Author Topic: Internalizing the Hero  (Read 1190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2873
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Internalizing the Hero
« on: July 13, 2018, 02:30:31 pm »
Hey guys, now that the bitHero has been an official bitAsset for a while, shouldn't we ask the witnesses to publish the price feeds as well as the volunteers who've been nice enough to do that for us in the first year?

Xeroc wrote the standard feed code and its been tested for a year now.

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Online sschiessl

Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2018, 05:57:27 pm »
Your post made me curious so I checked. Right now 7 committee members or witnesses (haven't checked which is which) are providing price feed.

As an official bitAsset I agree that this needs to be advertised as it insinuates a level of confidence in the feed.

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4243
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: fav
Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2018, 06:38:40 pm »
As an official bitAsset I agree that this needs to be advertised as it insinuates a level of confidence in the feed.

how was it declared "official"?
► How-to Buy BitShares: https://goo.gl/i9j2YZ

Online sschiessl

Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2018, 08:29:40 pm »
I guess official is the wrong word.

The UI highlights committee account owned Smartcoins with "bit" in the front, which symbolizes for me a higher level of trust in it. This makes it special compared to other SmartCoins as the committee governance reduces risk of abuse. (Where is the Lambo fav? :))

Was the hero always committee owned?
« Last Edit: July 13, 2018, 08:31:26 pm by sschiessl »

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3373
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2018, 08:59:46 pm »
Transferring an asset's ownership to committee-account doesn't mean the committee nor any witness is responsible to maintain it.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline montpelerin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2018, 09:51:05 pm »
1. What are the costs of providing Hero price feeds?

2. If ownership by committee-account does not denote a degree of "official" status, it may be a good time to clarify that definition.

3. The Hero Project appears beneficial to the Bitshares ecosystem - are there any arguments against it?...or against the limited support of proving price feeds (assuming negligible cost)?





Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile
Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2018, 01:57:57 am »
If witnesses are already providing bitUSD fees then HERO feeds cost almost nothing.  It doesn't depend on any other data.  Providing feeds should not be considered an endorsement of or commitment to support any third party's secondary plans for the token beyond the features of the bitAsset protocol.

However, the current health of the HERO bitAsset is questionable and if the witnesses are given control of the feeds I think they should gradually increase the MSSR percentage also.  Since HERO is scheduled to appreciate, it consistently trades at a premium which often exceeds the MSSR, resulting in under-collateralized positions and a risk of failure.

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4243
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: fav
Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2018, 06:57:01 am »
Transferring an asset's ownership to committee-account doesn't mean the committee nor any witness is responsible to maintain it.

this. I have no interest in supporting HERO.
► How-to Buy BitShares: https://goo.gl/i9j2YZ

Online sschiessl

Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2018, 07:52:14 am »
Thanks for the input. I will do some background digging before I can have a proper opinion.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2873
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2018, 07:48:20 pm »
Much appreciated.  Clearly its been well tested as a private asset for over a year now and well publicized in many ways as well.  If bitUSD is popular, bitHERO should be as well.  Naturally, in a bear market there is less interest in shorting them into existence, which is why I spend my time trying to bring new products like this to BitShares - to stimulate interest in the ecosystem.  Naturally there is a chicken-and-egg issue in bootstrapping any asset, but moving it into the family of bitAssets is the natural next step.
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3373
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2018, 06:26:35 pm »
Just FYI there is a committee proposal to transfer ownership of HERO asset to hero-foundation:

https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.11991
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Online sschiessl

Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2018, 06:59:29 pm »
Questions that arise in my head:
 - Why was it committee controlled in the first place, and why did no one care so far? How long has it been committee controlled?
 - Is the hero-foundation the rightful owner? Who controls that account?
 - The asset has "Issuer may transfer asset back to himself", with a supply of 932 at a BTS price of roughly 1000 BTS. Independent of why it was committee controlled, it has been created by users with thought of having a trust-worthy bitAsset

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4243
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: fav
Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2018, 07:23:27 pm »
Questions that arise in my head:
 - Why was it committee controlled in the first place, and why did no one care so far? How long has it been committee controlled?
 - Is the hero-foundation the rightful owner? Who controls that account?
 - The asset has "Issuer may transfer asset back to himself", with a supply of 932 at a BTS price of roughly 1000 BTS. Independent of why it was committee controlled, it has been created by users with thought of having a trust-worthy bitAsset

original issuer is hero-foundation, why they sent it over without a word - no idea.

