Author Topic: [Discuss]Why we reject all Bitshares workers?  (Read 4675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ebit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1873
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: ebit
telegram:ebit521
https://weibo.com/ebiter

Offline Yao

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 534
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: yao
  • GitHub: imYao
A normal flow of bounty is:
Shareholders feedback the demand firstly, then the committee is responsible for summarizing these demands and organizing voting to create bounty, then waiting for people to submit their work, then shareholders decide whether the work is qualified for bounty or not.


刚想到一个 bounty 金额由投票决定的思路:

首先,根据 bounty 任务的难度和工作量进行分级,给定不同的赏金系数。


任务等级分类参考(从高到低):
Quote
SS级:也是最高级,在不同地方用法不同,但通常在关乎生死存亡阶段使用。属于只许成功不许失败的任务。
S级:此类任务通常不被使用,这类任务一般是关乎上级或者公司的直接利益的任务。
A级:使用较为频繁,通常是于珍贵物品或上级人物直接或间接挂钩。
B级:使用最为频繁的一类任务。也是最常见的一类任务。
C级:较为简单的任务。也是除了SS级最少发的任务。
D级:作为最简单的任务,这类人物属于刚加入的新手。也被叫做休闲任务。


以当前的“预算项目(worker)”投票情况来说,#1 worker 获得 375,721,810 BTS支持。我们可以以此为基础来确定每一个任务的 bounty 赏金系数。例如:

SS 级任务:1%,意味着 bounty 金额为:375w BTS
S 级任务:0.5%,意味着 bounty 金额为:187.5w BTS
A 级任务:0.25%,意味着 bounty 金额为:93.75w BTS
B 级任务:0.1%,意味着 bounty 金额为:37.5w BTS
C 级任务:0.05%,意味着 bounty 金额为:18.75w BTS
D 级任务:0.025%,意味着 bounty 金额为:9.375w BTS


其次,有两种方案来投票确定每一个任务的 bounty 赏金额度:

方案一:股东投票决定奖金额度

创建一个预算项目(worker),根据任务等级描述 bounty 系数,系数乘以支持该任务的总票数等于完成任务后可领取的 BTS 数量。


方案二:基础悬赏金额 + 额外奖励

由理事会根据任务难度议定 bounty 基础金额(在比特股这家公司里面,理事会成员的责任感更强,要么是大股东,要么看好公司前景,理事会来商定 bounty 的基础金额是有说服力的)。

额外的奖赏额度则由全体股东投票,同样采用方案一的方式,但 bounty 系数要降低到大约 1/10,系数乘以支持该任务的票数等于额外奖赏。在任务进行中,领取任务者随时公布动态,股东根据情况予以投票支持(类似打赏),额外的奖赏代表股东对该任务完成度的认可度!


在上面的两个方案中,BTS 股东支持这个项目就投票,投票就代表愿意稀释(从储备资金池支取 BTS),每一票(每一股 BTS)都代表要花钱,每一票都代表股东的意愿。至于手里总共有 100w 票但只想出 30w 票权重的投票支持,那就自己单独把 300w 票现转到自己的小账号里去投票支持对应的 bounty 项目。

以上想法,仅供交流讨论!



I've just had a great idea that could determine the amount of bounty for each task by the VOTE of  BTS holders:

First of all, according to the classification of bounty task difficulty and workload, given different reward coefficient.

Task level from high to low like this:

Quote
SS: Highest tasks, is of vital importance must not fail.
S: Super tasks, related to the vital interests of the company.
A: Major tasks.
B: Frequent tasks.
C: Relatively simple tasks.
D: The simplest tasks, leisure tasks.


In the current project proposal vote situation, #1 worker got 375,721,810 BTS support, we can use this result as a base to determine the bounty coefficient for each task.

For EXAMPLE:

SS Task: 1%, means bounty amount = 3,750,000 BTS
S Task: 0.5%, means bounty amount = 1,875,000 BTS
A Task: 0.25%, means bounty amount = 937,500 BTS
B Task: 0.1%, means bounty amount = 375,000 BTS
C Task: 0.05%, means bounty amount = 187,500 BTS
D Task: 0.025%, means bounty amount = 93,750 BTS


Then, voting to determine the amount of bounty for each task in two ways:

Plan A: only BTS holders vote to determine the amount

Creat a project proposal(worker), describe the task level and the bounty coefficient,
[total number of votes]*[bounty coefficient]=[the amount of BTS for bounty].


