on fee schedule improvement, but apparently it need more efforts to have the work done. Since now the maintenance worker has been voted out (maybe temporarily), I don't know whether it will affect the development work on CNX side.

Related discussions in github:
* https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/583
* https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/554

Another thing is about @jakub, OP of this thread. Due to some reasons (See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19247.msg278204.html#msg278204), he is no longer active here (maybe temporarily, as well). IMO it's a pity. A part of work of this worker was supposed to be done by him, and he did ask for paid. I don't know if it's still possible to ask him to finish the work. Anyway, most of his work need to done after the code is stable, but now the development itself is paused, so even if he come back right now, he can only finish the work later. But if need to wait too much time, perhaps value of his work will be less than supposed (he supposed to write the first document/tutorial for coding inside Graphene).

Jakub is one of the owner authorities of creator of this worker (see https://cryptofresh.com/u/bsip10-worker), which means nobody can get payment from this worker without his approval (unless hardfork). From this POV, his inactivity is a bit annoying to other developers (mostly to me).

Yet another thing is about voting. Recently this worker became not fully funded, and probably be voted out very soon. Yes, this is the game, worker proposal is not contract, even if some parties agreed the proposal at start, nobody will guarantee the agreement will be kept to the end. Asking the committee as escrow is also a joke, since the members of committee can change every hour, so the committee can't guarantee anything. An "approved" BSIP means nothing as well. If we see BitShares as a company, it's really bad reputation.

OK, some personal words (or complaints) at the end. Perhaps I am the only loser because I've put much efforts into the work already but will get no return in the end (except so-called knowledge, skills, experience etc). For me, right now, if I found it's impossible to get what I asked 3M BTS which was accepted by whoever in this system, I won't work on this feature anymore. In addition, I tend to start working after I got 1.5M BTS (half paid) to my account (not the multi-authority account). Whatever, who cares. Will I work on other items in the system? We will see.

So you are gong to discontinue working on this, while still getting paid at the 57% funding rate??

Perhaps you missed this part in a rather large report with numerous things to address.. he didn't get paid.. he can't get paid because the other guy involved who created this worker has abandoned it. So at this point he doesn't see how everything he has done is even going to result in him getting paid anything at all unless the maker of the worker decides to show up and do something.

It would be a lot easier to handle situations like this if there was even a degree of accountability that had some semblance to the real world. ie. we have the full name, address, and contact info of the Worker prior to approving them. By maintaining an anonymous profile, it makes it that much easier to just up and leave with zero consequence.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 03:12:26 pm by BunkerChain Labs »
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
Some updates here:

After CNX reviewed the first version of my code, we decided to postpone the development, the most important reason is this feature need to  extend the global fee schedule which I've done in my way, but we think it's best to improve the implementation of fee schedule structure first so it will be easier to be extended both this time and in the future. CNX did make some efforts on the development on fee schedule improvement, but apparently it need more efforts to have the work done. Since now the maintenance worker has been voted out (maybe temporarily), I don't know whether it will affect the development work on CNX side.

Related discussions in github:
* https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/583
* https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/554

Another thing is about @jakub, OP of this thread. Due to some reasons (See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19247.msg278204.html#msg278204), he is no longer active here (maybe temporarily, as well). IMO it's a pity. A part of work of this worker was supposed to be done by him, and he did ask for paid. I don't know if it's still possible to ask him to finish the work. Anyway, most of his work need to done after the code is stable, but now the development itself is paused, so even if he come back right now, he can only finish the work later. But if need to wait too much time, perhaps value of his work will be less than supposed (he supposed to write the first document/tutorial for coding inside Graphene).

Jakub is one of the owner authorities of creator of this worker (see https://cryptofresh.com/u/bsip10-worker), which means nobody can get payment from this worker without his approval (unless hardfork). From this POV, his inactivity is a bit annoying to other developers (mostly to me).

Yet another thing is about voting. Recently this worker became not fully funded, and probably be voted out very soon. Yes, this is the game, worker proposal is not contract, even if some parties agreed the proposal at start, nobody will guarantee the agreement will be kept to the end. Asking the committee as escrow is also a joke, since the members of committee can change every hour, so the committee can't guarantee anything. An "approved" BSIP means nothing as well. If we see BitShares as a company, it's really bad reputation.

OK, some personal words (or complaints) at the end. Perhaps I am the only loser because I've put much efforts into the work already but will get no return in the end (except so-called knowledge, skills, experience etc). For me, right now, if I found it's impossible to get what I asked 3M BTS which was accepted by whoever in this system, I won't work on this feature anymore. In addition, I tend to start working after I got 1.5M BTS (half paid) to my account (not the multi-authority account). Whatever, who cares. Will I work on other items in the system? We will see.

So you are gong to discontinue working on this, while still getting paid at the 57% funding rate??

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
Some updates here:

After CNX reviewed the first version of my code, we decided to postpone the development, the most important reason is this feature need to  extend the global fee schedule which I've done in my way, but we think it's best to improve the implementation of fee schedule structure first so it will be easier to be extended both this time and in the future. CNX did make some efforts on the development on fee schedule improvement, but apparently it need more efforts to have the work done. Since now the maintenance worker has been voted out (maybe temporarily), I don't know whether it will affect the development work on CNX side.

Related discussions in github:
* https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/583
* https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/554

Another thing is about @jakub, OP of this thread. Due to some reasons (See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19247.msg278204.html#msg278204), he is no longer active here (maybe temporarily, as well). IMO it's a pity. A part of work of this worker was supposed to be done by him, and he did ask for paid. I don't know if it's still possible to ask him to finish the work. Anyway, most of his work need to done after the code is stable, but now the development itself is paused, so even if he come back right now, he can only finish the work later. But if need to wait too much time, perhaps value of his work will be less than supposed (he supposed to write the first document/tutorial for coding inside Graphene).

