Author Topic: Announcement of cn-vote Union: Re-evaluation of our support of Worker Proposals  (Read 4025 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tshen


Announcement of cn-vote Union

In the current bearish market, the BTS price has been low for a long time. We believe it is the time for the DAC to cut the expense and reduce inflation. Therefore, the cn-vote Union members have concluded an agreement to:

Re-evaluate and Review our support of the following Worker Proposals:
  • bitshares-mobile-app
  • wirex-integration
  • uccs-research-project
  • DEXBot WP3

We call on all the workers to timely publish updates of their progress and accounting information on a regular basis to the DAC, especially the Chinese community (including the cn-vote union). We the cn-vote Union will evaluate each worker by lasting value to the DAC upon receipt of updates.

P.S. The bitshares-mobile-app worker has contacted cn-vote representative and they are doing good with public disclosure of project updates. We believe that their work is productive and the mobile app is very useful. It brings significant new users and will soon use the DAC faucet resulting in more income for the DAC. The cn-vote Union members have concluded an agreement to support the bitshares-mobile-app worker.


cn-vote Union
08/15/2019




中文版:

cn-vote 工会声明

由于市场行情低迷,BTS 价值长期在低位徘徊,本着开源节流的原则,cn-vote 工会成员达成一致,决定:

对以下提案重新审核。
  • bitshares-mobile-app
  • wirex-integration
  • uccs-research-project
  • DEXBot WP3

我们期待各提案项目方及时主动向社区,尤其是包括 cn-vote 在内的中文社区沟通其工作进展、资金使用情况等,提供足够多的信息供工会成员重新判断其是否对 DAC 有持久价值。
   
注:bitshares-mobile-app 团队已经与 cn-vote 对接人进行了充分的沟通,并在公开渠道有充分的信息披露。经讨论认为:其工作成效明显,开发手机软件实用性较强,带来明显流量,并将正在推进的社区官方版本设置为官方水龙头,为系统带来更多收益。工会达成共识予以支持。


cn-vote 社区工会
08/15/2019



Tong Shen, Coordinator Assistant, Core Team | 沈瞳,BitShares Core 开发团队 协调员助理
Spark Blockchain | 星火区块链:北美领先的区块链咨询及孵化公司 https://sparkincu.com/
WeChat | 微信号: cnjsstong

Offline tshen

Dear Workers,

There have been a lot of discussions about cn-vote's action to vote for refund400k recently. Several community members reached out to me. I had thorough conversations with the cn-vote members and was authorized to help the cn-vote Union post this announcement.

Because of the language barrier, the disagreement between the Chinese and English communities and the lack of communication has been there for a long time. I want to help with this problem by facilitating better communication. If you find it hard to understand or express to the other side, I'm happy to help you.

Let's work together for a more connected community.


Regards,
Tong Shen

Telegram: @cnjsstong
WeChat / 微信: cnjsstong
Tong Shen, Coordinator Assistant, Core Team | 沈瞳,BitShares Core 开发团队 协调员助理
Spark Blockchain | 星火区块链:北美领先的区块链咨询及孵化公司 https://sparkincu.com/
WeChat | 微信号: cnjsstong

Offline Permie22

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Permie
(虽然我发布这条回复的账号是个新账号)这个账号(https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=36434)是我以前在 bitsharestalk 论坛的账号,Hero Member 级别,共发布过 606 个帖子, 但这个账号现在我无法登陆了。

DEXBot 开源项目:
www.github.com/codaone/DEXBot
DEXBot 给 cn-vote 的进展报告

这是记录 DEXBot 项目费用支出的文档:https://1drv.ms/x/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJagkgB81_-drYTh4
自从一个月前,cn-vote 工会给 DEXBot 投票后,我们便开始了将 DEXBot 的维基文档翻译成中文和俄文的准备工作:https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJbhi2VJQgzFDTl90

在 cn-vote 工会的支持下,如果 DEXBot 能够持续获得资金支持,我们就能继续完成这项工作。

我们已经联系了 @btslinda 来做相关文档的翻译。

DEXBot 团队正在大规模开发 pybitshares 工具库,加强用于计算和更快地下订单的异步功能,以支持竞争性套利功能的使用。这一功能将为 DEX 带来流动性,尤其是 bitCNY 市场。
这项开发工作当前正在进行中。

传统套利功能说明文档:
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJaePNQU7T4aPfJiQ
文档摘录:

DEXBot 将使用 Ccxt 工具库,允许一次性访问 135 家中心化交易所(CEX)。这包括了币安和绝大多数大型交易所。
查看支持的交易所的完整名单:https://github.com/ccxt/ccxt/blob/master/wiki/Exchange-Markets.md
为什么比特股需要套利?

套利可以带来更大的交易量、更好的价格发现效果、更小的价差。套利机器人会接受好的报价,并鼓励做市商尽可能地给出接近去中心化交易所( DEX)中订单簿上市场价格的报价。交易量越大(部分交易量由套利机器人增加),做市商的资金周转就越频繁,也就更加吸引交易者参与做市。

为什么比特股需要与其他交易所相连接?

因为套利的原理是利用不同市场上资产的价格差异或变化滞后来赚取利润,所以要实现套利,需要至少可以访问两个不同的交易所。

DEXBot 的套利功能应该怎么运作?它应该遵循什么样的逻辑?

DEXBot 应该具备至少能在另外两家交易所的订单簿上发布订单的能力。
这两家交易所中必须有一家是 BitShares DEX。

“镜像”套利功能说明文档:
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJbAbWTiR_BEQW4WM

文档摘录:

镜像套利与传统套利相似,不同之处在于镜像套利包括了一个限价订单和一个市价订单,而传统套利则包括两个市价订单。

传统套利注重抓住套利机会,而套利机会的引发是由在两个不同的交易所的两个交易员发出的两个限价订单。

镜像套利则是分析 交易所 1  (CEX) 的已有订单,并在 交易所 2  (DEX) 发布一个限价订单;如果交易完成,DEXBot 就可以在 交易所 1  吃单,实现盈利。DEXBot 需要阅读 CEX  的订单,通过在 DEX 上发布限价订单,并仅在 DEX 限价订单完成时才对 CEX 采取行动,从而预测/提前获得套利机会。

DEXBot 支持 BitShares DEX 上的流动性和交易活动,因此发出限价订单的交易所为 DEX,而发出市价订单的交易所则为 CEX。

CEX 的订单簿将是动态的,并且会不断变化,因此 DEX 上的限价订单也需要根据更新后的 CEX 订单进行下单、取消或替换的操作——在一定的误差范围内,以减少不必要的微小订单更改所浪费的费用。

DEXBot 必须以最小的延迟来及时掌握 CEX 订单簿的状态,并且尽可能频繁的更新。

DEXBot 会持续监控 CEX 的订单簿信息,并根据 CEX 价格按照百分比的偏移量,利用相关数据在 DEX 上下限价订单。

可视化工具

可视化工具正在开发中,但最近由于 DEXBot 被投票落选资助而暂停。可视化工具将能够使交易进展一目了然,从而让我们能够简便地评判 DEXBot 的交易竞争情况。

https://github.com/JRizzly/BitsharesRealTimeAccountTracker
https://github.com/Codaone/DEXBot/tree/dash-graphs

单元测试

BitProfessor(@教授) 一直在对 DEXBot 代码进行详尽的单元测试,并在中国比特股社区中进行了小规模的宣传。





=================================================================================================



Here is my orginal bitsharestalk profile, from which I am locked out. Hero Member, 606 posts: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=36434

DEXBot:
www.github.com/codaone/DEXBot

DEXBot Update for cn-vote

DEXBot has a google doc documenting expenses here: https://1drv.ms/x/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJagkgB81_-drYTh4

Since cn-vote gave DEXBot it’s vote one month ago preparation to translate DEXBot wiki  documentation into Mandarin and Russian have begun: https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJbhi2VJQgzFDTl90

With cn-vote’s support and DEXBot receiving continued funding for DEXBot we can continue with this effort.

@btslinda has been contacted about doing this translation work

DEXBot is undertaking extensive development of pybitshares to develop asynchronous capability to calculate and place orders faster to support the use of competitive Arbitrage features which will bring liquidity to the DEX, most notably the bitCNY markets.
This development is being worked on right now.

Traditional Arbitrage Feature Specification:
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJaePNQU7T4aPfJiQ

Excerpt:
    DEXBot will use Ccxt which allows access to 135 CEX’s in one go. Binance and most of the big ones are included.
See the full list here: https://github.com/ccxt/ccxt/blob/master/wiki/Exchange-Markets.md

Why does Bitshares want arbitrage?

Trade volume, better price discovery, tighter spreads as arb bots will take good offers and encourage market makers to have offers close to the market price on the DEX orderbooks as often as possible. The higher the volume of trading, in part increased by arb bots, allows market makers to turn over their capital more frequently thus making market making participation more attractive to traders

Why does Bitshares want to connect to other exchanges?

Arbitrage requires access to at least two separate exchanges as it relies on the price discrepancy, or lag, between prices for assets offered in two separate marketplaces.

How should the arbitrage feature on DEXBot operate? What logic should it follow?

DEXBot should have knowledge and ability to post orders on the books of at least two other exchanges.
One of those two exchanges must always be the Bitshares DEX.



“Mirrored” Arbitrage Feature Specification:
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJbAbWTiR_BEQW4WM

 Excerpt:
Mirrored Arbitrage is similar to traditional arbitrage except that it involves one limit order and one market order. As opposed to traditional arbitrage which involves two market orders.

Traditional arbitrage lies hidden ready to pounce on an arbitrage opportunity that arises out of two limit orders being placed by other traders on two separate exchanges.

Mirrored Arbitrage instead analyses the orderbook of Exchange-1 (CEX), and places a limit order on Exchange-2 (DEX) that if filled would allow DEXBot to take an offer from Exchange-1 and realise a profit. DEXBot should read the orderbook of the CEX and predict/front-run arbitrage opportunities by placing limit orders on the DEX and only acting on the CEX if the DEX limit-order is filled.

DEXBot supports liquidity and trading activity on the BitShares DEX so the exchange where limit orders are placed will be the DEX and the exchange where market orders are taken will be a CEX.

The orderbook of the CEX will be dynamic and ever changing so the limit orders on the DEX will have to be placed/cancelled and replaced in response to the updated CEX orderbook - within a margin of error to reduce wasting fees on unnecessarily minute order changes.

DEXBot must be aware of the state of the CEX orderbook with minimal time-lag and updated as frequently as is possible.

DEXBot will constantly monitor the CEX’s orderbook information and use the data to place limit orders on the DEX at prices %offset to the CEX.


Visualisation Tools
are under development, but have been halted very recently due to DEXBot being voted out of the funding zone. Visualisations will allow an easy way to judge DEXBot trading competitions, as progress is easily seen at a glance.
https://github.com/JRizzly/BitsharesRealTimeAccountTracker
https://github.com/Codaone/DEXBot/tree/dash-graphs

Unit Testing
BitProfessor has been conducting extensive Unit Testing of DEXBot code and some small PR within the Chinese BitShares community
« Last Edit: August 20, 2019, 10:45:16 am by Permie22 »

Offline Permie22

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Permie
I am still working on having this post translated into Mandarin  :)

Update: The DEXBot post has now been translated into Mandarin thanks to Tong Shen and his team
« Last Edit: August 20, 2019, 10:40:10 am by Permie22 »

Offline Permie22

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Permie
I have uploaded the docs to onedrive so they can be viewed in China

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
I am Dr. Philip N. Brown, professor of computer science at the University of Colorado and lead on the 201907-uccs-research-project worker which aims to fund research on BitAssets and create simulation models to help improve price pegging and collateralization for BitAssets.

Current Project Status and activities

Before any funds came to the worker proposal, I wrote a paper to send to the Decentralized 2019 conference; the paper has already been made available to the BitShares community here: http://cs.uccs.edu/~pbrown2/papers/Decentralized_Preprint.pdf.

