Author Topic: BTS Greater China Representative[工作提案][worker proposal][bilingual]  (Read 3579 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online sschiessl

Thanks for the feedback.

Hope to see another report from the past activities in China!

Offline callmeluc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
    • View Profile
Ping :)

https://steemit.com/cn/@still-witness/bitshares-2017-11-2018-1

sorry, I sent this report to telegram channel, forgot post it here...

几个事情希望梓岑出面说明一下:

1. 二月份的报告里没看到资金使用明细

2. 后面的资金提取没有经过多签授权,而是用 owner key 签名完成的。也就是说实际上 worker 账号并不是完全多签账号。
https://bts.ai/u/workers.bitshares.representativecn
https://cryptofresh.com/u/workers.bitshares.representativecn

3. 后面的几次资金提取的使用明细

4. worker 已经到期,没有续建,有没有后续工作计划

5. worker 账户余额 516829.23079 BTS,再加上未领取资金 383507 BTS ,怎么处理,是否退还储备池

非常抱歉,一直都在外面出差,疲于奔命,工作报告和经费使用明细一直拖到现在,不过,基本所有的工作动态都通过微博实时播报过。

第一期报告中的资金使用明细已向中文区理事公开。2月份后,有两笔支出,包括一笔20万BTS的经费预支,和另一笔20万BTS用于“币东邪”一直播宣传的赞助费用,使用前已预先告知中文区理事获得许可。

第二期工作报告、后续工作计划和经费使用明细将在今明两天公布。
BTS_自扯自淡

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1560
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
although it is already late, we have to settle and close this worker proposal.

several weeks ago, jademont and I has discussed this issue with callmeluc, his opinion is that he has already quitted BTS and do not want to touch this worker proposal anymore, all the left issues can be handled by the escrows.

at May 2018, the preparation time of the 1st Global Graphene DEVCON, DEVCON official and callmeluc has agreed that BTS Greater China Representative will join in the organization of DEVCON, BTS Greater China Representative will pay to cover the deficit of DEVCON, and DEVCON will also be titled as the marketing activities organized by BTS Greater China Representative.

below is the accounts of payments and earnings of the 1st DEVCON, 147092 CNY deficit is there, not covered yet.



now about 900K BTS is left in the escrow account of this worker proposal - worker63fundholder, I suggest to pay the 147092 CNY deficit to DEVCON organizer and transfer the left to committee-account for further usage.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2019, 03:41:21 pm by bitcrab »

Online abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3699
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
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.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Online 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.

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1560
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
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.

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.

Online 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.

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.

Ah, I totally missed the "1st" .... apologies. It does not change the remainder of my comment, in particular the last sentence.

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1560
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
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.

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.

Ah, I totally missed the "1st" .... apologies. It does not change the remainder of my comment, in particular the last sentence.
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.


Online 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.

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.

Ah, I totally missed the "1st" .... apologies. It does not change the remainder of my comment, in particular the last sentence.
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.

Okay. To have a precise statement. Do you mean A) or B) from below?

A) The BitShares account "still" pays the expenses? Background: On the blockchain, BTS with an equivalent value (at the time of transfers) of 130k bitUSD have been paid out already to "still".
B) The BitShares account "worker63fundholder" pays the expenses?

Furthermore, is there a budget overview of this worker somewhere? It has specifically asked for an equivalent value of 90k bitUSD, so the time when payments in BTS happen is very crucial. Sorry for the annoyance. How much equivalent value in bitUSD was already used from this worker in your opinion? Might be that this issue reduces to plain accounting, I simply don't understand it atm.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 10:52:36 am by sschiessl »

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1560
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
Okay. To have a precise statement. Do you mean A) or B) from below?

A) The BitShares account "still" pays the expenses? Background: On the blockchain, BTS with an equivalent value (at the time of transfers) of 130k bitUSD have been paid out already to "still".
B) The BitShares account "worker63fundholder" pays the expenses?

Furthermore, is there a budget overview of this worker somewhere? It has specifically asked for an equivalent value of 90k bitUSD, so the time when payments in BTS happen is very crucial. Sorry for the annoyance. How much equivalent value in bitUSD was already used from this worker in your opinion? Might be that this issue reduces to plain accounting, I simply don't understand it atm.

up to now the 147k CNY for 1st Devcon was paid by myself personally, without getting any fund from still or this worker.

jademont and I have talked about this with still several months ago, he rejected to provide more detail of the worker expense and just told us to get needed fund from what was left from the worker.

so one choice is to pay this 147k CNY to me from the left fund of the worker, as the expense detail is clear and is in plan of BTS Greater China Representative, and at the same time we will continue to request still to provide more clarification of the other expenses. although we are not 100% sure we can get this done.

