[Poll] BSIP42: adjust price feed dynamically

[bitcrab]

data at this moment:
bitCNY: BTS price:0.818, feed price:0.917, premium:0.1%
bitUSD: BTS price:0.115, feed price:0.119, premium: 4% 

BSIP42 worked fairly well on bitCNY, we need to apply it on bitUSD in the next step.

[sschiessl]

Ok cool.

I have included the comment to use bitCNY first. Please have a look once and comment your support of the changes in the PR https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/105 .

[bitcrab]

https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/106

add discussion and voting relevant content.

Did you see my post above? I did the exact same thing. Shall we merge the PRs?

oh, sorry I haven't checked your PR details when I write my PR, now seems my PR can be ignored...

[sschiessl]

https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/106

add discussion and voting relevant content.

Did you see my post above? I did the exact same thing. Shall we merge the PRs?

[bitcrab]

https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/106

add discussion and voting relevant content.

[sschiessl]

https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/105

Please consider this, and please to also honor it if accepted.

[sschiessl]

Appreciate the answer. My point is on the formalities though, not the content of the BSIP.

we give 2 weeks for community to review the BSIP and vote, in 7th Sep if the worker proposal is active and the votes is greater than that of the oppose worker proposal, then the BSIP is accepted.

All this information needs to be included in the BSIP, please carefully consider my questions and suggestions above.

[bitcrab]

Appreciate the answer. My point is on the formalities though, not the content of the BSIP.

we give 2 weeks for community to review the BSIP and vote, in 7th Sep if the worker proposal is active and the votes is greater than that of the oppose worker proposal, then the BSIP is accepted.

[sschiessl]

As it stands right now, the worker proposal has no definition when it will become active, nor is it complete. No one should vote for it. But it seems with 400 million and more votes, it will be done. I strongly disagree that proper formalities were skipped, simply because our whales want to push it through.

I do like your suggestion to have it in a constantly evaluated stage. The BSIP is considered accepted, if the proposal is active AND carries more votes than the against proposal (one vote more is enough).

My suggestion:

a) Finish the proposal by including the discussion and shareholder summary. Also include an exact definition when it is considered active. This should be done by @abit or @bitcrab as the driving force behind it
b) Once the BSIP is completed, give at least 1 week grace period so shareholders can vote for or against it (the date when it can earliest become active should be included in the BSIP as well)

My personal opinion:
As the proposal stands right now I can not vote for it for formal reason, completely independent of the content. I would be rather forced to vote for "status quo" until the formalities are reinstated. Currently, everyone is swayed by the mere overwhelming power that bitcrab carries, yet I want to see that even he upholds formal procedure. This is crucial for me, as it only empowers the power abuse discussion involving our whales.

BSIP42 can be regarded as a request to community to permit witnesses to try some new way of feeding.

the core idea in the BSIP42 is "negative feed back feed price" based on the premium/discount of smartcoin, however, no detailed specification are provided, because I think it may be not a good way for abit or me to provide a detailed algorithm and ask the witnesses to adopt, discussion are on going and we keep on suggesting, but I think finally witnesses will develop different algorithms to feed price based on their own understanding. this diversity is also essential for decentralization.

I will try to add more discussion to the BSIP later.

Appreciate the answer. My point is on the formalities though, not the content of the BSIP.

[bitcrab]

As it stands right now, the worker proposal has no definition when it will become active, nor is it complete. No one should vote for it. But it seems with 400 million and more votes, it will be done. I strongly disagree that proper formalities were skipped, simply because our whales want to push it through.

I do like your suggestion to have it in a constantly evaluated stage. The BSIP is considered accepted, if the proposal is active AND carries more votes than the against proposal (one vote more is enough).

My suggestion:

a) Finish the proposal by including the discussion and shareholder summary. Also include an exact definition when it is considered active. This should be done by @abit or @bitcrab as the driving force behind it
b) Once the BSIP is completed, give at least 1 week grace period so shareholders can vote for or against it (the date when it can earliest become active should be included in the BSIP as well)

My personal opinion:
As the proposal stands right now I can not vote for it for formal reason, completely independent of the content. I would be rather forced to vote for "status quo" until the formalities are reinstated. Currently, everyone is swayed by the mere overwhelming power that bitcrab carries, yet I want to see that even he upholds formal procedure. This is crucial for me, as it only empowers the power abuse discussion involving our whales.

