Main > Stakeholder Proposals
BTS Greater China Representative[工作提案][worker proposal][bilingual]
bitcrab:
--- Quote from: sschiessl on July 30, 2019, 10:55:22 am ---
--- Quote from: bitcrab on July 30, 2019, 06:42:18 am ---
--- Quote from: sschiessl on July 30, 2019, 06:13:20 am ---Before talking about this worker, please wrap up the DevCon worker by itself. It is not clear how this deficit came to be since the funds of the DevCon worker are not accounted for, or at least I don't understand how yet.
Now on this worker:
It is a good example of reporting and escrow intent gone wrong.
There is no public information available how much funds have been spent on what. Just looking on the blockchain, BTS with an equivalent value (at the time of transfers) of 130k bitUSD have been paid out, which exceeds the asked for budget. This has been done with no clarification on the increased spendings whatsoever, or even reporting what the money has been spent on. On top of that, the escrow that was publicly communicated was only for show. The worker owner still had access to the owner key of the escrow account, and made use of it.
I don't see at the moment how funds of this worker can be re-used without calling a vote of the community. If funds are to be returned, return it by burning and not to committee.
--- End quote ---
I feel there is some misunderstanding, the above account table is for the 1st DevCon in 2018, there is no worker for it, there is a worker for the 2rd DevCon in 2019.
--- End quote ---
Ah, I totally missed the "1st" .... apologies. It does not change the remainder of my comment, in particular the last sentence.
--- End quote ---
it's not "re-use", it's that the expense was in the plan and already happened however the payment from this worker is not done yet.
sschiessl:
--- Quote from: bitcrab on July 30, 2019, 06:42:18 am ---
--- Quote from: sschiessl on July 30, 2019, 06:13:20 am ---Before talking about this worker, please wrap up the DevCon worker by itself. It is not clear how this deficit came to be since the funds of the DevCon worker are not accounted for, or at least I don't understand how yet.
Now on this worker:
It is a good example of reporting and escrow intent gone wrong.
There is no public information available how much funds have been spent on what. Just looking on the blockchain, BTS with an equivalent value (at the time of transfers) of 130k bitUSD have been paid out, which exceeds the asked for budget. This has been done with no clarification on the increased spendings whatsoever, or even reporting what the money has been spent on. On top of that, the escrow that was publicly communicated was only for show. The worker owner still had access to the owner key of the escrow account, and made use of it.
I don't see at the moment how funds of this worker can be re-used without calling a vote of the community. If funds are to be returned, return it by burning and not to committee.
--- End quote ---
I feel there is some misunderstanding, the above account table is for the 1st DevCon in 2018, there is no worker for it, there is a worker for the 2rd DevCon in 2019.
--- End quote ---
Ah, I totally missed the "1st" .... apologies. It does not change the remainder of my comment, in particular the last sentence.
bitcrab:
--- Quote from: sschiessl on July 30, 2019, 06:13:20 am ---Before talking about this worker, please wrap up the DevCon worker by itself. It is not clear how this deficit came to be since the funds of the DevCon worker are not accounted for, or at least I don't understand how yet.
Now on this worker:
It is a good example of reporting and escrow intent gone wrong.
There is no public information available how much funds have been spent on what. Just looking on the blockchain, BTS with an equivalent value (at the time of transfers) of 130k bitUSD have been paid out, which exceeds the asked for budget. This has been done with no clarification on the increased spendings whatsoever, or even reporting what the money has been spent on. On top of that, the escrow that was publicly communicated was only for show. The worker owner still had access to the owner key of the escrow account, and made use of it.
I don't see at the moment how funds of this worker can be re-used without calling a vote of the community. If funds are to be returned, return it by burning and not to committee.
--- End quote ---
I feel there is some misunderstanding, the above account table is for the 1st DevCon in 2018, there is no worker for it, there is a worker for the 2rd DevCon in 2019.
sschiessl:
Before talking about this worker, please wrap up the DevCon worker by itself. It is not clear how this deficit came to be since the funds of the DevCon worker are not accounted for, or at least I don't understand how yet.
Now on this worker:
It is a good example of reporting and escrow intent gone wrong.
There is no public information available how much funds have been spent on what. Just looking on the blockchain, BTS with an equivalent value (at the time of transfers) of 130k bitUSD have been paid out, which exceeds the asked for budget. This has been done with no clarification on the increased spendings whatsoever, or even reporting what the money has been spent on. On top of that, the escrow that was publicly communicated was only for show. The worker owner still had access to the owner key of the escrow account, and made use of it.
I don't see at the moment how funds of this worker can be re-used without calling a vote of the community. If funds are to be returned, return it by burning and not to committee.
abit:
Generally I agree to reimburse the expense of the 1st DEVCON. 147K CNY is totally fair.
My only concern is: funds remaining in this worker are all BTS but no bitCNY, but BTS price has dropped much, it doesn't sound good to sell BTS for bitCNY at this low price.
Since committee-account has some bitCNY, I suggest that we pay bitcrab from committee-account, and send all the BTS (around 900K) remaining in this worker to committee-account and let the committee decide how to deal with it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version