Plan B: Basic task reward + Extra bonus

Committee discuss to determine the basic reward according to the difficulty of the task
( in the Company, BitShares DAC, committee members are more responsible, because they are either major shareholders, or is extremely optimistic about the prospects of BitShares, they discuss the amount of the decision is convincing).

Extra bonus can refer to Plan A to creat a project proposal(worker), but need to reduce the coefficient to about 1/10,
[basic task reward]+[total number of votes]*[bounty coefficient]=[the amount of BTS for bounty].
In the task, at any time to publish the dynamic, BTS holders to vote according to the circumstances, extra bonus on behalf of shareholders to the task completion degree of recognition.

In Plan A and B, BTS holders who support the bounty task, vote it. Vote for it means they they are willing to accept dilution ( agree to withdraw BTS from reserve pool), 1 BTS 1 vote, each BTS vote represents the wishes of shareholders. If I have 1,000,000 BTS in my account A, but I only want to vote it 300,000 BTS, I can transfer 300,000 BTS to account B then vote it.

Above is my idea for exchange discussion.

Offline Yao

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 534
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: yao
  • GitHub: imYao
 +5%
我喜欢赏金模式!

个人不太喜欢把 BTS 按当前价格来计价然后付工资给 worker 这种方式,特别是目前没有资金愿意持续进入比特股这家分布式自治公司的情况下,以比特股目前的低市值,公司尚未实现盈利,储备资金池积蓄的法币价值无法支撑长期支出工资。

对于目前低估值的比特股来说,它就像一个初创公司,无论是从资金利用效率还是社区凝聚力的角度,股权激励要比拿工资干活儿的模式好。而且我们目前没钱,只有储备池的股份可分配。

BTS这个股权是公司的凝聚力,法币不是!
持股员工会与公司齐心协力、同舟共济!Bitshares DAC 这家公司当前就处在发展的困境之中。



I love the bounty model!

Personally do not like to price BTS at current price and then pay the worker, especially in the present case that no money continue to flow into the BitShares DAC, you see, this company is currently not profitable, and the current market cap of BTS is so low, the Fiat Currency measured value of reserve pool is unable to support long-term workers payment.


For the current undervalued BitShares, it is just like a start-up company, equity incentive paid work is better than wage, whether from the efficiency of capital utilization or from the perspective of community cohesion. And we have no money now, only reserve pool shares can be allocated.


BTS (shares of BitShares Distributed Autonomous Company) is the cohesion of BitShares DAC, not Fiat!
The company and ESOP employees work together to pull together in times of trouble,Bitshares DAC is currently in the dilemma of development.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2016, 01:58:46 pm by Yao »

Offline KenMonkey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: kmnk

    • Anyone can create a worker with zero pay to measure support of the bounty
    • While this zero-pay worker is voted in, it is an announcement of the available bounty
    • Someone does the work, i.e. creates a pull request with the new code, earning the bounty
    • After the work is done, the committee creates a worker to generate the pay, which is then given to the recipient

    So, I don't think we need to hard-fork or overhaul the system, because there is a lot we can do with the current system. Xeroc gave another creative example with his idea for a worker payable in BitUSD.

    Very nice. This requires trust in the committee members but I think it would work.

    A real bounty system requires some central body to do the decision-making. This is too much opportunity for corruption. I'm much happier with the worker system, bitshares awesome decentralization and democracy (or plutocracy really) is unique and we shouldn't try to shift away from decentralization. Nobody is "in charge" of bitshares but the bitshares holders. The difficulty, I think, is in price negotiation. With the worker system, the worker proposes the price while in a bounty system the admin proposes the price.

    As chronos says, we need to discuss as a community what we're willing to fund. I'll make a google doc where we can add and vote for ideas informally. My personal vote would be to get another block explorer.

    Offline Chronos

    Whole idea that a company can be managed by a crowd of shareholders is utopia, because shareholders don't understand a shit about how a company works. In real world, companies are ran by experts. Voting exists to collect input from shareholders, and based on this input, experts make their educated decisions. Bitshares proved that crowd can't manage nothing.
    We have proxies for that .. call them managers if you like

    You can call them managers or whatever, but they don't seem to manage anything. You still need approval from a crowd for every little development step, through proxy or directly no matter. This is wrong.
    Proxies are the solution to this problem, I think. They have a responsibility to step up and be active voters and managers. In theory, the best proxies will receive the most support due to their good management and reputation.