BSIP42 can be regarded as a request to community to permit witnesses to try some new way of feeding.

the core idea in the BSIP42 is "negative feed back feed price" based on the premium/discount of smartcoin, however, no detailed specification are provided, because I think it may be not a good way for abit or me to provide a detailed algorithm and ask the witnesses to adopt, discussion are on going and we keep on suggesting, but I think finally witnesses will develop different algorithms to feed price based on their own understanding. this diversity is also essential for decentralization.

I will try to add more discussion to the BSIP later.

[gghi]

       This plan is not proposed by bitcrab, but bitcrab is only a propellant.

[sschiessl]

abit can you please clarify how the two workers are intended?

My assumption:

a) If the "support" proposal becomes active AND has more votes then the "dont support" proposal, then the BSIP is considered accepted?

I agree, although 1) "active" is relative so perhaps doesn't apply here, and 2) IMHO the quantity of "more votes" need to be significant.

By the way there are discussions about opinion workers here: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/4

b) What is the time period that people are asked to vote for this before the judgment in a) is being done?

Hard to tell. Perhaps one week? What's your opinion?

Actually we can make it a "permanent" poll, because we can stop/revert the change (to new feed of course) at any time. Then we need to make decision more than once.

The Shareholder Summary is still missing, Discussion as well. Can you please add it?

Hope people will create pull requests for adding new info.

As it stands right now, the worker proposal has no definition when it will become active, nor is it complete. No one should vote for it. But it seems with 400 million and more votes, it will be done. I strongly disagree that proper formalities were skipped, simply because our whales want to push it through.

I do like your suggestion to have it in a constantly evaluated stage. The BSIP is considered accepted, if the proposal is active AND carries more votes than the against proposal (one vote more is enough).

My suggestion:

a) Finish the proposal by including the discussion and shareholder summary. Also include an exact definition when it is considered active. This should be done by @abit or @bitcrab as the driving force behind it
b) Once the BSIP is completed, give at least 1 week grace period so shareholders can vote for or against it (the date when it can earliest become active should be included in the BSIP as well)

My personal opinion:
As the proposal stands right now I can not vote for it for formal reason, completely independent of the content. I would be rather forced to vote for "status quo" until the formalities are reinstated. Currently, everyone is swayed by the mere overwhelming power that bitcrab carries, yet I want to see that even he upholds formal procedure. This is crucial for me, as it only empowers the power abuse discussion involving our whales.

[abit]

abit can you please clarify how the two workers are intended?

My assumption:

a) If the "support" proposal becomes active AND has more votes then the "dont support" proposal, then the BSIP is considered accepted?

I agree, although 1) "active" is relative so perhaps doesn't apply here, and 2) IMHO the quantity of "more votes" need to be significant.

By the way there are discussions about opinion workers here: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/4

b) What is the time period that people are asked to vote for this before the judgment in a) is being done?

Hard to tell. Perhaps one week? What's your opinion?

Actually we can make it a "permanent" poll, because we can stop/revert the change (to new feed of course) at any time. Then we need to make decision more than once.

The Shareholder Summary is still missing, Discussion as well. Can you please add it?

Hope people will create pull requests for adding new info.

[sschiessl]

abit can you please clarify how the two workers are intended?

My assumption:

a) If the "support" proposal becomes active AND has more votes then the "dont support" proposal, then the BSIP is considered accepted?

b) What is the time period that people are asked to vote for this before the judgment in a) is being done?

The Shareholder Summary is still missing, Discussion as well. Can you please add it?

[bitcrab]

Summary for Shareholders as well as discussion links are missing in the BSIP, can you please add it?

Why did this get split in two workers? Can you please clarify the intent?

Questions that pop up:

• What if none get active?
• What if both remain inactive?
• Does a non active "don't support it" proposal lead to implementation even if the "support it" is not active?

one for support and one for oppose.

I think only when "support" proposal get active and get more voting than the "oppose" proposal then implementation can begin.

although this BSIP is generally for smartcoins, but I think it should be firstly implemented in bitCNY if it pass the voting, only when the result is satisfactory enough then will implement it in bitUSD.