Main > General Discussion

Internalizing the Hero

(1/5) > >>

bench:
The committee should explain, why there is no bitHero, and than we should solve the problems, because delisting is not the solution.

Digital Lucifer:
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

binggo:
If the committee want vote something , please speak out the reason to the BTS holder.

apasia.tech:

--- Quote from: Digital Lucifer on July 22, 2018, 01:18:56 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.

--- End quote ---

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.

sschiessl:
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page