Work is progressing well. The PhD student who is attached to the project has been learning about financial modeling and this week we'll start developing our BitAsset simulator. The simulator will be a testbed which we will use to look at the effects of different choices of chain parameters, and as time goes on we will expand it to look at more advanced stabilization techniques also.

If the project receives sufficient funding (approximately $40k, to ensure the researcher/student is fully funded for at least one year), we will make sure that the simulation code is available for the BitShares community to use to test various aspects of pegging behavior on their own.

Accounting Information

This worker proposal is a BitShares Blockchain Foundation escrow worker, which means that any community member is free to examine the accounting information at any time: https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2019-07-uccs-research-project

We have not yet requested a payment from the foundation, since so far only $14,000 has been allocated and it would be considerably better for us to receive a larger amount as our first disbursement.

Project costs

The proposal originally requested $150,000 to fully fund a 2-year project. Approximately half of that money was slated to be used to fund the student's efforts; this means the original proposal asked for about $80,000 to pay for a full-time PhD student/researcher to work on the project for 2 years. The bulk of the remainder of the funds were to be used to pay me to devote some of my summers to the project full-time.

I will continue to stress that $150,000 would set this up as a very successful project, but I also understand that since the BTS price has decreased so much in the past months, the community is now hesitant to part with this much money all at once.

In light of this, I want the cn-vote community to know that this project will give the community results even if it is only funded at a level of $40,000. Even this extremely low level of funding would ensure that the project's student would be fully funded and completely committed to the project for a full year.

Thus, I am asking the cn-vote community to consider voting the research worker back in until at least $40,000 have been raised. At current prices, this should take about 3 weeks, and it would be a good balance between funding the project and reducing BTS inflation. $40,000 would allow us to make significant progress (build a complete simulator for the community to use for experiments, and then analyze the simulation results deeply and draw some conclusions about how to set the chain parameters optimally), and then if the BTS price increases in the future we can introduce a new worker to continue the work.

Some Questions

Q1. If $40,000 is enough for the project to generate value, why does the original proposal ask for $150,000?
A: At universities, students do most of the research work; at my university, a full-time student costs at least $40,000 per year. The extra money was going to be used to "buy my time" from the University so that I could devote large blocks of my time to the project as well. So: $40,000 buys the project a student for a year; $150,000 buys the project a student for 2 years plus a professor (me) full-time for a total of four months. If project costs are cut, I will always sacrifice my time first and keep the student working. However, of course the more effort that is devoted to the project, the more successful it will be.

Q2. Why does this worker ask for all the money at the start of the project?
A: I wish there were a better way to do this, but unfortunately the way research funding works at universities is that the money must be committed at the start of the project. Part of the reason for this is to make sure that the student is confident in their ability to continue working throughout the project. However, the BitShares community needs to understand that my reputation as a professor is at stake if I mis-manage the money: a very important part of my career is that when I tell people I'm going to be able to get research done, I absolutely need to deliver on my promise.

Q3. Why is this worker important for the BitShares community?
A: A (relatively) short answer is this: this worker brings 3 core benefits to the BitShares community.
First, we will provide specific recommendations to the community about how chain parameters such as MCR and MSSR should be chosen, along with detailed simulation results and mathematical analysis to support our recommendations. In turn, when the BitShares community advertises their product, they will be in a very strong position to say "we've had this looked at, and here are all the reasons why we do things the way we do them." This should make BitShares a stronger competitor.
Second, we will publish and present our findings at well-respected academic conferences (and tell everybody that BitShares sponsored us), which will directly increase the global awareness of the BitShares system.
Third, by funding high-level research, BitShares will help to define what kinds of problems are "interesting" and worth studying; when other researchers see money going to a particular topic, it increases their interest in that topic. Of course this benefit is the least tangible, but it really is an important piece of funding university research that many people forget about.

As always, please direct your questions to me and I will do my best to answer them.
Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."

Offline R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 757
    • View Profile
Would you consider voting for a smaller refund worker proposal, rather than the refund400k?

I do not believe that austerity works, we aught to be steadily investing in most of the proposed worker proposals.

I'm hoping that we can reactivate the following worker proposals:
* Wirex - Using wirex with BTS would enable me to spend BTS like a normal bank card, it's a great ongoing development for the EMEA Bitshares ecosystem.
* Bitshares UI development - I view this worker proposal as highly productive, improving the reference UI is an excellent investment for the global Bitshares ecosystem. Without this worker proposal, there may be a lack of developers available to resolve new issues reported in the HackTheDex worker proposal.
* Bitshares code development - Very productive worker proposal, multiple releases recently and excellent new functionality being introduced to the network. It would be unfortunate to lose UI or core devs due to loss of funding, we need this development capability to further thwart any issues reported through the HackTheDex wp.
* Conferences - Bitshares is so rarely marketed, these would be an excellent opportunity to get Bitshares some good exposure (worthwhile investment).
* uccs research project - I believe this is highly valuable, it will improve Bitshares academic credibility and I'm confident that its research will lead to new novel assets and optimized bitasset settings for the Bitshares platform.

I do not believe that any of the currently active Bitshares worker proposals are the cause of the downtrend in the Bitshares prices, the worker proposal fund emissions are lower than most other cryptocurrencies.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 06:41:29 pm by Customminer »

Offline sschiessl


Offline bitProfessor

I am Dr. Philip N. Brown, professor of computer science at the University of Colorado and lead on the 201907-uccs-research-project worker which aims to fund research on BitAssets and create simulation models to help improve price pegging and collateralization for BitAssets.

Current Project Status and activities

Before any funds came to the worker proposal, I wrote a paper to send to the Decentralized 2019 conference; the paper has already been made available to the BitShares community here: http://cs.uccs.edu/~pbrown2/papers/Decentralized_Preprint.pdf.

Work is progressing well. The PhD student who is attached to the project has been learning about financial modeling and this week we'll start developing our BitAsset simulator. The simulator will be a testbed which we will use to look at the effects of different choices of chain parameters, and as time goes on we will expand it to look at more advanced stabilization techniques also.

If the project receives sufficient funding (approximately $40k, to ensure the researcher/student is fully funded for at least one year), we will make sure that the simulation code is available for the BitShares community to use to test various aspects of pegging behavior on their own.

Accounting Information

This worker proposal is a BitShares Blockchain Foundation escrow worker, which means that any community member is free to examine the accounting information at any time: https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2019-07-uccs-research-project

We have not yet requested a payment from the foundation, since so far only $14,000 has been allocated and it would be considerably better for us to receive a larger amount as our first disbursement.

Project costs

The proposal originally requested $150,000 to fully fund a 2-year project. Approximately half of that money was slated to be used to fund the student's efforts; this means the original proposal asked for about $80,000 to pay for a full-time PhD student/researcher to work on the project for 2 years. The bulk of the remainder of the funds were to be used to pay me to devote some of my summers to the project full-time.

I will continue to stress that $150,000 would set this up as a very successful project, but I also understand that since the BTS price has decreased so much in the past months, the community is now hesitant to part with this much money all at once.

In light of this, I want the cn-vote community to know that this project will give the community results even if it is only funded at a level of $40,000. Even this extremely low level of funding would ensure that the project's student would be fully funded and completely committed to the project for a full year.

Thus, I am asking the cn-vote community to consider voting the research worker back in until at least $40,000 have been raised. At current prices, this should take about 3 weeks, and it would be a good balance between funding the project and reducing BTS inflation. $40,000 would allow us to make significant progress (build a complete simulator for the community to use for experiments, and then analyze the simulation results deeply and draw some conclusions about how to set the chain parameters optimally), and then if the BTS price increases in the future we can introduce a new worker to continue the work.

Some Questions

Q1. If $40,000 is enough for the project to generate value, why does the original proposal ask for $150,000?
A: At universities, students do most of the research work; at my university, a full-time student costs at least $40,000 per year. The extra money was going to be used to "buy my time" from the University so that I could devote large blocks of my time to the project as well. So: $40,000 buys the project a student for a year; $150,000 buys the project a student for 2 years plus a professor (me) full-time for a total of four months. If project costs are cut, I will always sacrifice my time first and keep the student working. However, of course the more effort that is devoted to the project, the more successful it will be.

Q2. Why does this worker ask for all the money at the start of the project?
A: I wish there were a better way to do this, but unfortunately the way research funding works at universities is that the money must be committed at the start of the project. Part of the reason for this is to make sure that the student is confident in their ability to continue working throughout the project. However, the BitShares community needs to understand that my reputation as a professor is at stake if I mis-manage the money: a very important part of my career is that when I tell people I'm going to be able to get research done, I absolutely need to deliver on my promise.

Q3. Why is this worker important for the BitShares community?
A: A (relatively) short answer is this: this worker brings 3 core benefits to the BitShares community.
First, we will provide specific recommendations to the community about how chain parameters such as MCR and MSSR should be chosen, along with detailed simulation results and mathematical analysis to support our recommendations. In turn, when the BitShares community advertises their product, they will be in a very strong position to say "we've had this looked at, and here are all the reasons why we do things the way we do them." This should make BitShares a stronger competitor.
Second, we will publish and present our findings at well-respected academic conferences (and tell everybody that BitShares sponsored us), which will directly increase the global awareness of the BitShares system.
Third, by funding high-level research, BitShares will help to define what kinds of problems are "interesting" and worth studying; when other researchers see money going to a particular topic, it increases their interest in that topic. Of course this benefit is the least tangible, but it really is an important piece of funding university research that many people forget about.

As always, please direct your questions to me and I will do my best to answer them.
Thank you very much. I think your research is very important for bitshares. It will open a window and let us see more scenery.

Offline ljk424

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 333
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: ljk424
这是个积极的回应,我们希望wirex-integration项目的发起人和推动者能够尽可能多的披露工作开展的情况,但是这个项目花费的时间太长了,而且每天的经费是44320bts,这是相当大的一笔开支,我仍然认为,目前的项目进展以及成功之后带来的效果,不值得每天花费44320BTS。

Offline bitProfessor

Would you consider voting for a smaller refund worker proposal, rather than the refund400k?

I do not believe that austerity works, we aught to be steadily investing in most of the proposed worker proposals.

I'm hoping that we can reactivate the following worker proposals:
* Wirex - Using wirex with BTS would enable me to spend BTS like a normal bank card, it's a great ongoing development for the EMEA Bitshares ecosystem.
* Bitshares UI development - I view this worker proposal as highly productive, improving the reference UI is an excellent investment for the global Bitshares ecosystem. Without this worker proposal, there may be a lack of developers available to resolve new issues reported in the HackTheDex worker proposal.
* Bitshares code development - Very productive worker proposal, multiple releases recently and excellent new functionality being introduced to the network. It would be unfortunate to lose UI or core devs due to loss of funding, we need this development capability to further thwart any issues reported through the HackTheDex wp.
* Conferences - Bitshares is so rarely marketed, these would be an excellent opportunity to get Bitshares some good exposure (worthwhile investment).
* uccs research project - I believe this is highly valuable, it will improve Bitshares academic credibility and I'm confident that its research will lead to new novel assets and optimized bitasset settings for the Bitshares platform.

I do not believe that any of the currently active Bitshares worker proposals are the cause of the downtrend in the Bitshares prices, the worker proposal fund emissions are lower than most other cryptocurrencies.
Agree, worker is not the reason for the low price


Offline sschiessl

这是个积极的回应,我们希望wirex-integration项目的发起人和推动者能够尽可能多的披露工作开展的情况,但是这个项目花费的时间太长了,而且每天的经费是44320bts,这是相当大的一笔开支,我仍然认为,目前的项目进展以及成功之后带来的效果,不值得每天花费44320BTS。

English version
The impact of this worker will only be visible once Wirex starts their own marketing, and ultimately when BTS is available on the direct debit card.

