Author Topic: Internalizing the Hero  (Read 908 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline binggo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
Re: Internalizing the Hero
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2018, 06:30:10 pm »
so sad!!!

Offline 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

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
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • 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

Offline 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: 283
    • 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

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: 95
    • 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.