Author Topic: [Worker Proposal] - A bounty based smartcoin marketing campaign  (Read 43071 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline matle85

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Just have a look at their support channel where each days people come begging to process their withdrawl request.
Also RightBTC is a very small exchange with faked volume where volume have been already excluded by CMC for some coins.

Hi Thule, we are doing due diligence at the minute on the exchange listing options we have - this includes looking at reputation / user feedback and any concerns over volume. We want to make sure any listings add genuine value to Bitshares.

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
RightBTC is owned by Eric GU.
The CEO of viewfin who is running Metaverse and who scammed investors of Zengold which should be known by bitshares members on DEX.
The company is being operated from China.
Withdrawing something on RightBTC even BTS takes 24h and can go up to 7 days.
Just have a look at their support channel where each days people come begging to process their withdrawl request.
Also RightBTC is a very small exchange with faked volume where volume have been already excluded by CMC for some coins.


It would be a waste of funds for these mentioned exchanges.
Eric GU is even getting sued currently by Zengold investors.

LaToken is also only Top100 because of fake volume.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2018, 10:55:18 pm by Thul3 »

Offline matle85

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
at beginning I'll try LBANK and RightBTC.

account:bitcrab
email:bitcrab@qq.com

Hi Bitcrab - I contacted RightBTC on 20 October when we were discussing the draft worker. They are registered in Dubai which gives me some connection.

They have come back to me today with a quotation for listing bitCNY. I am not sure if you are discussing with them separately but I have private messaged you on Telegram so we can coordinate.

Offline Thom

There was also no annoucement of bitusd feed price getting manipulated .It just raised by 40% .
This kind of behavior is the reason why no big exchange is going to implement these bitassets as a small group is using it as it is their private toy they can experiment with.

I stopped my USD feed when USD feed manipulation started, despite xeroc and others being very direct in saying experimentation on that bitasset was dangerous and should wait for the MCR fix. Nevertheless, many witnesses decided to start playing around with BitUSD despite admonitions and the dangers.

I'm sure some of the witnesses that did so justify their actions saying bsip42 didn't prohibit it. In fact the only statement about when experimentation could start on BitUSD is:
Quote
It will be good to apply the change to bitCNY first, which has much better liquidity than other smartcoins. After witnesses and community learned enough in the process it can be also applied to bitUSD.

When did we pass the threshold of "enough" ?

I have maintained from the start how loose and vague the language of bsip42 was, and have been vocal about tightening that up BEFORE the MCR fix is ready and another hap hazard, poorly organized round of "experiments" are conducted, but that thread has not gotten the attention it should have.

Another important point is that bsip42 can be enabled and disabled at anytime through the poll workers 1.14.118 and 1.14.119, which is the best thing about how bsip42 was written. However, as of this moment the NO worker has only 6 committee supporters while the YES worker has 8. The plain fact is bsip42 could be disabled at any time by committee involvement.

The bsip should never have been approved as written. It was too vague, especially regarding use on non CNY bitAssets. Xeroc has been vocal about wanting to support the bsip for CNY, but not USD. He was put in a bad position due to how the bsip was written. I presume that's why he is supporting the YES worker. IMO he should have pulled his vote for YES and added it to NO worker as soon as it became apparent manipulation of BitUSD started, but he didn't.

TBH and genuine with my sentiments on this matter I am disgusted by the lack of concern I see on this feed issue as well as how poorly our "DPoS governance" works to establish consensus on important matters. 

Although Thul3 was very blunt with his most recent remarks I can't say I blame him for expressing his dissatisfaction with a strong emotional tone. I also think he raises an excellent point about why would any legit, non-fake volume exchange risk listing out bitassets with all this drama going on. The ecosystem is not unified and doesn't seem to operate with consensus and clear understanding of how to manage or market bitassets.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline yury

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • openledger.info

The worker would need to cover the listing fee and then some allowance for people on the Bitshares side assisting technically with the integration - I think DL is much clearer on the quantum of effort involved in that side of things (and who can do it) than me.