Details on the proposed budget and actual spendings can be found here:

If you have any questions or suggestions how to improve the workers website, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Chinese version
一旦Wirex开始他们自己的营销,并且最终在直接借记卡上有BTS时,这个worker的影响才会显现。

有关拟议预算和实际支出的详细信息,请访问:
  • 要求预算:https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2019-05-wirex-integration
  • 可用预算:https://workers.bitshares.foundation/201905-wirex-integration。 这也包含详细信息
    • 直接在页面上的概述和发票
    • 交易历史:https://workers.bitshares.foundation/201905-wirex-integration/worker_register
    • 整体报告:https://workers.bitshares.foundation/201905-wirex-integration/report

如果您对如何改进工人网站有任何疑问或建议,请随时告诉我们。

p.s. apologies, this is now google translated. I double checked it and it made sense to me.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2019, 07:07:19 am by sschiessl »

Offline bench

There are two main questions, how we can valuate our workers:

1. Does the worker increase the BTS price in the next 6 month?

2. Does the worker solve one of our main problems?

- Marketing
- Integration
- UI
- Liquidity
- Gateways
- Price feeds


On the one side 201907-uccs-research-project does create a problem, where there is actually is no problem, but doesn't solve any of our real problems.
The BitShares community is already aware MCR = 1.5 and MSSR = 1.01 is the sweet spot.

On the other side there will be no extra demand of BTS, because someone did a research on MCR/MSSR. This is not how demand works.
Voting for this research worker, is throwing BTS out of the window!

We already lost some community members, because of bad worker spendings. The uccs-research-project is the worst worker!
Now is not the time for research, but it is time to take actions and change things!
« Last Edit: August 20, 2019, 09:58:21 am by bench »
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!

Offline BTSMoon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
There are two main questions, how we can valuate our workers:

1. Does the worker increase the BTS price in the next 6 month?

2. Does the worker solve one of our main problems?

- Marketing
- Integration
- UI
- Liquidity
- Gateways
- Price feeds


On the one side 201907-uccs-research-project does create a problem, where there is actually is no problem, but doesn't solve any of our real problems.
The BitShares community is already aware MCR = 1.5 and MSSR = 1.01 is the sweet spot.

On the other side there will be no extra demand of BTS, because someone did a research on MCR/MSSR. This is not how demand works.
Voting for this research worker, is throwing BTS out of the window!

We already lost some community members, because of bad worker spendings. The uccs-research-project is the worst worker!
Now is not the time for research, but it is time to take actions and change things!

Agree

Offline Permie22

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Permie
Update: The DEXBot post has now been translated into Mandarin thanks to Tong Shen and his team

DEXBot 更新翻译成普通话

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12897
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
On the one side 201907-uccs-research-project does create a problem, where there is actually is no problem, but doesn't solve any of our real problems.
The BitShares community is already aware MCR = 1.5 and MSSR = 1.01 is the sweet spot.
The change to MSSR = 1.01 came *after* crypto winter. I am not convinced it will hold in case of another bear market (collapse).
Hope to be convinced otherwise.
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline Ammar Yousef (ioBanker)

There are two main questions, how we can valuate our workers:

1. Does the worker increase the BTS price in the next 6 month?

2. Does the worker solve one of our main problems?

- Marketing
- Integration
- UI
- Liquidity
- Gateways
- Price feeds


On the one side 201907-uccs-research-project does create a problem, where there is actually is no problem, but doesn't solve any of our real problems.
The BitShares community is already aware MCR = 1.5 and MSSR = 1.01 is the sweet spot.

On the other side there will be no extra demand of BTS, because someone did a research on MCR/MSSR. This is not how demand works.
Voting for this research worker, is throwing BTS out of the window!

We already lost some community members, because of bad worker spendings. The uccs-research-project is the worst worker!
Now is not the time for research, but it is time to take actions and change things!

I totally agree with you, I think the network should start focusing on more discussions further about the overall vision and mission before start voting on any worker.

I don't see this issue solved: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/96

And I don't see a clear vision about what's next when it comes to the network future, is the network ready for corporate security issuers? where are they? why are our own gateways forking the network if it has a real corporate use cases! I see developers are busy doing "dependencies" and marketing campaigns before having a clear vision and mission about where are we heading and how the use cases are going to be shaped, we need to have a scope, what is the scope now to satisfy the ultimate vision of the network?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2019, 07:40:41 pm by ioBanker »
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!
Committee account: iobanker-core
Ammar Yousef - CEO @ ioBanker OÜ

Offline Ammar Yousef (ioBanker)

Hello again,

I just want to write my opinion here about the whole discussion and the evaluation approach of workers and maybe I am wrong:

- BitShares according to whitepaper is an industrial-grade decentralized platform built for high-performance financial smart contracts. It represents the first decentralized autonomous community that lets its core token holder decide on its future direction and products.

- "Industrial-grade decentralized platform" should be looking forward to cover up the demand of the Industrial-grade, I don't see any workers for that, I see no communications with true Industrial-grade but exchanges and legacy tokens listing approaches.

- Investors themselves are not using the platform to offer Industrial-grade services and financial smart contracts but instead they fork the network.

- Investors must focus on use cases to utilize the utility BTS more than focusing on listing it at exchanges.

- What is the current direction and the products?, letting the developers to decide and offer their ideas while investors waiting for these ideas to evaluate it, investors must do their work and developers must do their work.

- BitShares network has a great team of developers and I loved them all, many thanks to backend and frontend developers.

- BitShares combines trinity pillars; (Investors, Developers and Users), any individual can be the three together.

- Investors must agree on a scope according to a common vision every period of time, the scope must get voted and demand a mission.

- Investors must come up with the mission and developers must execute accordingly, developers are not responsible for the value of BTS but the investors, developers will get development requests from investors and not the vise versa.

- The value of BTS is important to maintain the developers interests and to keep them happy.

- Investors must realize that every BTS paid to a developer will devalue BTS because its most likely will be sold for cheaper and cheaper value once it's paid so they have to choose the scope carefully, the scope development results must cover up the BTS devaluation or turn it into a higher value or other wise it shouldn't get voted.

- Developers must be consulted about the feasibility of developing the scope and must create workers to apply it with a clear implementation plan.
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!
Committee account: iobanker-core
Ammar Yousef - CEO @ ioBanker OÜ

Offline bench

@ioBanker:
Thank you for the detailed and apposite write up.
Everyone should go a step back and bethink oneself of our core concepts and not follow other people's mind.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2019, 09:16:08 pm by bench »
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
On the one side 201907-uccs-research-project does create a problem, where there is actually is no problem, but doesn't solve any of our real problems.
The BitShares community is already aware MCR = 1.5 and MSSR = 1.01 is the sweet spot.

A very quick answer: how do you know there is no problem? The community chose the older chain parameters and then crypto winter caused most BitAssets to GS. Since then, you've adjusted the parameters to shift more risk onto BitAsset holders. Why would those new parameters be better?

A question back to you: How do you know that 1.5 and 1.01 are the sweet spot? Why not 1.2 and 1?
Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
A question back to you: How do you know that 1.5 and 1.01 are the sweet spot? Why not 1.2 and 1?

good question.

in 1.5 voting, many people said that they can support 1.5, but no to lower value.

my question is, why? why do you suppose 1.5 is the lowest? why do you know a lower MCR cannot be better?

I feel they said so just because of fear, not careful analysis.

we really need to understand deeply where a lower MCR can lead to, maybe 1.4/1.3/1.2 is better choice than 1.5.

I hope the research can help on this topic.

I suggest cn-vote to support this research after the USD margin call orders disappear, I expect this can happen in 1-2 weeks. 

« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 03:39:44 pm by bitcrab »

Offline block_chain

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Hello again,

I just want to write my opinion here about the whole discussion and the evaluation approach of workers and maybe I am wrong:

- BitShares according to whitepaper is an industrial-grade decentralized platform built for high-performance financial smart contracts. It represents the first decentralized autonomous community that lets its core token holder decide on its future direction and products.

- "Industrial-grade decentralized platform" should be looking forward to cover up the demand of the Industrial-grade, I don't see any workers for that, I see no communications with true Industrial-grade but exchanges and legacy tokens listing approaches.

- Investors themselves are not using the platform to offer Industrial-grade services and financial smart contracts but instead they fork the network.

- Investors must focus on use cases to utilize the utility BTS more than focusing on listing it at exchanges.

- What is the current direction and the products?, letting the developers to decide and offer their ideas while investors waiting for these ideas to evaluate it, investors must do their work and developers must do their work.

- BitShares network has a great team of developers and I loved them all, many thanks to backend and frontend developers.

- BitShares combines trinity pillars; (Investors, Developers and Users), any individual can be the three together.

- Investors must agree on a scope according to a common vision every period of time, the scope must get voted and demand a mission.

- Investors must come up with the mission and developers must execute accordingly, developers are not responsible for the value of BTS but the investors, developers will get development requests from investors and not the vise versa.

- The value of BTS is important to maintain the developers interests and to keep them happy.

- Investors must realize that every BTS paid to a developer will devalue BTS because its most likely will be sold for cheaper and cheaper value once it's paid so they have to choose the scope carefully, the scope development results must cover up the BTS devaluation or turn it into a higher value or other wise it shouldn't get voted.

- Developers must be consulted about the feasibility of developing the scope and must create workers to apply it with a clear implementation plan.
I support and would like to express my opinion: there are no clear business and marketing plan for Bitshares, and therefore money spent on most of the workers are allocated only according to some god feeling or vision of particular investors/influencers, there is no proper evaluation and ROI analysis. Until a solid business plan is adopted by the community, and then followed, refined and implemented, Bitshares will keep loosing market share and the price.
Who are the desired users/customers of Bitshares?
What value Bitshares brings to them? What roblems solves or business need addresses?

Seems there is no clear answer for these basic questions so far. Some say this is decenralized anonimous trading platform for crypto enthusiats who believes in freedom, some say this is platform for business. Thes are totaly different business models and approaches, you can't serve both audiences properly at the same time.

Quo vadis, Bitshares?


Offline Thul3

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 362
    • View Profile
Seems there is no clear answer for these basic questions so far. Some say this is decenralized anonimous trading platform for crypto enthusiats who believes in freedom, some say this is platform for business. Thes are totaly different business models and approaches, you can't serve both audiences properly at the same time.

Exectly and some give a f... if investors will lose all investments for ideolagy reason and some care about their investment
« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 12:04:10 pm by Thul3 »

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3898
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
You guys with visions and knowledge,

@bench,
@ioBanker,
@block_chain,
@Thul3

Can you please step a bit forward, convince other investors, get the votes and push things forward? We need professionals. We need to do right things and do things right. Anyway, I know it's hard if not impossible due to the "decentralized" situation.

I'd say many of so-called investors don't know a f... about investing.

Thul3 is already a large proxy, this is good direction. However his voting power come from a single whale (@alt) only, this is not good enough. In addition, @alt himself is a large proxy as well, voting with the account "baozi", often voting with different opinions.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 757
    • View Profile
On the one side 201907-uccs-research-project does create a problem, where there is actually is no problem, but doesn't solve any of our real problems.
The BitShares community is already aware MCR = 1.5 and MSSR = 1.01 is the sweet spot.

A very quick answer: how do you know there is no problem? The community chose the older chain parameters and then crypto winter caused most BitAssets to GS. Since then, you've adjusted the parameters to shift more risk onto BitAsset holders. Why would those new parameters be better?

A question back to you: How do you know that 1.5 and 1.01 are the sweet spot? Why not 1.2 and 1?
If optimal configurations are discovered or BSIPs are proposed from the research then it's totally worth the worker proposal investment. There's quite limited documentation on the effects of smartcoin settings and exotic smartcoins like algorithm based assets.

