Author Topic: [APT&MI][status]BitShares.org and Collaboration with BBF[invite]  (Read 8050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ztoth

BitShares is a great platform with a tremendous future. Among its own technical power however it needs its people like DL. This guy lives and breaths BTS, you find him constantly on all active community channels of BitShares. In the meantime they are setting up nodes, supporting projects implemented on the ecosystem. BitShares is just right next to becoming a key member of the global crypto ecosystem, and clearly this the way it should follow. Decentralize and build expansion on dedicated people. DL and AP Asia tech have my full trust and support.

Offline kimchi-king

First off, I'm truly grateful for everything that DL and the AP Asia Tech team have done for the BitShares community and network in general.

I would like to express my full support for this initiative and hope that the BBF accepts this offer for collaboration. Decentralization is the cornerstone of BitShares and what is being presented in this thread is one way to ensure that it remains so.

Offline JohnR

  • Committee member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
This is my interpretation as well.  Clearly we are involved with bitshares for its ability to afford us individual autonomy.  This includes not only individuals but also firms and organizations.  I think the motivation of this post is to:

1) announce the intentions of another real-world organization to advocate for bts holders IRL; &
2) accomplish this with full consensus.  Not only from holders but from their prospective colleagues BBF. 

 I hope BBF offers their blessing on this collaboration.  But most importantly I hope that both entities work for the ultimate benefit of bts holders.

I think the language barrier is strong here and misunderstandings may be caused. :)

The way I read it (and as a non-native english speaker myself I have a lot of experience deciphering non-native english) is that the offer is simply one of collaboration.

Basically DL and the Move Institute are saying:

This is who we are, this what we do/what we've done, this is what we would like to do.

Would the BBF like to collaborate on these and share resources, responsibilities (considering for example bitshares.org ownership)  as well as tools and know-how in order to pursue a common way forward rather than having uncoordinated (and possibly accidentally competing) efforts?

At least, that's how I understand it (DL can correct me if wrong) and I'm also very glad to see coordination attempts between initiatives.

Judging by the actions taken and the work done by DL/apasia so far, I hope that this cooperation works out.

Offline clockwork

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 376
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clockwork
I think the language barrier is strong here and misunderstandings may be caused. :)

The way I read it (and as a non-native english speaker myself I have a lot of experience deciphering non-native english) is that the offer is simply one of collaboration.

Basically DL and the Move Institute are saying:

This is who we are, this what we do/what we've done, this is what we would like to do.

Would the BBF like to collaborate on these and share resources, responsibilities (considering for example bitshares.org ownership)  as well as tools and know-how in order to pursue a common way forward rather than having uncoordinated (and possibly accidentally competing) efforts?

At least, that's how I understand it (DL can correct me if wrong) and I'm also very glad to see coordination attempts between initiatives.

Judging by the actions taken and the work done by DL/apasia so far, I hope that this cooperation works out.

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
  • BitShares Maximalist & Venture Architect
    • View Profile
    • BitShares
  • BitShares: dls.cipher
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
Taco thanks for reply,

I'll try one more time and i think we are on a good way of understanding each other wishes and concerns.

- 1) "The trivial interpretation is that BBF recognizes that the Move Institute exists. I am not sure what value this brings so this interpretation is probably incorrect."

It's not that trivial.
Example:

Currently BBF is managing worker escrows and specifically legalization process with Paul Hastings. I do believe that just random self-claim to be another Foundation around the blockchain can harm their current work of legalization process, so yes we seek TRIVIAL approval for a START.

From my experience in the past, when we got bitshares.org ownership we were FUDed like we done something wrong, so this time, we are not repeating that same trivial "mistake".


- 2) "A more substantive interpretation might be" - We don't ask for this, but why not ?

a) Slovenia is EU top regulated crypto country. Maybe BBF can learn something from us as well, not just other way around.

b) BBF declared initially position on the blockchain ... to "grow, advocate and advertise BitShares" - Its also a responsibility, and now we are part of that responsibility BBF has. BBF had great help of xeroc and others to have tools and be able to do what is doing today, I don't see why we can't.

c) Since it's self-claimed foundation and there is no other entity to do so, I don't see the problem unless BBF would be hiding something, and i'm sure they don't - Accounting/Protocols/Practices from the Foundation SHOULD BE 100% transparent, so there is no legal risks.

- 3) "Perhaps a middle ground interpretation..."

That would be the best, but its not up to us only what we seek.


I wish situation was that simple how you are trying to present it, but it's not. Keep in mind that this is invitation for Collaboration to BBF. Collaboration means involvement of both parties, and we can't seek for nothing until other party ACCEPT such Invite.

So, will it be a), b), c) or mix of all three and maybe d) its up to Move Institute and BBF to decide, if and once BBF accept offer.


But one thing is certain - I'm 100% sure we can do more as collaborators rather than competitive individuals. My 2 cents.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 01:31:16 pm by Digital Lucifer »
Milos (DL) Preocanin
Owner and manager of bitshares.org
Move Institute, Non-profit organization
RN: 2098555000
Murska Sobota, Slovenia.