Although I'm not a big optimist regarding listing of bit assets on CEXes at the moment, I would like to claim that OpenLedger would be happy to provide technical integration of any of bit assets or BTS itself with a CEX software. We can provide an estimate for specific case.
Yury Cherniawsky
OpenLedger

Offline matle85

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Would it not be better to get BTS added to these CEX instead of a single bitasset?

I remember someone mentioning there was already a listing bounty for BTS a few weeks ago (I think on Telegram?) but can't find the message.

To add bitCNY or bitUSD the exchange has to connect into Bitshares so adding any other coins (BTS, Zeph etc) would be much more straight forward.

Offline R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1004
    • View Profile
Would it not be better to get BTS added to these CEX instead of a single bitasset?

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
I'm pretty sure its a waste of funds and reputation of bitshares.
Majority of top 50 exchanges have faked volume.
The proposed exchange of bitcrab is the worst bitshares could join.
RightBTC is known being run by Eric Gu who used it basicly to create fake volume for his own projects ETP ,ZGC etc .
The real volume there is nearly ZERO.
They don't even have a working withdraw system but are doing it manually with a delay of up to 7 days where you need to beg their support Betty Zhang to even process it.
Latoken's volume will be also a joke when monitoring the coins they listed before since they started asking to list anything as long as the coin is willing to pay their listing fee.
Real big exchanges won't list now bitassets because the risk a small uncontrolable group changes major settings is way to high as they would ever take that responsibility.

The funds would be just wasted instead of being used for real marketing.Listing on new exchanges were the volume will be near zero isn't helping any bitasset at all or are we going to ask Eric to create also fake volume for our bitassets ?

Quote
3. "price fed by witnesses is voluntary changed w/o having a consensus" is incorrect. Witnesses are acting by consensus. As of writing, BSIP42's status is "approved" according to result of consensus voting.

I have never seen any accouncement how exectly the price feed will be manipulated and in which borders it will stay.
I doubt even 5% of the traders on bitshares knows how the price feed manipulation works and where its borders are if there are any at all.
Its a small group talking between themself adjusting and twisting and not informing the community at all.

Just because a handfull of proxies agreed on it doesn't mean the majority of traders agree on it or even have a clue what exectly is happening.
There was also no annoucement of bitusd feed price getting manipulated .It just raised by 40% .
This kind of behavior is the reason why no big exchange is going to implement these bitassets as a small group is using it as it is their private toy they can experiment with.
People using stablecoins don't look for these kind of experiments but for stability of contract.
Even a large bitshares group left our own bitassets because of that lack of trust thanks to your actions and joined diffrent stable coins like DAO.
You also want people to create more bitassets by opening margins (debt).
Tell me who is going to open any margins when their CR jumps in days from 2to 2.5 and back down to 1.6 without the market making any signaficant moves?

Its funny you are talking about an opportunity for stable coins because Tether is currently massivly under pressure as people don't belive that its backed 1:1 and at the same time talk about removing "black swan" so the CR could go under 1
« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 01:39:41 pm by Thul3 »

Offline matle85

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Can we add "lobby/convince CEX to enable borrowing bitasset with BTS via CEX" as a secondary bounty objective? It would help return BTS to the DEX, increase BTS buy pressure on affected CEX & solve CEX bitasset supply issues.

this is  a little complex, need to do some assessment before marketing, I don't recommend it to be included in this worker proposal.

I have some discussions underway on this and think I may be getting a little traction... Tricky but let's see. Will keep people informed.

(Note I know this is outside of the worker)

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
this worker is to pay for what the lobbyist had done for listing, I feel the lobbyist may need to open other worker proposal to pay exchange the listing fee.

to me it is OK for a top50 CEX charge 8 BTC to list BTS, open bitCNY and bitUSD market with more than 3 pairs for each.
Email:bitcrab@qq.com

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
  • BitShares Maximalist & Venture Architect
    • View Profile
    • BitShares
  • BitShares: dls.cipher
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
Hi Xeroc, yep sorry BBF :) I believe DL was going to raise it as a potential worker to the BBF as per his earlier post here and gauge it's likeliness to pass.

The worker would need to cover the listing fee and then some allowance for people on the Bitshares side assisting technically with the integration - I think DL is much clearer on the quantum of effort involved in that side of things (and who can do it) than me.