Offline bench

1. Before we do any optimization in a certain direction, we need to define the system first.

2. cn-vote or other user should not vote for the research worker:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=28542.msg334200#msg334200

3. We should not spam this topic with MCR/MSSR discussions.

4. With no problem, I mean no problem compared to other problems.

5. Designers and engineers are needed now, because we already have informatics specialists.

6. Dealing with uncertainty to sell snake oil, doesn't work anymore.

@abit:
Thank you for your support!
« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 05:51:57 pm by bench »
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!

Offline Ammar Yousef (ioBanker)

You guys with visions and knowledge,

@bench,
@ioBanker,
@block_chain,
@Thul3

Can you please step a bit forward, convince other investors, get the votes and push things forward? We need professionals. We need to do right things and do things right. Anyway, I know it's hard if not impossible due to the "decentralized" situation.

I'd say many of so-called investors don't know a f... about investing.

Thul3 is already a large proxy, this is good direction. However his voting power come from a single whale (@alt) only, this is not good enough. In addition, @alt himself is a large proxy as well, voting with the account "baozi", often voting with different opinions.

We're doing so, thanks for the encouragement, we have a lot of good direction and constructive minds within the network, we need no workers to do it for us nor consultants to teach us our own network, we know better than any of them I am sure.

I encourage everybody here to warp up the vision of the network again and to decide a scope and mission for the network and to have workers according to a clear scope of a mission.
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!
Committee account: iobanker-core
Ammar Yousef - CEO @ ioBanker OÜ

Offline bitProfessor

Seems there is no clear answer for these basic questions so far. Some say this is decenralized anonimous trading platform for crypto enthusiats who believes in freedom, some say this is platform for business. Thes are totaly different business models and approaches, you can't serve both audiences properly at the same time.

Exectly and some give a f... if investors will lose all investments for ideolagy reason and some care about their investment
Agree

Offline bitProfessor

I'm very sorry for that. I'm very afraid that fewer and fewer people are willing to contribute their time to bitshares. Let me explain why cn-vote withdraws the ticket.
1.some people suspect that the price of BTS is getting lower and lower when worker sells BTS。Some people want to see no sales orders from worker in the market.I understand their anxiety, but I think they are attributive errors.
2.Some people think that worker's salary is too expensive and It's a bear market and it's time to stop all workers.
3.Some people think that worker's work is worthless。"We already know how to run bitshares and why to spend money?"
4.Some cultural differences。

To be honest, I'm not sure that cn-vote's action is correct. So I didn't vote in the end.

Offline sschiessl

I'm very sorry for that. I'm very afraid that fewer and fewer people are willing to contribute their time to bitshares. Let me explain why cn-vote withdraws the ticket.
1.some people suspect that the price of BTS is getting lower and lower when worker sells BTS。Some people want to see no sales orders from worker in the market.I understand their anxiety, but I think they are attributive errors.
2.Some people think that worker's salary is too expensive and It's a bear market and it's time to stop all workers.
3.Some people think that worker's work is worthless。"We already know how to run bitshares and why to spend money?"
4.Some cultural differences。

To be honest, I'm not sure that cn-vote's action is correct. So I didn't vote in the end.

One (important) sidenote: Some workers include downpayments and public marketing. The downpayments will be considered lost, and canceling commitments that are already made and are already marketed (Decentralized Conference!) will be a desaster for the public eye and common investor (e.g. thinking "Can't they even commit to a sponsorship!").

Offline bitProfessor


Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab

One (important) sidenote: Some workers include downpayments and public marketing. The downpayments will be considered lost, and canceling commitments that are already made and are already marketed (Decentralized Conference!) will be a desaster for the public eye and common investor (e.g. thinking "Can't they even commit to a sponsorship!").

BTS is already a disaster to investors, if we continue inflation and selling BTS without limitation to get funds, the disaster will continue.

Offline sschiessl

BTS is already a disaster to investors, if we continue inflation and selling BTS without limitation to get funds, the disaster will continue.

Can you underline that statement with actual statistics and numbers on how much weight the daily worker payout carries in the daily volume and volatility of BTS? If not, maybe we should crunch some numbers now?

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
I hope we can firstly see the USD margin call orders disappear.

Offline bitProfessor

BTS is already a disaster to investors, if we continue inflation and selling BTS without limitation to get funds, the disaster will continue.

Can you underline that statement with actual statistics and numbers on how much weight the daily worker payout carries in the daily volume and volatility of BTS? If not, maybe we should crunch some numbers now?
Workers.bitshares.foundation  account, the total number of BTS sold is 1228092.2407200001 BTS, 7.15-8.15(30days).

Offline bitProfessor

BTS is already a disaster to investors, if we continue inflation and selling BTS without limitation to get funds, the disaster will continue.

Can you underline that statement with actual statistics and numbers on how much weight the daily worker payout carries in the daily volume and volatility of BTS? If not, maybe we should crunch some numbers now?
In the long term, inflation is there. In the short term, the worker's sell order has no effect on the price.

Offline bench

I hope we can firstly see the USD margin call orders disappear.

Real solutions to our real problems:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/189#issuecomment-524290160
« Last Edit: August 26, 2019, 10:12:31 am by bench »
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!

Offline R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 757
    • View Profile
Real solutions to our real problems:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/189#issuecomment-524290160
How does this relate to worker proposals though? Increasing the % split between referrer:network for network from 20% without changing overall fees is a fast fix for any concerns regarding worker proposal emissions.

I greatly hope that the refund400k worker proposal votes will be reversed, as multiple highly important worker proposals require funding in a timely manner. Austerity is a failed economic policy.

Offline block_chain

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
You guys with visions and knowledge,

@bench,
@ioBanker,
@block_chain,
@Thul3

Can you please step a bit forward, convince other investors, get the votes and push things forward? We need professionals. We need to do right things and do things right. Anyway, I know it's hard if not impossible due to the "decentralized" situation.

I'd say many of so-called investors don't know a f... about investing.

Thul3 is already a large proxy, this is good direction. However his voting power come from a single whale (@alt) only, this is not good enough. In addition, @alt himself is a large proxy as well, voting with the account "baozi", often voting with different opinions.

Let me express my humble opinion on the current Bitshares status and possible future development, based on my deep understanding of Bitshares as well as common business rules, marketing and analisys of other blockchain ecosystem. I may be missing some parts of the full picture because I'm not involved in some of the core activities and not being part of the governance team, however I believe I express more or less independent opinion and can think out of the box.

In few words, there is no difference between DAC and a typical company (there are some slight ones, but generally those are not game changers), and therefore a DAC MUST follow same rules to win the business and increale its value, namely:
1. Have a clear governance and ownership structure, with effective internal communication and decision making means.
2. Have a clear mission and values adopted by the management. Those to be put as corner stones under the marketing and business strategy.
3. Have a clear marketing and business strategy - what is the business, its short and long term goals, who are the target customers, what is the value proposition, how do we position our company on the market and compete with other companies - etc, etc.
4. Have a clear legal structure and follow the regulation of the operating markets.
5. Have a clear and effective financial managment, to control revenues, costs and investments.
6. Have all resources (financial, human, material) that are required to implement the business plan.
7. Have a clear and effective organizational structure so that company management and emplyees could collaborate effectively and know who is responsible for what.
8. Have a clear communication strategy to integrate the efforts and report on results.

This is the basis and 99% of you know this is a paramount for any successfull business.

SO WHY BITSHARES IS GOING THE OTHER WAY?!
WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK THIS DAC WOULD BE A SUCCESS IF IT DOES NOT FOLLOW BASIC BUSINESS RULES?!

Let's look at the points above in more details.

1. Governance and ownership structure: although this is the backbone of DPOS consensus, it definitely could be better. Generally, we have 4 levels of governance:
- investors (aka BTS holders). Many of those have no idea how Bitshares is governed, to whom they proxy their voting power and don't participate the DAC governance in any way.
- proxys, actually key decision makers in the ecosystem. Most likely do not share any common vision, often acting only in own interest and are not actively supported by investors (e.g. historically have many stakes from referrals or hold a CEX account).
- committee. Although being publicly elected and are in control of key network settings, they have low power when it comes to business decisions, again not sharing same vision and in many cases care more about their own business (although inmany cases aligned with the DAC).
- witnesses, mostly providing technical resources for the network to operate, but sometimes can implement some power, i.e. when it comes to price feeds. Probably the best part of the governance model, working as  it should be.
2. Mission and values adopted by the management. As mentioned before, there are different opinions on that matter, and this is OK. However, the government MUST work out some statements supported by the majority and use those to define the strategy. Othervise the backbone is missing and the body is vulnerable and weak.
3. Marketing and business strategy - again, no consensus on that matter. Many people express their opinions because they have their vision and care but nothing formulated and agreed upon by the majority. Having weak plan is better than having no plan, but we don't have even a weak one. Key questions - what is the value Bithsares brings, is it for individuals or businesses, how do we reach them, what is the message we send.
4. Legal structure - although BBF is a good step, it is definitely not enough. Legal status and regulations applied are not defined. This prevents business from adoption and buy-in and makes Bitshares a very risky investment.
5. Financial managment - there is some form of it, but having every single penny recorded in the ledger, must be more formal and detaled, also support the business strategy. Noone is in charge of the DAC profitability at the moment, many take it as endless gold cart.
6. Financial, human and material resources - most likely present, but most likely not effectively managed and spend with huge overheads. Also with no business plan you never know how the resources must be spent and managed.
7. Organizational structure - there is some form of it and sometimes works well, but definitely could be better.
8. Communication strategy - presents in form of this forum and several TG chats, but maybe cumbersome and ineffective in many cases. Internal and external PR looks weak and ineffective w/o the strategy and proper governance.

With the above being said (although again, I may miss many points or misintepret those), here are some actions I would recommend to re-start the the business at the new level:
1. Put major proxies and investors into public negotiation to define DAC's basis - mission, values and business strategy.
2. Use all means to involve end users and BTS holders so that their support is based on their decision, and is not by default or as void.
3. Make key proxys to publicly announce their position towards DAC's mission and strategy, along with their personal and business information. This is not mandatory for sure, but those who are open and transparent may gain more support.
4. Spend particular resources (via a worker) to develop a straightforward business and marketing plan. Make sure it is based on proper market and competitors evaluation. Ensure support by the majority.
5. Allocate resources to implement the plan, control and elaborate it, report on the progress. Apart from promotion approach and business model this also shall also include efforts for users/clients onboarding and support. 
6. Ensure proper financial control by designated authorized parties, along with timely and clear reporting to the government and the community.
7. Ensure effective resource spending, avoid spare funding overheads. Think ROI.

This is to start from. I trully understand that this approach may be not supported or adopted by the majority of the players (gateways and other businesses on top of Bitshares), many of those are looking for short term benefit and does not care about the ecosystem development. It is most likely not something what most of dev team would appreciate, because this would mean costs cutting for sure. However, all of them could definitely benefit from strong and powerfull Bitshares in the future.

I call to the investors, it is time for you to shout!

Thanks for reading to this point :D

Offline Ammar Yousef (ioBanker)

You guys with visions and knowledge,

@bench,
@ioBanker,
@block_chain,
@Thul3

Can you please step a bit forward, convince other investors, get the votes and push things forward? We need professionals. We need to do right things and do things right. Anyway, I know it's hard if not impossible due to the "decentralized" situation.

I'd say many of so-called investors don't know a f... about investing.

Thul3 is already a large proxy, this is good direction. However his voting power come from a single whale (@alt) only, this is not good enough. In addition, @alt himself is a large proxy as well, voting with the account "baozi", often voting with different opinions.

Let me express my humble opinion on the current Bitshares status and possible future development, based on my deep understanding of Bitshares as well as common business rules, marketing and analisys of other blockchain ecosystem. I may be missing some parts of the full picture because I'm not involved in some of the core activities and not being part of the governance team, however I believe I express more or less independent opinion and can think out of the box.