Offline Taconator

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
About unclear part - I'm non-native English, so longer sentences can be an issue to properly construct them, but here it goes... We are saying that we will follow steps of the Foundation, mission objectives and obey/apply with existing rules around the blockchain. We are asking Foundation for recognition of us as another Foundation, since they were the beginning of all. All tools for accounting and current work they are doing, if we gonna continue, we will do their way. - In simple words, Unity of Voice and Actions are something we are looking here for. 2 Foundations doing what they want without agreement and simple basic rules would be just more Chaos to "decentralization".

And re - independent of the BBF and Stakeholders - We can pursue, and as you can see, we are doing it for months in different ways and specific needs community/blockchain has at the moment, but in the end we can only REALISE it if the Stake-Holders make approval once Worker is up.

DL,

Thanks for the reply, and I very much appreciate the effort and difficulty of producing an English language version of this post.

I clearly understand the part about getting approval from stakeholders to do something. But I am still uncertain about what it means for the BBF to recognize another Foundation.

The trivial interpretation is that BBF recognizes that the Move Institute exists. I am not sure what value this brings so this interpretation is probably incorrect.

A more substantive interpretation might be (and perhaps this is not what you are seeking) is a declaration by the BBF that the Move Institute is another foundation that follows its practices, protocols, and accounting. If that is the objective I think that it is awkward for the following reasons: (a) such a description by the BBF might be lengthy and detailed and might include descriptions that are specific to the EU, (b) such a description might be expensive and time-consuming to produce, and (c) BBF might not have the ability nor interest to certify (once never mind periodically) that the Move Institute is following such practices, protocols, and accounting because there are legal risks and implications of doing this.

Perhaps a middle ground interpretation is that the Move Institute is asking for guidance from the BBF about suggested practices, protocols, and accounting (the (a) from above) so that the Move Institute might consider adopting some or all of them. I think that this approach might be something more practical for both the BBF and the Move Institute.

Offline mahovac93

I fully support Digital Lucifers work, as he did great things in the past for Bitshares.
This is nothing short of amazing as it will impact Bitshares positively in the future!

Offline moroshek

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Congrats to Apasia and to Zavod Premik - this is a great collaboration and will bring great things for Bitshares!

Offline JohnR

  • Committee member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Great point to reiterate.  Every vote matters.  Every voice/opinion matters.  I think there is room for more than one organization to advocate for the bitshares platform in the real world.  Especially with some linguistic and geographic diversity and decentralization as is the case here.

Taco, 

I believe DL is reiterating that while this project seeks to support the bitshares network no matter what, it does not represent the community without an explicit vote of approval. 

In political science this phenomenon is known as "mandate".  The way in which democracies select their representatives.

More background - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_(politics)
In particular-
"The concept of a government having a legitimate mandate to govern via the fair winning of a democratic election is a central idea of representative democracy. New governments who attempt to introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign are said not to have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies."


Thanks John. Some may say BitShares is not a true democratic Governance system because some individuals have more say.  Nevertheless, every vote COUNTS, and nothing goes without mandate (voting).  BTS has separation of powers like modern sovereign nations - Governance (Witness, Committee, Proxies)... Pretty much Democracy from the school book.

So yes, we seek approval and acknowledgement from its current elected Government and People of BitShares.

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
  • BitShares Maximalist & Venture Architect
    • View Profile
    • BitShares
  • BitShares: dls.cipher
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
Taco, 

I believe DL is reiterating that while this project seeks to support the bitshares network no matter what, it does not represent the community without an explicit vote of approval. 

In political science this phenomenon is known as "mandate".  The way in which democracies select their representatives.

More background - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_(politics)
In particular-
"The concept of a government having a legitimate mandate to govern via the fair winning of a democratic election is a central idea of representative democracy. New governments who attempt to introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign are said not to have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies."


Thanks John. Some may say BitShares is not a true democratic Governance system because some individuals have more say.  Nevertheless, every vote COUNTS, and nothing goes without mandate (voting).  BTS has separation of powers like modern sovereign nations - Governance (Witness, Committee, Proxies)... Pretty much Democracy from the school book.

So yes, we seek approval and acknowledgement from its current elected Government and People of BitShares.
Milos (DL) Preocanin
Owner and manager of bitshares.org
Move Institute, Non-profit organization
RN: 2098555000
Murska Sobota, Slovenia.

Offline JohnR

  • Committee member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Taco, 

I believe DL is reiterating that while this project seeks to support the bitshares network no matter what, it does not represent the community without an explicit vote of approval. 

In political science this phenomenon is known as "mandate".  The way in which democracies select their representatives.

More background - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_(politics)
In particular-
"The concept of a government having a legitimate mandate to govern via the fair winning of a democratic election is a central idea of representative democracy. New governments who attempt to introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign are said not to have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies."



I think that it is excellent to have another party that can manage escrow of worker proposals, and possibly other endeavors.  I welcome this effort.