I personally think the committee should not be held accountable for an asset that's vastly based on promises made by the centralized original issuer.

hero-foundation https://cryptofresh.com/u/hero-foundation lists 3 keys, one is cryptonomex https://cryptofresh.com/u/cryptonomex - no idea about the others
► How-to Buy BitShares: https://goo.gl/i9j2YZ

Online sschiessl

Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2018, 07:33:41 pm »
original issuer is hero-foundation, why they sent it over without a word - no idea.

Aha, I somehow thought that there was some kind of background process involved promoting it to a bitAsset. Anyways, I saw that xeroc did the proposal to change the issuer maybe he will shed some light?

The centralized former owner doesn't really affect the concept of the Hero.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2018, 07:37:21 pm by sschiessl »

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2873
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline binggo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
    • View Profile
Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2018, 06:30:10 pm »
so sad!!!

Online sschiessl

Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2018, 07:09:53 pm »
Could the commitee shed some light on the background discussion of that decision?

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 108
  • 13 years of being Slackware abUser
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares DEX Thailand
  • BitShares: steem-not
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #17 on: July 22, 2018, 01:18:56 am »
PERSONAL STATEMENT:

I'm very dissappointed in the "transparency" we bow everyday on this blockchain. Before i start, to be clear:


1) I've spent months investing my time to explain to CNX that they need to make more compromise with the blockchain to restore order and peace. - Check, believe it or not, comparing to December 2017, much more peace and positive progress t the moment. We should keep it that way.


2) I do consider random decision of Committee against initial creator of the Asset, investment followed 1 year and all pre-investors to it, is harsh and unfair. China is trading bitCNY currently with 2.5M USD worth BTS as part of Spring Team project. Is bitCNY legally represented and defined somewhere, or maybe even just in China ? I'm sure that close relations that Thailand has with China and local lawyer can formal statement on it - re bitCNY status. BitAsset is considered valuable and backed asset by BTS and rejection of it, from blockchain itself - not seems normal.


3) I do encourage BitAssets. As John Robert (Conlin), Alex and everyone who has 2 gram of brain does. Compared to all of Stan's other projects, i consider personally bitHero his greatest and most legal achievement in BitShares.


4) Fav - nothing personal - but when I've joined the network 2017 you were holding Hero group in TG and being loud about it same as you are loud now against it. As professional, you being Committee member, involved in bitHero and now going against it is clearly, if not personal, professional conflict of interest and i would be requesting both Committee and yourself to exclude your voice/opinion from the topic - not for my sake, but to avoid more fud between you and Stan, that never ends well...


5) I will wait on Fabian to wakes up and hopefully to give me more details on bitHero, including some details on Whitepaper and rest, and if doable - Move Institute will be happy to transfer ownership to itself for mentioned asset with prior to that signed agreement with whoever is original asset issuer. We can turn it to very normal asset with very decent campaign, legal to


In normal terms if this would be considered Security or legal issue, issuer of the Asset should be immediately contacted and requested for legal documentation. I know we dont have that process defined, but as Committee members you should be better at business management or you not need to be a Committee member. Its my legal right and responsibility of domain bitshares.org that my subdomain wallet.bitshares.org and its dex are hosting content and tokens i never approved or they are respecting legal I'm very funny to see that you are doing this to native BitAsset but still dont make problem about hundreds of illegal UIA'a from baloney "legal" gateways circulating our network without single backed BTS or any safety for our users behind, actually not investing to our blockchain but earning from it.

We will come to that point as well.


BUSINESS REQUEST:

Committee - to explain decision made in the background and to wait with decision against issuer.
Issuer (Cryptonomex if I understand this well) - To contact me or Move Institute (Zavod Premik) for legal discussion and arrangements for transferring ownership (threshold) for the Asset.

Offcourse unless there is proof that BitHero was illegally used or harmed blockchain in any way. Will wait Committee for answer.


Many thanks.
P.S. If you wanna reply to me that i support Stan for any reason of .org ownership or whatever, reminder, not long ago i was publicly going against Stan in TG when he was wrong. I'm taking as always NO SIDE, except to hold side of the Blockchain.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 04:03:03 am by Digital Lucifer »
Milos (Mike) Preocanin - General Manager @ Syntek Solutions
TOANDI Co., LTD. (BOI Approved) - TAX ID: 0205549016913 - 95/5 Moo 4 Siam Country Club Rd.
Nong Prue, Bang Lamung, Chonburi 20250, Thailand.

Offline Brekyrself

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
    • View Profile
Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #18 on: July 22, 2018, 03:00:12 am »
Digital Lucifer, well said.

This brings up a great point.  Perhaps it's time for BitShares holders demand committee members explain why they voted one way or another.  Would be great it this information was posted for historical quick reference as well.