In few words, there is no difference between DAC and a typical company (there are some slight ones, but generally those are not game changers), and therefore a DAC MUST follow same rules to win the business and increale its value, namely:
1. Have a clear governance and ownership structure, with effective internal communication and decision making means.
2. Have a clear mission and values adopted by the management. Those to be put as corner stones under the marketing and business strategy.
3. Have a clear marketing and business strategy - what is the business, its short and long term goals, who are the target customers, what is the value proposition, how do we position our company on the market and compete with other companies - etc, etc.
4. Have a clear legal structure and follow the regulation of the operating markets.
5. Have a clear and effective financial managment, to control revenues, costs and investments.
6. Have all resources (financial, human, material) that are required to implement the business plan.
7. Have a clear and effective organizational structure so that company management and emplyees could collaborate effectively and know who is responsible for what.
8. Have a clear communication strategy to integrate the efforts and report on results.

This is the basis and 99% of you know this is a paramount for any successfull business.

SO WHY BITSHARES IS GOING THE OTHER WAY?!
WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK THIS DAC WOULD BE A SUCCESS IF IT DOES NOT FOLLOW BASIC BUSINESS RULES?!

Let's look at the points above in more details.

1. Governance and ownership structure: although this is the backbone of DPOS consensus, it definitely could be better. Generally, we have 4 levels of governance:
- investors (aka BTS holders). Many of those have no idea how Bitshares is governed, to whom they proxy their voting power and don't participate the DAC governance in any way.
- proxys, actually key decision makers in the ecosystem. Most likely do not share any common vision, often acting only in own interest and are not actively supported by investors (e.g. historically have many stakes from referrals or hold a CEX account).
- committee. Although being publicly elected and are in control of key network settings, they have low power when it comes to business decisions, again not sharing same vision and in many cases care more about their own business (although inmany cases aligned with the DAC).
- witnesses, mostly providing technical resources for the network to operate, but sometimes can implement some power, i.e. when it comes to price feeds. Probably the best part of the governance model, working as  it should be.
2. Mission and values adopted by the management. As mentioned before, there are different opinions on that matter, and this is OK. However, the government MUST work out some statements supported by the majority and use those to define the strategy. Othervise the backbone is missing and the body is vulnerable and weak.
3. Marketing and business strategy - again, no consensus on that matter. Many people express their opinions because they have their vision and care but nothing formulated and agreed upon by the majority. Having weak plan is better than having no plan, but we don't have even a weak one. Key questions - what is the value Bithsares brings, is it for individuals or businesses, how do we reach them, what is the message we send.
4. Legal structure - although BBF is a good step, it is definitely not enough. Legal status and regulations applied are not defined. This prevents business from adoption and buy-in and makes Bitshares a very risky investment.
5. Financial managment - there is some form of it, but having every single penny recorded in the ledger, must be more formal and detaled, also support the business strategy. Noone is in charge of the DAC profitability at the moment, many take it as endless gold cart.
6. Financial, human and material resources - most likely present, but most likely not effectively managed and spend with huge overheads. Also with no business plan you never know how the resources must be spent and managed.
7. Organizational structure - there is some form of it and sometimes works well, but definitely could be better.
8. Communication strategy - presents in form of this forum and several TG chats, but maybe cumbersome and ineffective in many cases. Internal and external PR looks weak and ineffective w/o the strategy and proper governance.

With the above being said (although again, I may miss many points or misintepret those), here are some actions I would recommend to re-start the the business at the new level:
1. Put major proxies and investors into public negotiation to define DAC's basis - mission, values and business strategy.
2. Use all means to involve end users and BTS holders so that their support is based on their decision, and is not by default or as void.
3. Make key proxys to publicly announce their position towards DAC's mission and strategy, along with their personal and business information. This is not mandatory for sure, but those who are open and transparent may gain more support.
4. Spend particular resources (via a worker) to develop a straightforward business and marketing plan. Make sure it is based on proper market and competitors evaluation. Ensure support by the majority.
5. Allocate resources to implement the plan, control and elaborate it, report on the progress. Apart from promotion approach and business model this also shall also include efforts for users/clients onboarding and support. 
6. Ensure proper financial control by designated authorized parties, along with timely and clear reporting to the government and the community.
7. Ensure effective resource spending, avoid spare funding overheads. Think ROI.

This is to start from. I trully understand that this approach may be not supported or adopted by the majority of the players (gateways and other businesses on top of Bitshares), many of those are looking for short term benefit and does not care about the ecosystem development. It is most likely not something what most of dev team would appreciate, because this would mean costs cutting for sure. However, all of them could definitely benefit from strong and powerfull Bitshares in the future.

I call to the investors, it is time for you to shout!

Thanks for reading to this point :D

Hello block_chain,

Welcome to the bitshares-vision, please participate: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=29379.0
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!
Committee account: iobanker-core
Ammar Yousef - CEO @ ioBanker OÜ

Offline block_chain

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Thanks a lot for the invitation, @ioBanker, I think we shall move this discussion to that thread.

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
I suggest everyone to watch the movie 《American Factory》.

Why the American workers rejected UAW to come into FYA? don't they understand that UAW can help them to fight against the FYA managers?

Surely they understand clearly, but the other consideration has higher priority -  they need to keep their jobs first.

Same logic, don't the BTS holders from China understand what sense can workers like wirex make?

They understand clearly, but at this moment, another consideration take higher priority - they need to stop a patient from continuously losing blood.

in my view, when BTS price is under 0.3CNY or there are margin call orders in CNY/USD markets, any big workers should be stopped immediately.

Offline Ammar Yousef (ioBanker)

I suggest everyone to watch the movie 《American Factory》.

Why the American workers rejected UAW to come into FYA? don't they understand that UAW can help them to fight against the FYA managers?

Surely they understand clearly, but the other consideration has higher priority -  they need to keep their jobs first.

Same logic, don't the BTS holders from China understand what sense can workers like wirex make?

They understand clearly, but at this moment, another consideration take higher priority - they need to stop a patient from continuously losing blood.

in my view, when BTS price is under 0.3CNY or there are margin call orders in CNY/USD markets, any big workers should be stopped immediately.

I agree with you, IMO; It's not the right time to pay 350K$ to wirex worker, if they will apply a business use case for BTS, I would consider studying their proposal, but they are not.

Wirex will be simply dumping the BTS in front of alternatives coins at CEX to liquidate, they will not invest in BTS due to that fact that BTS is continually going down, this BTS situation will prevent any investor from buying BTS at wirex wallets or anywhere, wirex service will only serve "time" manners for "BTS current investors and workers" to quick the dumping and the cashing out, but these are skilled enough to deal with their liquidity at CEX fiat exchanges anyway, simplifying their journey for getting the fiats shouldn't be costing us BTS value of 350K$ now.

Any investment worker now should focus on bringing a business use case to the platform as a priority; I'd love to see BTS listed at wirex but not at this critical time, we need to utilize that amount of value to create BTS business use case.
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!
Committee account: iobanker-core
Ammar Yousef - CEO @ ioBanker OÜ

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 327
  • 13 years of being Slackware abUser
    • View Profile
    • BitShares 3.0
  • BitShares: dls.cipher
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
I suggest everyone to watch the movie 《American Factory》.

Why the American workers rejected UAW to come into FYA? don't they understand that UAW can help them to fight against the FYA managers?

Surely they understand clearly, but the other consideration has higher priority -  they need to keep their jobs first.

Same logic, don't the BTS holders from China understand what sense can workers like wirex make?

They understand clearly, but at this moment, another consideration take higher priority - they need to stop a patient from continuously losing blood.

in my view, when BTS price is under 0.3CNY or there are margin call orders in CNY/USD markets, any big workers should be stopped immediately.

Please define "big workers" and define who takes responsibility for missing payments on agreements in that case towards 3rd parties (e.g. event organizers, hosting companies, service providers) ?

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

Offline sschiessl

I suggest everyone to watch the movie 《American Factory》.

Why the American workers rejected UAW to come into FYA? don't they understand that UAW can help them to fight against the FYA managers?

Surely they understand clearly, but the other consideration has higher priority -  they need to keep their jobs first.

Same logic, don't the BTS holders from China understand what sense can workers like wirex make?

They understand clearly, but at this moment, another consideration take higher priority - they need to stop a patient from continuously losing blood.

in my view, when BTS price is under 0.3CNY or there are margin call orders in CNY/USD markets, any big workers should be stopped immediately.

Please define "big workers" and define who takes responsibility for missing payments on agreements in that case towards 3rd parties (e.g. event organizers, hosting companies, service providers) ?

Many thanks.

Agreements with third parties should never carry liabilities in case worker gets voted, or at least only ones that are manageable.. Of course, any prepayments would need to be considered lost., which woukd both be true for decentralized and wirex.

The damage in reputation is not even measurable, yet significant imo.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2019, 07:50:40 pm by sschiessl »

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 327
  • 13 years of being Slackware abUser
    • View Profile
    • BitShares 3.0
  • BitShares: dls.cipher
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
I suggest everyone to watch the movie 《American Factory》.

Why the American workers rejected UAW to come into FYA? don't they understand that UAW can help them to fight against the FYA managers?

Surely they understand clearly, but the other consideration has higher priority -  they need to keep their jobs first.

Same logic, don't the BTS holders from China understand what sense can workers like wirex make?

They understand clearly, but at this moment, another consideration take higher priority - they need to stop a patient from continuously losing blood.

in my view, when BTS price is under 0.3CNY or there are margin call orders in CNY/USD markets, any big workers should be stopped immediately.

Please define "big workers" and define who takes responsibility for missing payments on agreements in that case towards 3rd parties (e.g. event organizers, hosting companies, service providers) ?

Many thanks.

Agreements with third parties should never carry liabilities in case worker gets voted, or at least only ones that are manageable.. Of course, any prepayments would need to be considered lost., which woukd both be true for decentralized and wirex.

The damage in reputation is not even measurable, yet significant imo.

Confirmed. NABTS is being cancelled despite team effort to collect private funds through co-sponsorship for making it happen, and cancellation event is having following costs:

- 10,000.00 USD towards EVOLV for the 2 months efforts and cancellation + 13% depreciation in LTC on half of it due to bear markets (we picked nice moment for cancellation).
- around 3,000.00 USD (still waiting final hours) for the worker team efforts and time they spent on worker.
- Fee for sold tickets through EventBrite and cancellation of the event (minor cost 67.70 USD + eventbrite refund policy + credit card processing fee)

Escrow payment is 3530 CNY in total.

Reputation/branding -> permanent damage.

I hope to see not the same fate for Decentralized, SteemFest and Wirex, since damage would be on much greater scale.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2019, 08:13:11 pm by Digital Lucifer »
Milos (DL) Preocanin
Owner and manager of bitshares.org through Consensus
Move Institute - RN: 2098555000
Murska Sobota, Slovenia, SI.

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 327
  • 13 years of being Slackware abUser
    • View Profile
    • BitShares 3.0
  • BitShares: dls.cipher
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
I suggest everyone to watch the movie 《American Factory》.

Why the American workers rejected UAW to come into FYA? don't they understand that UAW can help them to fight against the FYA managers?

Surely they understand clearly, but the other consideration has higher priority -  they need to keep their jobs first.

Same logic, don't the BTS holders from China understand what sense can workers like wirex make?

They understand clearly, but at this moment, another consideration take higher priority - they need to stop a patient from continuously losing blood.

in my view, when BTS price is under 0.3CNY or there are margin call orders in CNY/USD markets, any big workers should be stopped immediately.

Please define "big workers" and define who takes responsibility for missing payments on agreements in that case towards 3rd parties (e.g. event organizers, hosting companies, service providers) ?

In current scenario, all events have penalties in terms of cancellation, so by current policy (refund400k) its better to throw away/donate (e.g) 10k USD rather than to invest (e.g) 50k USD ?