    Take a look at our proxy list here: http://cryptofresh.com/ballots. Interestingly, Bytemaster and Angel are in 9th and 11th place, controlling the vote of nearly 30M BTS between them, even though they haven't placed any vote in over 270 days! Their dormancy has gradually caused them to lose support, but they still have significant power. This may be a weakness of the system, but it is not fatal, since we are still able to vote workers in and out without their participation.



    A bounty system may be able to be set up without the need for any hard fork. It could work something like this:
    • The community proposes a bounty to create (example: a bug fix or new feature)
    • Anyone can create a worker with zero pay to measure support of the bounty
    • While this zero-pay worker is voted in, it is an announcement of the available bounty
    • Someone does the work, i.e. creates a pull request with the new code, earning the bounty
    • After the work is done, the committee creates a worker to generate the pay, which is then given to the recipient

    This could even be denominated in BitUSD, if the committee made the conversion from BTS to BitUSD by purchasing it on the DEX in step 5.

    So, I don't think we need to hard-fork or overhaul the system, because there is a lot we can do with the current system. Xeroc gave another creative example with his idea for a worker payable in BitUSD.

    Do we lack volunteers? I'm not sure, and it's hard to measure. I think the worker system probably does reduce volunteerism. But it also brings new productivity, such as through my own worker, so the tradeoff may be worth it. It's hard to know.

    Offline yvv

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 1186
      • View Profile
    Whole idea that a company can be managed by a crowd of shareholders is utopia, because shareholders don't understand a shit about how a company works. In real world, companies are ran by experts. Voting exists to collect input from shareholders, and based on this input, experts make their educated decisions. Bitshares proved that crowd can't manage nothing.
    We have proxies for that .. call them managers if you like

    You can call them managers or whatever, but they don't seem to manage anything. You still need approval from a crowd for every little development step, through proxy or directly no matter. This is wrong.
    « Last Edit: December 19, 2016, 04:21:08 pm by yvv »

    Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

    Whole idea that a company can be managed by a crowd of shareholders is utopia, because shareholders don't understand a shit about how a company works. In real world, companies are ran by experts. Voting exists to collect input from shareholders, and based on this input, experts make their educated decisions. Bitshares proved that crowd can't manage nothing.
    We have proxies for that .. call them managers if you like

    True...  +5%
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    Offline xeroc

    • Board Moderator
    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12922
    • ChainSquad GmbH
      • View Profile
      • ChainSquad GmbH
    • BitShares: xeroc
    • GitHub: xeroc
    Whole idea that a company can be managed by a crowd of shareholders is utopia, because shareholders don't understand a shit about how a company works. In real world, companies are ran by experts. Voting exists to collect input from shareholders, and based on this input, experts make their educated decisions. Bitshares proved that crowd can't manage nothing.
    We have proxies for that .. call them managers if you like

    Offline yvv

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 1186
      • View Profile
    Whole idea that a company can be managed by a crowd of shareholders is utopia, because shareholders don't understand a shit about how a company works. In real world, companies are ran by experts. Voting exists to collect input from shareholders, and based on this input, experts make their educated decisions. Bitshares proved that crowd can't manage nothing.

    Offline ebit

    • Committee member
    • Hero Member
    • *
    • Posts: 1873
      • View Profile
    • BitShares: ebit
    telegram:ebit521
    https://weibo.com/ebiter

    Offline bitcrab

    • Committee member
    • Hero Member
    • *
    • Posts: 1926
      • View Profile
    • BitShares: bitcrab
    • GitHub: bitcrab
    when China community say no to worker proposals, the key point is not "we are poor, we do not want to pay, we hate dilution", but "we need better planned,organized and estimated development".  users hate that the worker proposal reduce to just a way for someone to make money by doing thing with little sense, especially when some developer said that "if I can get money from worker proposal by just typing some codes, why would't I? what sense does the codes make? who cares?"

    Bitshares is now in a stable stage that most of the features work well and no one feel big pain at any settings, however do we really need not to do further big development? I am not sure, regarding the planned but unfinished features such as bond market and KYC/identity system, have any plans come out from any developer's brain ? or even is it possible for bm to come back to lead the development of these features?

    on the other side, we also need some development which do not touch the core codes but focus on the scalability/advanced user experience, for example roadscape's cryptofresh, xeroc's python library.

    I feel we still need worker, however the worker proposal process need to be redesigned, this is a big topic, which may include but not limited to:

    1.  add rating part for worker proposals, users can rate a worker propsal in a certain period after it is finished, suppose 60 stand for "pass" and 100 stand for "perfect" , the contributer can get 100% payment only when the rating score is above 60, and say 5%+ payment with score above 80, 10%+ for higher than 90 etc.