Yet there is a part of the release that is very unclear to me

Our primary focus is drawing upon all the principles and needs of having such foundations, bringing more true meaning and concept of decentralization. Zavod Premik Institute will empower the Community and extend the original BitShares Blockchain Foundation mission objectives:– to grow, promote, and advocate the BitShares Blockchain worldwide, in full spirit of the original Distributed Autonomous Community (DAC), and in doing so, grow and build the powers of the BitShares Ecosystem in full collaboration, if BitShares Blockchain Foundation choose to accept this offer.

What is the offer?

The Institute can pursue any of these goals independent of the BBF and the stakeholders.

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
  • BitShares Maximalist & Venture Architect
    • View Profile
    • BitShares
  • BitShares: dls.cipher
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
I think that it is excellent to have another party that can manage escrow of worker proposals, and possibly other endeavors.  I welcome this effort.

Yet there is a part of the release that is very unclear to me

Our primary focus is drawing upon all the principles and needs of having such foundations, bringing more true meaning and concept of decentralization. Zavod Premik Institute will empower the Community and extend the original BitShares Blockchain Foundation mission objectives:– to grow, promote, and advocate the BitShares Blockchain worldwide, in full spirit of the original Distributed Autonomous Community (DAC), and in doing so, grow and build the powers of the BitShares Ecosystem in full collaboration, if BitShares Blockchain Foundation choose to accept this offer.

What is the offer?

The Institute can pursue any of these goals independent of the BBF and the stakeholders.

Many thanks for welcoming support.

About unclear part - I'm non-native English, so longer sentences can be an issue to properly construct them, but here it goes... We are saying that we will follow steps of the Foundation, mission objectives and obey/apply with existing rules around the blockchain. We are asking Foundation for recognition of us as another Foundation, since they were the beginning of all. All tools for accounting and current work they are doing, if we gonna continue, we will do their way. - In simple words, Unity of Voice and Actions are something we are looking here for. 2 Foundations doing what they want without agreement and simple basic rules would be just more Chaos to "decentralization".

And re - independent of the BBF and Stakeholders - We can pursue, and as you can see, we are doing it for months in different ways and specific needs community/blockchain has at the moment, but in the end we can only REALISE it if the Stake-Holders make approval once Worker is up. For that at the very own bottom of this publication, for clearing up question like this, there is paragraph that says clearly:

"BTS stake-holders are the decision makers around BitShares Blockchain by their vote, and that, neither the BitShares Blockchain Foundation, nor the owner of any domain related to BitShares (including bitshares.org) will never have the authority to outweigh such decisions.".

Hope my answer was more clear than publication, and one more time sorry if the clarity of it is not enough. We will try best to answer all questions you may have.

Cheers,

DL.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 12:57:23 pm by Digital Lucifer »
Milos (DL) Preocanin
Owner and manager of bitshares.org
Move Institute, Non-profit organization
RN: 2098555000
Murska Sobota, Slovenia.

Offline Taconator

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
I think that it is excellent to have another party that can manage escrow of worker proposals, and possibly other endeavors.  I welcome this effort.

Yet there is a part of the release that is very unclear to me

Our primary focus is drawing upon all the principles and needs of having such foundations, bringing more true meaning and concept of decentralization. Zavod Premik Institute will empower the Community and extend the original BitShares Blockchain Foundation mission objectives:– to grow, promote, and advocate the BitShares Blockchain worldwide, in full spirit of the original Distributed Autonomous Community (DAC), and in doing so, grow and build the powers of the BitShares Ecosystem in full collaboration, if BitShares Blockchain Foundation choose to accept this offer.

What is the offer?

The Institute can pursue any of these goals independent of the BBF and the stakeholders.

Offline FarmerD

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
I am very excited to see this. I've been following DL and Britcoins of APasia-tech for awhile now and i think many will agree that they are quietly doing great things for bitshares. First APasia's release of dozens of nodes and now this collaboration, I can't wait to see what comes of this.

"The intention to create functional decentralized network of team members that can be coordinated well." This in particular is tremendously important. Indeed the strength of bitshares is also its greatest weakness. Being a decentralized entity, we are safe (er) from government and hacker interferance, but, and I don't think anyone can argue against this, we (bitshares) being a decentralized entity also lack a coherent vision (where bitshares is going and how to get there),  marketing,  and management. I am very excited to see this mentioned in this collaboration. There are great things ahead for bitshares, thanks in a large part to APasia-tech and now Zavod Premik.

"to grow, promote, and advocate the BitShares Blockchain worldwide"

Welcome Zavod Premik, glad to have you here.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 05:47:53 am by FarmerD »

Offline JohnR

  • Committee member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Decentralization in action. 

This is a good opportunity for the community to consider how precisely a "Foundation" should serve the community.  No one needs to be told that real world entities are different than bitshares native entities. 

This last sentence says a lot about the organization presenting.  It is important to remember that bts holders are controlling the decision-making.
 
"
BTS stake-holders are the decision makers around BitShares Blockchain by their vote, and that, neither the BitShares Blockchain Foundation, nor the owner of any domain related to BitShares (including bitshares.org) will never have the authority to outweigh such decisions."
« Last Edit: June 03, 2018, 11:45:14 pm by JohnR »