Additionally it would be better for the worker to sit under someone more established / trusted in the community with a track record on some workers. I'm a trustworthy guy (honest!) but obviously nobody has seen me do much for Bitshares yet so I wouldn't expect the proxies to sign over X BTC worth of funds to me.

100% correct and thank you! @Xeroc was just clearing out fuddy air that I'm not being part of or involved (partnered) with BBF.

Mathew, I'll reach you out later today (it's chaotic Monday), I've got some new info on exchanges you are negotiating atm.

Chee®s
Milos (DL) Preocanin
Owner and manager of bitshares.org
Move Institute, Non-profit organization
RN: 2098555000
Murska Sobota, Slovenia.

Offline matle85

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Hi Xeroc, yep sorry BBF :) I believe DL was going to raise it as a potential worker to the BBF as per his earlier post here and gauge it's likeliness to pass.

The worker would need to cover the listing fee and then some allowance for people on the Bitshares side assisting technically with the integration - I think DL is much clearer on the quantum of effort involved in that side of things (and who can do it) than me.

Additionally it would be better for the worker to sit under someone more established / trusted in the community with a track record on some workers. I'm a trustworthy guy (honest!) but obviously nobody has seen me do much for Bitshares yet so I wouldn't expect the proxies to sign over X BTC worth of funds to me.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2018, 04:42:56 pm by matle85 »

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Ok I have 3 top 50 exchanges ready to list both bitCNY and bitUSD with draft agreements outlined. Each will list the two stablecoins against 3-4 pairs.

There is a bit of a fee to pay and some technical support required from the foundation side so have raised it to DL for him to look at and discuss with others more in the loop than me.

Notwithstanding discussion over whether this qualifies for a bounty (i.e. if the mention of 'base' mean more than securing 3 pairs for the coin) I'd love to see bitCNY and bitUSD entering the current public discussion around stable coins so really want to see the listings go ahead.

Happy to assist elsewhere as required - I'm not following up on my initial discussions with other exchanges at the minute as no point in ending up with 5 or 6 on board with no way to get them over the line :)

This sounds awesome! Good job.
I'd like to clarify a few things:
1. DL and the "foundation" (assuming you mean the BBF) are independent entities. DL is with the MOVE institute and the BBF is separate from them.
2. The BBF can assist by providing an opinion letter about BTS, but has non for bitUSD/bitCNY so far. If the exchanges are interested in getting their lawyers connected, please send an email to spokesperson@bitshares.foundation.
3. For technical support, a 3rd party entity is required, the BBF has no resources to lead technical integration. Surely, there are companies in the space that can lead those efforts. If you need someone, contact me via Fabian.Schuh@blockchainprojectsbv.com

Offline matle85

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Ok I have 3 top 50 exchanges ready to list both bitCNY and bitUSD with draft agreements outlined. Each will list the two stablecoins against 3-4 pairs.

There is a bit of a fee to pay and some technical support required from the foundation side so have raised it to DL for him to look at and discuss with others more in the loop than me.

Notwithstanding discussion over whether this qualifies for a bounty (i.e. if the mention of 'base' mean more than securing 3 pairs for the coin) I'd love to see bitCNY and bitUSD entering the current public discussion around stable coins so really want to see the listings go ahead.

Happy to assist elsewhere as required - I'm not following up on my initial discussions with other exchanges at the minute as no point in ending up with 5 or 6 on board with no way to get them over the line :)

Offline yury

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • openledger.info

1. BitUSD holders won't be "being force settled" or "end up with bunch of BTS".
Accepted, my understanding of the mechanism was incorrect. Sorry for that.

Quote
2. Talking about potential "BTS loosing its price dramatically" is not appropriate.
What's wrong with that? This may happen with ANY crypto or fiat currency.

Quote
3. "price fed by witnesses is voluntary changed w/o having a consensus" is incorrect. Witnesses are acting by consensus. As of writing, BSIP42's status is "approved" according to result of consensus voting.
Originally the price was adjusted by some witnesses w/o consensus. This may happen again.
Yury Cherniawsky
OpenLedger