    2.add a "tip" button to each worker, contributor work not only for money, but also for appreciation, in many scene tha latter play a more important role. these feature will help to discourage the workers that "just for money"

    3.update the rule to avoid the case that the proposal is voted on and the work started for long time, then the worker is voted down and the worker get nothing.
    Email:bitcrab@qq.com

    Offline bitAndy

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 68
      • View Profile
    I take it there's a difference between worker and delegate and you're not proposing doing away with DPOS? (It's been a while since I looked at how DPOS works so forgive my ignorance).

    Altering the incentive structure towards a bounty system could be a welcome change.  +5%


    Offline ebit

    • Committee member
    • Hero Member
    • *
    • Posts: 1873
      • View Profile
    • BitShares: ebit
    Good idea.
    Why Steemit hadn't choiced the worker project?Because the project is the cause of community divergence.Divergence will hurt everyone.
    Rough freedom leads to division, we need more refined freedom. Such as America's bipartisan system, not Africa's chaos.
    We can organize  two committees.Interval of four years ,we vote one excellent  committee,authorize him  to manage the bounty .
    https://steemit.com/cn/@roseebit/we-can-organize-two-preparatory-committees-in-bitshares
    « Last Edit: December 19, 2016, 01:03:31 am by ebit »
    telegram:ebit521
    https://weibo.com/ebiter

    Offline ripplexiaoshan

    • Board Moderator
    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 2300
      • View Profile
    • BitShares: jademont
    A worker was designed to be the employee of Bitshares blockchain and work for the whole ecosystem. This innovative mechanism indeed played great role at the beginning of Bitshares 2.0, when a bunch of talented “workers” gathered as core dev team to make Bitshares 2.0 happen. Besides the core dev team, some other “workers” added much value to Bitshares too, such as @cass ’s UI, @xeroc ’s script and documents.
     
    However, debates also accompanied the worker ever since the first day, and a few top voting proxies even reject all workers without any bias, which means the worker mechanism is not accepted by the most. The consequence is that every worker proposal is hard to get approved.
     
    At the beginning I stand the point that we should encourage people to work for Bitshares and apply for workers. However, now I am more and more inclined to support the point that worker system should be abandoned and I highly suggest that bounty should replace worker. Here are a few reasons.

    1\ Bitshares 2.0 is generally a very stable system, which has been running without any hardfork for months. What we need at the current stage is bug fixing or customized new features, instead of touching the bottom codes. Therefore, we don’t really need full time workers to work for Bitshares. Both bug fixing or the demand of customized new features can be done by bounty.


    2\ Bitshares 2.0 is too poor to feed a lot of workers, and the dilution due to workers actually stops potential investors to join. The “dilution” of Bitshares is sometimes “notorious” in blockchain community. 

    2\Worker system actually discourages volunteering. If you grow with Bitshares community since the old days when there was no worker, you may recall that Bitshares community was actually very active, with a lot of volunteers working for Bitshares for free. But now, some of them hesitate to do it because they feel unfair seeing workers get paid while they don’t.

    3\ Workers are not more loyal than others. It is embarrassing that most of the past workers disappeared once their worker contract expired, or they ask for new worker contract to clean the old bugs they made. 
    On the other hand, the long time loyal members of community who are contributing a lot to the system are not workers or were not paid much. I can list a few, such as openLedger, blockpay, beyondbitcoin, transwiser, btsbots, btsabc,hellobts, etc. According to the evaluation criteria of worker, anyone on this list deserves a worker proposal, but they are still happily working for Bitshares without being worker.   


    Why I support Bounty to replace worker?
    I believe we still have a lot of talents in our community, they are good programmers or good marketers, and they are pleased to help bitshares by accepting the bounty. They will be rewarded by bounty and honor.

    1\Bounty will let people compete therefore better results can be expected compared with non-competing worker, not to mention the efficiency and quality.
    2\ Don’t worry that no one respond to the mission. If it happens, it means this mission is not important enough to increase the bounty.

    A normal flow of bounty is:
    Shareholders feedback the demand firstly, then the committee is responsible for summarizing these demands and organizing voting to create bounty, then waiting for people to submit their work, then shareholders decide whether the work is qualified for bounty or not.


    The above is just my preliminary thoughts, whereas some details might need to be reconsidered, so welcome any comments. 

    https://steemit.com/bitshares/@jademont/five-bitshares-websites-that-new-steemit-users-need-to-know
    « Last Edit: December 19, 2016, 01:02:45 am by ripplexiaoshan »
    BTS committee member:jademont