Wouldn't be "optimizing costs" be more productive than "cutting off entire production" ?

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly ok with any decision majority of holders make - but it goes on their credibility and reputation, not workers - in the long-term. Each and every collaborator on the workers being halted will know who was the reason of stopping/cancelling agreements, and it will not be the workers.
Does any of you even think how it will affect reputation of BitShares as a brand ?

You - Jerry as someone who built so much around BitShares should understand very well that i'm saying truth, and refund400k is not really a good way for anything. We had agreement on smaller refund workers not long ago in order to prevent disasters like this, and you were part of that agreement. Seeing you to encourage refund400k instead of selective improvement/cutoff doesn't really look good on you - if nothing as a man who cant keep his word/agreement on.

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

Offline R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 757
    • View Profile
Same logic, don't the BTS holders from China understand what sense can workers like wirex make?

Whilst Wirex wouldn't immediately be available in China, but by enhancing the Bitshares ecosystem in US, EMEA & soon SEA, the holders from China will benefit.

in my view, when BTS price is under 0.3CNY or there are margin call orders in CNY/USD markets, any big workers should be stopped immediately.

Indiscriminately stopping all workers may damage the Bitshares network. Reputation & Brand has already been inflicted by refund400k due to the conferences being at-risk/cancelled. One could theorize that the recent price drops are influenced by refund400k, the opposite of the intended effect.

« Last Edit: September 01, 2019, 12:25:26 am by Customminer »

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
I suggest everyone to watch the movie 《American Factory》.

Why the American workers rejected UAW to come into FYA? don't they understand that UAW can help them to fight against the FYA managers?

Surely they understand clearly, but the other consideration has higher priority -  they need to keep their jobs first.

Same logic, don't the BTS holders from China understand what sense can workers like wirex make?

They understand clearly, but at this moment, another consideration take higher priority - they need to stop a patient from continuously losing blood.

in my view, when BTS price is under 0.3CNY or there are margin call orders in CNY/USD markets, any big workers should be stopped immediately.

Please define "big workers" and define who takes responsibility for missing payments on agreements in that case towards 3rd parties (e.g. event organizers, hosting companies, service providers) ?

In current scenario, all events have penalties in terms of cancellation, so by current policy (refund400k) its better to throw away/donate (e.g) 10k USD rather than to invest (e.g) 50k USD ?

Wouldn't be "optimizing costs" be more productive than "cutting off entire production" ?

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly ok with any decision majority of holders make - but it goes on their credibility and reputation, not workers - in the long-term. Each and every collaborator on the workers being halted will know who was the reason of stopping/cancelling agreements, and it will not be the workers.
Does any of you even think how it will affect reputation of BitShares as a brand ?

You - Jerry as someone who built so much around BitShares should understand very well that i'm saying truth, and refund400k is not really a good way for anything. We had agreement on smaller refund workers not long ago in order to prevent disasters like this, and you were part of that agreement. Seeing you to encourage refund400k instead of selective improvement/cutoff doesn't really look good on you - if nothing as a man who cant keep his word/agreement on.

Many thanks.

the worker mechanism is just like a man to seek better life by selling blood.

yes, when he is strong and in good health, maybe there is no problem, but when he is seriously ill and is going to die, I don't think I can suggest him to sell blood without stop.

I don't know who should be responsible for what you mentioned, but every worker proposal owner should be clear that there is always risk on this, no one can guarantee that a worker be always voted active.

What is disaster? at this moment, releasing more than 260K BTS to the market everyday is disaster, the voters is just try to avoid this disaster.

 

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 327
  • 13 years of being Slackware abUser
    • View Profile
    • BitShares 3.0
  • BitShares: dls.cipher
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
I suggest everyone to watch the movie 《American Factory》.

Why the American workers rejected UAW to come into FYA? don't they understand that UAW can help them to fight against the FYA managers?

Surely they understand clearly, but the other consideration has higher priority -  they need to keep their jobs first.

Same logic, don't the BTS holders from China understand what sense can workers like wirex make?

They understand clearly, but at this moment, another consideration take higher priority - they need to stop a patient from continuously losing blood.

in my view, when BTS price is under 0.3CNY or there are margin call orders in CNY/USD markets, any big workers should be stopped immediately.

Please define "big workers" and define who takes responsibility for missing payments on agreements in that case towards 3rd parties (e.g. event organizers, hosting companies, service providers) ?

In current scenario, all events have penalties in terms of cancellation, so by current policy (refund400k) its better to throw away/donate (e.g) 10k USD rather than to invest (e.g) 50k USD ?

Wouldn't be "optimizing costs" be more productive than "cutting off entire production" ?

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly ok with any decision majority of holders make - but it goes on their credibility and reputation, not workers - in the long-term. Each and every collaborator on the workers being halted will know who was the reason of stopping/cancelling agreements, and it will not be the workers.
Does any of you even think how it will affect reputation of BitShares as a brand ?

You - Jerry as someone who built so much around BitShares should understand very well that i'm saying truth, and refund400k is not really a good way for anything. We had agreement on smaller refund workers not long ago in order to prevent disasters like this, and you were part of that agreement. Seeing you to encourage refund400k instead of selective improvement/cutoff doesn't really look good on you - if nothing as a man who cant keep his word/agreement on.

Many thanks.

the worker mechanism is just like a man to seek better life by selling blood.

yes, when he is strong and in good health, maybe there is no problem, but when he is seriously ill and is going to die, I don't think I can suggest him to sell blood without stop.

I don't know who should be responsible for what you mentioned, but every worker proposal owner should be clear that there is always risk on this, no one can guarantee that a worker be always voted active.

What is disaster? at this moment, releasing more than 260K BTS to the market everyday is disaster, the voters is just try to avoid this disaster.

1) Worker mechanics are simple - people are employed to provide work/hours/services for the blockchain, have jobs and be paid their salaries so they can use it for food, families, phones, whatever is in their minds - they WORK for a SALARY. Worker itself is an agreement. Go and tell your Investor in middle of the agreement that you're cancelling it, let me know what happens.

2) Escrow was defined so workers should stop throwing BTS away and additionally add liquidity/creation of bitAssets. So, escrow gets BTS, buy BitAsset, payout worker, worker sell the Asset. New assets generated and acquired by buyers on the network (for CNY mostly Chinese holders are buying back CNY, benefit from it).

3) We are living in modern world and real one, where no agreement can have the risk of "change of heart" or "accidental farts" or anyone would be signing it. It's utmost unprofessional to sign agreement and then piss on it - you as a businessman should know that.

You maybe in China are comfortable with starving people to death in front of factories and demonizing workers, for the sake of your investors/investments, but that's not gonna happen on international network such as BitShares. World will hear and know about this.

P.S. 260k BTS per day to the markets ? And you are ignoring the fact that single account is taking out/dropping 2M BTS per day that is not even part of the workers ? If you mean 260k daily of vesting balance, that doesn't go to the markets, and your statement would be wrong/miss-leading.

P.P.S. I like that tricky "yes, when he is strong and in good health, maybe there is no problem".

Thanks for clarifying who are we dealing with here. Very nice.

Thanks and chee®s
« Last Edit: September 01, 2019, 02:55:16 am by Digital Lucifer »
Milos (DL) Preocanin
Owner and manager of bitshares.org through Consensus
Move Institute - RN: 2098555000
Murska Sobota, Slovenia, SI.

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
1) Worker mechanics are simple - people are employed to provide work/hours/services for the blockchain, have jobs and be paid their salaries so they can use it for food, families, phones, whatever is in their minds - they WORK for a SALARY. Worker itself is an agreement. Go and tell your Investor in middle of the agreement that you're cancelling it, let me know what happens.

2) Escrow was defined so workers should stop throwing BTS away and additionally add liquidity/creation of bitAssets. So, escrow gets BTS, buy BitAsset, payout worker, worker sell the Asset. New assets generated and acquired by buyers on the network (for CNY mostly Chinese holders are buying back CNY, benefit from it).

3) We are living in modern world and real one, where no agreement can have the risk of "change of heart" or "accidental farts" or anyone would be signing it. It's utmost unprofessional to sign agreement and then piss on it - you as a businessman should know that.

You maybe in China are comfortable with starving people to death in front of factories and demonizing workers, for the sake of your investors/investments, but that's not gonna happen on international network such as BitShares. World will hear and know about this.

P.S. 260k BTS per day to the markets ? And you are ignoring the fact that single account is taking out/dropping 2M BTS per day that is not even part of the workers ? If you mean 260k daily of vesting balance, that doesn't go to the markets, and your statement would be wrong/miss-leading.

P.P.S. I like that tricky "yes, when he is strong and in good health, maybe there is no problem".

Thanks for clarifying who are we dealing with here. Very nice.

Thanks and chee®s

worker is simple, the voting result will decide whether the worker owner will be paid.

there is no contract between voters and worker that "once the workers be voted active, it should not be voted down".

Thanks you, it's not easy to starve workers in China, don't worry, just worry the economy in your own country.

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 327
  • 13 years of being Slackware abUser
    • View Profile
    • BitShares 3.0
  • BitShares: dls.cipher
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
Please dive in your ignorant face to screen, put your ego and pride on a side and reply to/read carefully following:

a) Please define "big workers"
b) 260k BTS per day to the markets ? And you are ignoring the fact that single account is taking out/dropping 2M BTS per day that is not even part of the workers ? If you mean 260k daily of vesting balance, that doesn't go to the markets, and your statement would be wrong/miss-leading.
c) I care about world economy, not just single country or my own - that's the difference between us. In this case, BitShares is not owned by China, maybe majority of BTS token is, but that doesn't still make you an owner of it.
d) Worker can have VOTES REMOVED, but not rigging the consensus with refund400k worker. That's cheating, not voting "down".
e) You personally lost over 300M BTS in various margin calls, yet you are talking economy and giving us lectures.
f) You personally rigged consensus by giving ultimatum to witnesses to do as you say FOR FAR TO LONG - or they will be no witness, without approval/agrement of other holders.
g) You personally went against BSIP42 instructions to not apply it on iliquid markets (e.g. BitUSD) which resulted in GS with 20% loss to worker payouts for months. Some were paying costs (missing difference) for the infrastructure/salaries from their own pocket, just for the sake of the network. (you done it as well by giving ultimatum to witnesses)

You abused power every time you had it, and you are doing it again. You are building the reputation of an enemy who is doing hostile take-over and I don't see anything improved with the price in past few weeks, apart that more serious HOLDERS are dumping BTS. If that's your wish, as I said, I'm ok with it - but don't expect ill do nothing about it or be quiet like others.

Chee®s
« Last Edit: September 01, 2019, 05:37:55 am by Digital Lucifer »
Milos (DL) Preocanin
Owner and manager of bitshares.org through Consensus
Move Institute - RN: 2098555000
Murska Sobota, Slovenia, SI.

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
Please dive in your ignorant face to screen, put your ego and pride on a side and reply to/read carefully following:

a) Please define "big workers"
b) 260k BTS per day to the markets ? And you are ignoring the fact that single account is taking out/dropping 2M BTS per day that is not even part of the workers ? If you mean 260k daily of vesting balance, that doesn't go to the markets, and your statement would be wrong/miss-leading.
c) I care about world economy, not just single country or my own - that's the difference between us. In this case, BitShares is not owned by China, maybe majority of BTS token is, but that doesn't still make you an owner of it.
d) Worker can have VOTES REMOVED, but not rigging the consensus with refund400k worker. That's cheating, not voting "down".
e) You personally lost over 300M BTS in various margin calls, yet you are talking economy and giving us lectures.
f) You personally rigged consensus by giving ultimatum to witnesses to do as you say FOR FAR TO LONG - or they will be no witness, without approval/agrement of other holders.
g) You personally went against BSIP42 instructions to not apply it on iliquid markets (e.g. BitUSD) which resulted in GS with 20% loss to worker payouts for months. Some were paying costs (missing difference) for the infrastructure/salaries from their own pocket, just for the sake of the network. (you done it as well by giving ultimatum to witnesses)

You abused power every time you had it, and you are doing it again. You are building the reputation of an enemy who is doing hostile take-over and I don't see anything improved with the price in past few weeks, apart that more serious HOLDERS are dumping BTS. If that's your wish, as I said, I'm ok with it - but don't expect ill do nothing about it or be quiet like others.