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 307
  • 13 years of being Slackware abUser
    • View Profile
    • BitShares 3.0
  • BitShares: dls.cipher
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
Okay. To have a precise statement. Do you mean A) or B) from below?

A) The BitShares account "still" pays the expenses? Background: On the blockchain, BTS with an equivalent value (at the time of transfers) of 130k bitUSD have been paid out already to "still".
B) The BitShares account "worker63fundholder" pays the expenses?

Furthermore, is there a budget overview of this worker somewhere? It has specifically asked for an equivalent value of 90k bitUSD, so the time when payments in BTS happen is very crucial. Sorry for the annoyance. How much equivalent value in bitUSD was already used from this worker in your opinion? Might be that this issue reduces to plain accounting, I simply don't understand it atm.

up to now the 147k CNY for 1st Devcon was paid by myself personally, without getting any fund from still or this worker.

jademont and I have talked about this with still several months ago, he rejected to provide more detail of the worker expense and just told us to get needed fund from what was left from the worker.

so one choice is to pay this 147k CNY to me from the left fund of the worker, as the expense detail is clear and is in plan of BTS Greater China Representative, and at the same time we will continue to request still to provide more clarification of the other expenses. although we are not 100% sure we can get this done.

Wait, wait... Witness Still haven't provide transparency for worker accounting and told you in polite way to fuck off and use leftover on unmanaged worker funds ?

Im sorry if im too direct, no bad meaning towards yourself or Jademont.

Milos (DL) Preocanin
Owner and manager of bitshares.org through Consensus
Move Institute - RN: 2098555000
Murska Sobota, Slovenia, SI.

Offline ripplexiaoshan

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: jademont
Quote
jademont and I have talked about this with still several months ago, he rejected to provide more detail of the worker expense and just told us to get needed fund from what was left from the worker.
I confirm this. The guy who is controlling account "still" has left BTS community and rejected to spend more time on the reporting of this worker. I appreciate his contribution on this worker but it is very unprofessional to ignore the report.


Okay. To have a precise statement. Do you mean A) or B) from below?

A) The BitShares account "still" pays the expenses? Background: On the blockchain, BTS with an equivalent value (at the time of transfers) of 130k bitUSD have been paid out already to "still".
B) The BitShares account "worker63fundholder" pays the expenses?

Furthermore, is there a budget overview of this worker somewhere? It has specifically asked for an equivalent value of 90k bitUSD, so the time when payments in BTS happen is very crucial. Sorry for the annoyance. How much equivalent value in bitUSD was already used from this worker in your opinion? Might be that this issue reduces to plain accounting, I simply don't understand it atm.

up to now the 147k CNY for 1st Devcon was paid by myself personally, without getting any fund from still or this worker.

jademont and I have talked about this with still several months ago, he rejected to provide more detail of the worker expense and just told us to get needed fund from what was left from the worker.

so one choice is to pay this 147k CNY to me from the left fund of the worker, as the expense detail is clear and is in plan of BTS Greater China Representative, and at the same time we will continue to request still to provide more clarification of the other expenses. although we are not 100% sure we can get this done.
BTS committee member:jademont

Offline ripplexiaoshan

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: jademont
Okay. To have a precise statement. Do you mean A) or B) from below?

A) The BitShares account "still" pays the expenses? Background: On the blockchain, BTS with an equivalent value (at the time of transfers) of 130k bitUSD have been paid out already to "still".
B) The BitShares account "worker63fundholder" pays the expenses?

Furthermore, is there a budget overview of this worker somewhere? It has specifically asked for an equivalent value of 90k bitUSD, so the time when payments in BTS happen is very crucial. Sorry for the annoyance. How much equivalent value in bitUSD was already used from this worker in your opinion? Might be that this issue reduces to plain accounting, I simply don't understand it atm.

up to now the 147k CNY for 1st Devcon was paid by myself personally, without getting any fund from still or this worker.

jademont and I have talked about this with still several months ago, he rejected to provide more detail of the worker expense and just told us to get needed fund from what was left from the worker.

so one choice is to pay this 147k CNY to me from the left fund of the worker, as the expense detail is clear and is in plan of BTS Greater China Representative, and at the same time we will continue to request still to provide more clarification of the other expenses. although we are not 100% sure we can get this done.

Wait, wait... Witness Still haven't provide transparency for worker accounting and told you in polite way to fuck off and use leftover on unmanaged worker funds ?

Im sorry if im too direct, no bad meaning towards yourself or Jademont.

The time flow is like this:
Before the worker was ended in 2018, witness.still confirmed to cover the expense of bitcrab for 1st Devcon by this worker.
Then witness.still has never provided transparency for this worker in this post since that.
bitcrab and me contacted him and asked him to provide transparency and reporting of this worker to end this worker, so bitcrab can get him money back.
Request was ignored.
BTS committee member:jademont