Jakub is one of the owner authorities of creator of this worker (see https://cryptofresh.com/u/bsip10-worker), which means nobody can get payment from this worker without his approval (unless hardfork). From this POV, his inactivity is a bit annoying to other developers (mostly to me).

Yet another thing is about voting. Recently this worker became not fully funded, and probably be voted out very soon. Yes, this is the game, worker proposal is not contract, even if some parties agreed the proposal at start, nobody will guarantee the agreement will be kept to the end. Asking the committee as escrow is also a joke, since the members of committee can change every hour, so the committee can't guarantee anything. An "approved" BSIP means nothing as well. If we see BitShares as a company, it's really bad reputation.

OK, some personal words (or complaints) at the end. Perhaps I am the only loser because I've put much efforts into the work already but will get no return in the end (except so-called knowledge, skills, experience etc). For me, right now, if I found it's impossible to get what I asked 3M BTS which was accepted by whoever in this system, I won't work on this feature anymore. In addition, I tend to start working after I got 1.5M BTS (half paid) to my account (not the multi-authority account). Whatever, who cares. Will I work on other items in the system? We will see.

This is clearly a flaw in the system that needs to be fixed.  Once a proposal is approved, it needs to be funded to completion.  Of course, for this particular worker proposal we are at a standstill anyway since @jakub is not around.  Hopefully he will consider coming back, not just to complete this project, but because overall he was a very valuable, contributing member of this community. 

In the meantime, we need to move on fixing this flaw in the system ASAP.

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Some updates here:

After CNX reviewed the first version of my code, we decided to postpone the development, the most important reason is this feature need to  extend the global fee schedule which I've done in my way, but we think it's best to improve the implementation of fee schedule structure first so it will be easier to be extended both this time and in the future. CNX did make some efforts on the development on fee schedule improvement, but apparently it need more efforts to have the work done. Since now the maintenance worker has been voted out (maybe temporarily), I don't know whether it will affect the development work on CNX side.

Related discussions in github:
* https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/583
* https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/554

Another thing is about @jakub, OP of this thread. Due to some reasons (See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19247.msg278204.html#msg278204), he is no longer active here (maybe temporarily, as well). IMO it's a pity. A part of work of this worker was supposed to be done by him, and he did ask for paid. I don't know if it's still possible to ask him to finish the work. Anyway, most of his work need to done after the code is stable, but now the development itself is paused, so even if he come back right now, he can only finish the work later. But if need to wait too much time, perhaps value of his work will be less than supposed (he supposed to write the first document/tutorial for coding inside Graphene).

Jakub is one of the owner authorities of creator of this worker (see https://cryptofresh.com/u/bsip10-worker), which means nobody can get payment from this worker without his approval (unless hardfork). From this POV, his inactivity is a bit annoying to other developers (mostly to me).

Yet another thing is about voting. Recently this worker became not fully funded, and probably be voted out very soon. Yes, this is the game, worker proposal is not contract, even if some parties agreed the proposal at start, nobody will guarantee the agreement will be kept to the end. Asking the committee as escrow is also a joke, since the members of committee can change every hour, so the committee can't guarantee anything. An "approved" BSIP means nothing as well. If we see BitShares as a company, it's really bad reputation.

OK, some personal words (or complaints) at the end. Perhaps I am the only loser because I've put much efforts into the work already but will get no return in the end (except so-called knowledge, skills, experience etc). For me, right now, if I found it's impossible to get what I asked 3M BTS which was accepted by whoever in this system, I won't work on this feature anymore. In addition, I tend to start working after I got 1.5M BTS (half paid) to my account (not the multi-authority account). Whatever, who cares. Will I work on other items in the system? We will see.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline valtr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Here you have this situation: you have abit who is surely one of the most talented guys (in technical terms) outside CNX, you have funding for the next 7 years and you hesitate whether you can afford him or not.
This is utter nonsense.
+1
+5% and bear in mind that 7 years in technology is too long time. The world will not be the same by that time.

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Here you have this situation: you have abit who is surely one of the most talented guys (in technical terms) outside CNX, you have funding for the next 7 years and you hesitate whether you can afford him or not.
This is utter nonsense.
+1
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2283
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
Even if we spent the maximum of 5 BTS per second (which is 432k per day), it would take us 7.5 years to spend all our money meant for development.
7.5 years! That's a huge amount of time in this fast-changing crypto-world.

In 7-10 years BitShares will either be huge or dead.
So we need to send the money now, not in the future, because this way the future will not come. You'll be left with unspent funds and a dead project.

Here you have this situation: you have abit who is surely one of the most talented guys (in technical terms) outside CNX, you have funding for the next 7 years and you hesitate whether you can afford him or not.
This is utter nonsense.

It's like being in a space rocket destined to Mars and being hesitant if you can afford to feed the crew.
We have exactly one astronaut willing to fly with us (no other astronaut has come forward) and we pretend that we are not sure if we can pay him a decent salary, while we sleep on unspent cash.
In a corporate environment, a board of directors making such an absurd decision would be immediately fired.

For me one thing is absolutely clear: we cannot afford to lose abit's willingness to work for us.
If we had 10 people like abit to choose from and if we were already spending 432k a day, it would make sense to think about choosing the best offer.
But we are not even close to this.



^^ THIS !!

 +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Matrix/Keybase/Hive/Commun/Github: @Agorise
www.PalmPay.chat