Chee®s

if you do not understand "big", just go to google.
vesting balance will finally go to market.

I haven't said that Bitshares is owned by China, China voters just show their opinion by voting.

refund worker is just the tool to vote against something.

BSIP42 is another story, and the key point is not power abuse, it is we haven't understood something deeply enough at that moment. and this is irrelevant to what we discussed now.

now I have no big power, proxy bitcrab just have a voting power of less than 30M, you should talk more to the people who set cn-vote as their proxy.

Offline sschiessl

Please dive in your ignorant face to screen, put your ego and pride on a side and reply to/read carefully following:

a) Please define "big workers"
b) 260k BTS per day to the markets ? And you are ignoring the fact that single account is taking out/dropping 2M BTS per day that is not even part of the workers ? If you mean 260k daily of vesting balance, that doesn't go to the markets, and your statement would be wrong/miss-leading.
c) I care about world economy, not just single country or my own - that's the difference between us. In this case, BitShares is not owned by China, maybe majority of BTS token is, but that doesn't still make you an owner of it.
d) Worker can have VOTES REMOVED, but not rigging the consensus with refund400k worker. That's cheating, not voting "down".
e) You personally lost over 300M BTS in various margin calls, yet you are talking economy and giving us lectures.
f) You personally rigged consensus by giving ultimatum to witnesses to do as you say FOR FAR TO LONG - or they will be no witness, without approval/agrement of other holders.
g) You personally went against BSIP42 instructions to not apply it on iliquid markets (e.g. BitUSD) which resulted in GS with 20% loss to worker payouts for months. Some were paying costs (missing difference) for the infrastructure/salaries from their own pocket, just for the sake of the network. (you done it as well by giving ultimatum to witnesses)

You abused power every time you had it, and you are doing it again. You are building the reputation of an enemy who is doing hostile take-over and I don't see anything improved with the price in past few weeks, apart that more serious HOLDERS are dumping BTS. If that's your wish, as I said, I'm ok with it - but don't expect ill do nothing about it or be quiet like others.

Chee®s

if you do not understand "big", just go to google.
vesting balance will finally go to market.

I haven't said that Bitshares is owned by China, China voters just show their opinion by voting.

refund worker is just the tool to vote against something.

BSIP42 is another story, and the key point is not power abuse, it is we haven't understood something deeply enough at that moment. and this is irrelevant to what we discussed now.

now I have no big power, proxy bitcrab just have a voting power of less than 30M, you should talk more to the people who set cn-vote as their proxy.

Do you know who lobbied ZB exchange to vote for refund?

Offline Brekyrself

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
    • View Profile
@tshen @bitcrab
The worker system is what makes bitshares unique and now we cut off the very people trying to advance bitshares?  If we do not pay the developers, they will simply find another job to put food on the table.  Once they are gone, it's game over, they will not come back.

It has been suggested before to create multiple 100k refund workers so it's easier include or exclude all the workers.  No time like the present to do this and get development funded again.

Offline sschiessl

@tshen @bitcrab
The worker system is what makes bitshares unique and now we cut off the very people trying to advance bitshares?  If we do not pay the developers, they will simply find another job to put food on the table.  Once they are gone, it's game over, they will not come back.

It has been suggested before to create multiple 100k refund workers so it's easier include or exclude all the workers.  No time like the present to do this and get development funded again.

Those multiple smaller refund workers for fine control already exist.

Offline bitProfessor

@tshen @bitcrab
The worker system is what makes bitshares unique and now we cut off the very people trying to advance bitshares?  If we do not pay the developers, they will simply find another job to put food on the table.  Once they are gone, it's game over, they will not come back.

It has been suggested before to create multiple 100k refund workers so it's easier include or exclude all the workers.  No time like the present to do this and get development funded again.
Agree,That's what I'm worried about.

Online binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
    • View Profile
The core team have got the enought fund already.

I didn't think this is the time or future to support all the worker.

The income of the DEX can't support all the worker, only can support one or two worker.

The reserve pool? it shouldn't exsit, the worker fund shouldn't attach to the reserve pool, it should attach to the income,so we can determine easily which worker is necessary.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2019, 12:25:19 am by binggo »

Offline R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 757
    • View Profile
The core team have got the enought fund already.

I didn't think this is the time or future to support all the worker.

The income of the DEX can't support all the worker, only can support one or two worker.

The reserve pool? it shouldn't exsit, the worker fund shouldn't attach to the reserve pool, it should attach to the income,so we can determine easily which worker is necessary.
The core team don't have enough funding for the full worker proposed goals.

The income of the DEX certainly can support all the workers, you're wrong. If you're concerned you can propose referral fee redistribution towards reserve pool inflation, but this solution is being ignored instead going straight to the nuclear option of destroying ongoing workers with no justifiable reason.

Why shouldn't the reserve pool exist? It's been the intended functionality for years now and doesn't have any negative impact on BTS economy.

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
@tshen @bitcrab
The worker system is what makes bitshares unique and now we cut off the very people trying to advance bitshares?  If we do not pay the developers, they will simply find another job to put food on the table.  Once they are gone, it's game over, they will not come back.

It has been suggested before to create multiple 100k refund workers so it's easier include or exclude all the workers.  No time like the present to do this and get development funded again.

IIRC the core worker has enough fund to support development.

If necessary, I'd like to suggest to vote core worker to top&active.

however, I don't think it's very difficult to find skilled enough developers to do the core dev job.

Online binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
    • View Profile
The core team have got the enought fund already.

I didn't think this is the time or future to support all the worker.

The income of the DEX can't support all the worker, only can support one or two worker.

The reserve pool? it shouldn't exsit, the worker fund shouldn't attach to the reserve pool, it should attach to the income,so we can determine easily which worker is necessary.
The core team don't have enough funding for the full worker proposed goals.

The income of the DEX certainly can support all the workers, you're wrong. If you're concerned you can propose referral fee redistribution towards reserve pool inflation, but this solution is being ignored instead going straight to the nuclear option of destroying ongoing workers with no justifiable reason.

Why shouldn't the reserve pool exist? It's been the intended functionality for years now and doesn't have any negative impact on BTS economy.

https://workers.bitshares.foundation/201902-bitshares-core

so tell me how didn't have enough funding. spent(15,834,994 BTS) 3,764.04222k CNY  in three month is not enough?

The income of the DEX certainly can support all the workers? If you think it can, I don't want a argument, but i think it can't.

If the income can cover all the worker, so why we need the reserve pool? we can destroy 0.85 B bts in the reserve pool, let the income to pay the Witness and worker budget.

Offline clockwork

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 372
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clockwork
@tshen @bitcrab
The worker system is what makes bitshares unique and now we cut off the very people trying to advance bitshares?  If we do not pay the developers, they will simply find another job to put food on the table.  Once they are gone, it's game over, they will not come back.

It has been suggested before to create multiple 100k refund workers so it's easier include or exclude all the workers.  No time like the present to do this and get development funded again.

IIRC the core worker has enough fund to support development.

If necessary, I'd like to suggest to vote core worker to top&active.

however, I don't think it's very difficult to find skilled enough developers to do the core dev job.

I find that comment very insulting to the core dev team.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12897
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
however, I don't think it's very difficult to find skilled enough developers to do the core dev job.

Uff, have you ever looked into *their* job?
Since I am in a closed telegram group with the core dev team, I can tell you, it's *WAY* over my head ... and I'd call myself well-educated.
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
however, I don't think it's very difficult to find skilled enough developers to do the core dev job.

Uff, have you ever looked into *their* job?
Since I am in a closed telegram group with the core dev team, I can tell you, it's *WAY* over my head ... and I'd call myself well-educated.

OK,maybe I was wrong.

Offline bitProfessor

@tshen @bitcrab
The worker system is what makes bitshares unique and now we cut off the very people trying to advance bitshares?  If we do not pay the developers, they will simply find another job to put food on the table.  Once they are gone, it's game over, they will not come back.

It has been suggested before to create multiple 100k refund workers so it's easier include or exclude all the workers.  No time like the present to do this and get development funded again.

IIRC the core worker has enough fund to support development.

If necessary, I'd like to suggest to vote core worker to top&active.

however, I don't think it's very difficult to find skilled enough developers to do the core dev job.
I am sorry to see you say this.

Offline R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 757
    • View Profile
however, I don't think it's very difficult to find skilled enough developers to do the core dev job.
Uff, have you ever looked into *their* job?
Since I am in a closed telegram group with the core dev team, I can tell you, it's *WAY* over my head ... and I'd call myself well-educated.
OK,maybe I was wrong.
It's going to be exceedingly difficult and expensive to replace the development capabilities lost due to refund400k. It's concerning that you're unaware of what you're blocking & the subsequent future consequences that burning these bridges will result in.

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
It's going to be exceedingly difficult and expensive to replace the development capabilities lost due to refund400k. It's concerning that you're unaware of what you're blocking & the subsequent future consequences that burning these bridges will result in.

Don't worry, I believe neither I nor China community want to stop the core development.

Offline oxarbitrage

I will take this thread to express my opinion about what was discussed here and what is discussed also in related threads and other communication channels.

I do agree with bitcrab that bitshares is ill, we had been in downtrend for so long that we need to face trouble after trouble. The dumping of BTS we do with the workers systematically is currently making the overall situation to be worst.

Everybody haves different opinions on what is needed and what can be at least temporally suspended but some action should be taken to avoid the full collapse.

In my opinion , when waters calm down we should keep track of our profits, right now as far as i know fees are not enough to pay the witnesses. We should start by trying to make fees pay for the witnesses even if we dont do it that way as a measure of self sustainability without using the reserves. Then increase the profits the DAC makes. A higher BTS price will of course help.

As part of the core team i must say the worker i belong is one of the workers that takes a huge amount of the reserves so i suppose it will suffer, just as the rest. As i am inside the core team i know we are in the right direction with our development but the shareholders are the ones that should decide that.
We dont only bring new features that will be directly translated in more usage and fees collected but we also secure and optimize the network to make sure our technology can keep advancing and holding businesses of all kind.

It hurts me how the Chinese community think we are corrupt. It is true that the hour in the core is well paid but the reality those hours are generally for submitted code. I spend 12 hours a day working in Bitshares and some days i bill 0 of those hours as there was not work that could be presented to the community in github. A decrease of developer hour price will just make the developers to bill more hours. With a high hour price we can catch the best developers and guarantee the quality of the core.

I am going to tell this and i hope nobody get offended:

Put the core work in Chinese kids hands for 10 usd an hour and bitshares will probably be dead in a few months with luck independently of the price. The bitshares core haves the highest quality standards than any other graphene project, it is a very hard work for men(or woman), not for kids.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2019, 07:38:20 pm by oxarbitrage »

Offline Brekyrself

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
    • View Profile
I will take this thread to express my opinion about what was discussed here and what is discussed also in related threads and other communication channels.

I do agree with bitcrab that bitshares is ill, we had been in downtrend for so long that we need to face trouble after trouble. The dumping of BTS we do with the workers systematically is currently making the overall situation to be worst.

Everybody haves different opinions on what is needed and what can be at least temporally suspended but some action should be taken to avoid the full collapse.

In my opinion , when waters calm down we should keep track of our profits, right now as far as i know fees are not enough to pay the witnesses. We should start by trying to make fees pay for the witnesses even if we dont do it that way as a measure of self sustainability without using the reserves. Then increase the profits the DAC makes. A higher BTS price will of course help.