Offline JohnR

  • Committee member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: johnr
Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #19 on: July 22, 2018, 03:11:19 am »
I agree with Digital Lucifer here.  It seems like there were some wires crossed and appropriate conversation/formal requests were not made.  I think both sides have some information to share with the community on the matter.  There are many critical projects coming to release/launch as we speak and no one should shy away from controversy on any matter whatsoever.

I will say from a legal perspective, the analysis for Hero as security (at least in the USA) is not cut-and-dry.  We should, of course, err on the side of caution with these things and anything pertaining to the formal association with BitShares formal executive committee.  We can make an articulate and persuasive argument for Hero as not a security but then again depending on the jurisdiction, regulators may simply reach the conclusion they wish.

I think on this matter, both sides can shed some light on their position.  I look forward to hearing Xeroc's opinion as well.  Few are as long veterans on these matters as Stan and Fabian.
Active Committee
John Robert Conlin

Online sschiessl

Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #20 on: July 22, 2018, 06:03:58 am »
I might be wrong but the rash decision might have been due to the protocol upgrade last week. It introduced that the owner of an asset can _only_ be changed with owner permission.  I don't know if committee members had different reasoning for their choice, but that issue probably brought consensus as I have learned in telegram.

The committee account does not have any owner permission and consequently can't transfer asset ownership after this protocol upgrade. If the committee would have come to the conclusion (after public debate) that it does not want to have the Hero as BitAsset *after* the protocol upgrade, all it could do would be to shut it down. Now the Hero owner can sort out any legal matter or the general support quastion and still have all options open from a technical point of view.

Without the intervention before the hard fork the decision process would now be: Will it stay a BitAsset or be shutdown completely?
From my point of view it is the best case scenario because you can trigger a public discussion and have all options open.

As to the discussion of degrading the Hero for its holders: From a technical point of view nothing has changed, only who they have to entrust its proper governance to. It might be an unfortunate coincidence (also happened before!) that one feed provider discontinued its feed. That is being sorted out as we speak as I believe the intention of the committee was never to herm Hero holders.

Offline apasia.tech

Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #21 on: July 22, 2018, 07:22:40 am »

3) I do encourage BitAssets. As John Robert (Conlin), Alex and everyone who has 2 gram of brain does. Compared to all of Stan's other projects, i consider personally bitHero his greatest and most legal achievement in BitShares.

...and if doable - Move Institute will be happy to transfer ownership to itself for mentioned asset with prior to that signed agreement with whoever is original asset issuer. We can turn it to very normal asset with very decent campaign, legal to

BUSINESS REQUEST:

Committee - to explain decision made in the background and to wait with decision against issuer.
Issuer (Cryptonomex if I understand this well) - To contact me or Move Institute (Zavod Premik) for legal discussion and arrangements for transferring ownership (threshold) for the Asset.

Offcourse unless there is proof that BitHero was illegally used or harmed blockchain in any way. Will wait Committee for answer.

Thanks Digital for such practical and fair points. Agree particularly above, we should encourage bitassets. Having also come up with a possible solution with Move Institute is a smart forward thinking gesture.

From Committee, I also await answer to the same Business Request. I believe assets like HERO are good for BitShares, better explanations should be put forwards.
Ross Walker - Founder @ apasia.tech
AP Asia Tech Co., LTD.  TAX ID: 0205549016913 - 14/11 Floraville Complex 2, Pattanakarn Soi 51, Suan Luang, Bangkok 10250, Thailand.

Offline binggo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
    • View Profile
Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #22 on: July 22, 2018, 10:36:53 am »
If the committee want vote something , please speak out the reason to the BTS holder.

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 108
  • 13 years of being Slackware abUser
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares DEX Thailand
  • BitShares: steem-not
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #23 on: July 22, 2018, 10:48:55 am »
Well, thats the tricky part with Committee. They dont have to discuss nothing in public or rely on stake-holder opinion/votes, apart at the only point where those are giving them vote to become Committee. That's also a loophole in Consensus that gives Committee position that goes against transparency.

It's how it is, we can't change it, but any bitAsset should be discussed publicly before any rush decisions. We have a lot of interested party here in growing any part of BitShares blockchain, in many different aspects.

How I got updated with knowledge now, Hero's biggest problem is no high demand, no maintenance and no legal paperwork.

If this can go through as public discussion and generate some idea from it, hit it
Milos (Mike) Preocanin - General Manager @ Syntek Solutions
TOANDI Co., LTD. (BOI Approved) - TAX ID: 0205549016913 - 95/5 Moo 4 Siam Country Club Rd.
Nong Prue, Bang Lamung, Chonburi 20250, Thailand.

Offline bench

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2018, 12:58:48 pm »
The committee should explain, why there is no bitHero, and than we should solve the problems, because delisting is not the solution.