As part of the core team i must say the worker i belong is one of the workers that takes a huge amount of the reserves so i suppose it will suffer, just as the rest. As i am inside the core team i know we are in the right direction with our development but the shareholders are the ones that should decide that.
We dont only bring new features that will be directly translated in more usage and fees collected but we also secure and optimize the network to make sure our technology can keep advancing and holding businesses of all kind.

It hurts me how the Chinese community think we are corrupt. It is true that the hour in the core is well paid but the reality those hours are generally for submitted code. I spend 12 hours a day working in Bitshares and some days i bill 0 of those hours as there was not work that could be presented to the community in github. A decrease of developer hour price will just make the developers to bill more hours. With a high hour price we can catch the best developers and guarantee the quality of the core.

I am going to tell this and i hope nobody get offended:

Put the core work in Chinese kids hands for 10 usd an hour and bitshares will probably be dead in a few months with luck independently of the price. The bitshares core haves the highest quality standards than any other graphene project, it is a very hard work for men(or woman), not for kids.

Well said.  I hope everyone voting for the refund worker reads your quote and understands you kept working for bitshares through the last number of years when everyone else left!

Online binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
    • View Profile
Put the core work in Chinese kids hands for 10 usd an hour and bitshares will probably be dead in a few months with luck independently of the price. The bitshares core haves the highest quality standards than any other graphene project, it is a very hard work for men(or woman), not for kids.

en?!

Offline oxarbitrage

Put the core work in Chinese kids hands for 10 usd an hour and bitshares will probably be dead in a few months with luck independently of the price. The bitshares core haves the highest quality standards than any other graphene project, it is a very hard work for men(or woman), not for kids.

en?!

I am trying to defend the core team work, my apologies if i offended you. It is not a matter or where are the programmers from but more how old they are.


Online binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
    • View Profile
 ;)
Put the core work in Chinese kids hands for 10 usd an hour and bitshares will probably be dead in a few months with luck independently of the price. The bitshares core haves the highest quality standards than any other graphene project, it is a very hard work for men(or woman), not for kids.

en?!

I am trying to defend the core team work, my apologies if i offended you. It is not a matter or where are the programmers from but more how old they are.

Offline clockwork

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 372
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clockwork
Put the core work in Chinese kids hands for 10 usd an hour and bitshares will probably be dead in a few months with luck independently of the price. The bitshares core haves the highest quality standards than any other graphene project, it is a very hard work for men(or woman), not for kids.

en?!

I am trying to defend the core team work, my apologies if i offended you. It is not a matter or where are the programmers from but more how old they are.

i would think that was quite obvious since Abit's chinese

Offline bench

When does cn-vote remove the votes for refund400k ?
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 327
  • 13 years of being Slackware abUser
    • View Profile
    • BitShares 3.0
  • BitShares: dls.cipher
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
Probably when the price is over 0.035-0.038 USD per 1 BTS... imho.
Milos (DL) Preocanin
Owner and manager of bitshares.org through Consensus
Move Institute - RN: 2098555000
Murska Sobota, Slovenia, SI.

Offline Permie22

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Permie




Bilingual:

DEXBot is Currently Voted Out. Please Vote for DEXBot!
DEXBot 暂时在投票中落选。请为 DEXBot 投票!

Permie

DEXBot is about increasing the liquidity of the DEX.
DEXBot 旨在增加 DEX(内盘) 的流动性。

DEXBot aims to translate into Simplified Chinese and increase relations with the Chinese BitShares Community.
DEXBot 致力于将机器人翻译成简体中文,并加强与比特股中国社区的关系。

https://www.dexbot.info/2019/06/04/dexbot-worker-proposal-wp3/

DEXBot’s research into the liquidity of DEX markets has found and tentatively concluded that:
DEXBot 对 DEX 市场流动性的研究发现并初步得出以下结论:

On the OPEN.BTC:bts market ~75% of orders are placed with the DEXBot’s Staggered Orders strategy feature.
在 OPEN.BTC/BTS 市场,约 75% 的订单采用 DEXBot 的错列订单策略功能。

https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cryptick/bitshares-liquidity-report-on-the-open-btc-and-bts-market

On the bitCNY:bts market; ~57% of open orders are placed with DEXBot’s Staggered Orders strategy feature.
在 bitCNY/bts 市场,约 57% 的当前订单采用 DEXBot 的交错订单策略。

https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cryptick/bitshares-bitcny-and-bts-market

DEXBot is already providing vital liquidity. With continued funding DEXBot can grow upon this success.
DEXBot 已经在提供至关重要的流动性。如果 DEXBot 能够持续获得资金支持,我们将在这一成功基础上继续完成这项工作。

DEXBot Current Budget Situation
DEXBot 目前的预算状况

Due to prudent management of the funds; DEXBot WP3 has 2 months ($48,000) of funding held in reserve. This is to mitigate the risk of short term loss of funding due to being relegated from the Worker Proposal Funding Zone temporarily. This reserve is currently being spent to continue development during this period of being voted out.
由于资金的谨慎管理,DEXBot WP3 有两个月($4.8 万美元)的储备金。储备金是为了降低由于工作提案暂时被投票落选而产生的短期资金短缺风险。目前,由于 DEXBot 的工作提案落选,这笔储备金正用于支持 DEXBot 继续开发工作。

DEXBot arbitrage feature will not be lost or abandoned due to this period of being voted out. The 60 day DEXBot reserve budget allows DEXBot to finish part-complete development and not have to lose it’s key developers to other projects.
DEXBot 的套利功能不会因为这段时间工作提案落选而丢失或放弃。60 天的 DEXBot 储备金能够支撑 DEXBot 完成部分开发,而不会让关键开发人员被迫转移到其他项目。

DEXBot WP3 (Scheduled for July to December 2019) has so far, from 1/07/19 to 20/08/19, spent $38,000 of the $149,000 planned budget.
DEXBot WP3 项目周期为 2019 年 7 月至 12 月,预算为 $14.9 万美元。从 2019 年 7 月 1 日至 8 月 20 日,项目已经花费了 $3.8 万美元。

Expenses documented here:
这是记录 DEXBot 项目费用支出的文档

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XPTGlHe6Xiw2xii9QQ-RWgS55oTEWerAXwMPEsgTbe0/edit#gid=2025101644

AND
以及

https://1drv.ms/x/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJagkgB81_-drYTh4
DEXBot still needs to be voted back into the Funding Zone for a further ~90 days to get it’s full budget.
DEXBot 仍需在未来大约 90 天内通过投票重新被资助,才能获得足额预算。


Liquidity is Analogous to Good Quality Wait-Staff in a Restaurant:
高流动性就如同餐馆里高质量的服务员:
More Market Makers are required to supply the good service that the prospective DEX users need in order to come and trade on BitShares instead of a CEX.
我们需要更多的做市商为潜在的 DEX 用户提供良好的服务,以让他们在比特股上交易,而不是在中心化交易所进行交易。

DEXBot develops new features to attract more market makers to the DEX.
DEXBot 开发了新的功能来吸引更多的做市商加入 DEX

Low Liquidity is like poor service at a restaurant. Users don’t come to the DEX because it’s cheaper and they don’t come just to trade coins. They come for privacy and security.
流动性低的DEX就像服务很差的餐厅。用户不会单纯的因为 DEX 便宜就来 DEX 交易,用户选择 DEX 不仅仅是为了交易,更多的是为了隐私和安全。

But it’s all about the service.
但最重要的就是服务。

Users want to trade their preferred coins in markets that have high liquidity.
用户希望在流动性高的市场上交易他们喜爱的代币

High liquidity = high quality service.
高流动性 = 高质量服务

Low liquidity gives a poor user experience and makes them more likely to stay away from the DEX.
低流动性会带来糟糕的用户体验,更有可能使用户远离 DEX。

Low liquidity is like going to a fancy restaurant to eat great food but where the waiter is slow and only brings your meal piece by piece instead of all at once.
低流动性就像去一家高级餐厅吃美味的食物,但那里的服务员效率很低,每次只给你拿来一小片食物,而不是一次全部拿来。
Market Makers are to BitShares what good wait-staff are to an upmarket restaurant.
做市商对于比特股来说,就像优秀的服务员对于高档餐厅一样重要。

Currently BitShares’ market makers are low paid. Poorly paid restaurant wait-staff do not provide good service.
目前比特股的做市商报酬较低。低收入的餐馆服务员很难提供良好的服务。

DEXBot has plans to develop a Liquidity Reward Scheme, but due to the funding situation these plans cannot be put into action. DEXBot needs to get back into the funding zone.
DEXBot 计划制定流动性奖励机制,但由于目前的资金情况,这些计划暂时无法付诸实施。DEXBot 需要重新得到资助。

DEXBot builds the tools for BitShares to provide good quality service to its users. BitShares has a very strong offering of security and privacy. Privacy and security are an additional service for which users are willing to pay.
DEXBot 为比特股创建工具,为用户提供高质量的服务。比特股提供了非常强大的安全和隐私条件,而隐私和安全正是用户愿意买单的服务。

Cutting funding for important development, particularly DEXBot which aids liquidity, only exacerbates the problem of low liquidity and low user adoption of BitShares.
削减重要开发项目的资金,尤其是有助于提高流动性的 DEXBot 项目,只会加剧比特股流动性不足和用户使用率低的问题。

Continued funding for DEXBot will allow the continued development of the open-source market making bot DEXBot that makes it easier for market makers.
继续为 DEXBot 提供资金支持,将允许开源做市机器人 DEXBot 持续开发,使做市商更容易使用 DEXBot。

The DEXBot Arbitrage Features will be completed due to the 60-day DEXBot Reserves
由于 DEXBot 的 60 天储备金,DEXBot 的套利功能将会完成开发

Traditional Arbitrage Feature Specification:
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJaePNQU7T4aPfJiQ

Excerpt:
    DEXBot will use Ccxt which allows access to 135 CEX’s in one go. Binance and most of the big ones are included.
See the full list here: https://github.com/ccxt/ccxt/blob/master/wiki/Exchange-Markets.md

Why does Bitshares want arbitrage?

Trade volume, better price discovery, tighter spreads as arb bots will take good offers and encourage market makers to have offers close to the market price on the DEX orderbooks as often as possible. The higher the volume of trading, in part increased by arb bots, allows market makers to turn over their capital more frequently thus making market making participation more attractive to traders

Why does Bitshares want to connect to other exchanges?

Arbitrage requires access to at least two separate exchanges as it relies on the price discrepancy, or lag, between prices for assets offered in two separate marketplaces.

How should the arbitrage feature on DEXBot operate? What logic should it follow?

DEXBot should have knowledge and ability to post orders on the books of at least two other exchanges.
One of those two exchanges must always be the Bitshares DEX.

传统套利功能说明文档:
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJaePNQU7T4aPfJiQ
文档摘录:

DEXBot 将使用 Ccxt 工具库,允许一次性访问 135 家中心化交易所(CEX)。这包括了币安和绝大多数大型交易所。
查看支持的交易所的完整名单:https://github.com/ccxt/ccxt/blob/master/wiki/Exchange-Markets.md
为什么比特股需要套利?

套利可以带来更大的交易量、更好的价格发现效果、更小的价差。套利机器人会接受好的报价,并鼓励做市商尽可能地给出接近去中心化交易所( DEX)中订单簿上市场价格的报价。交易量越大(部分交易量由套利机器人增加),做市商的资金周转就越频繁,也就更加吸引交易者参与做市。

为什么比特股需要与其他交易所相连接?

因为套利的原理是利用不同市场上资产的价格差异或变化滞后来赚取利润,所以要实现套利,需要至少可以访问两个不同的交易所。

DEXBot 的套利功能应该怎么运作?它应该遵循什么样的逻辑?

DEXBot 应该具备至少能在另外两家交易所的订单簿上发布订单的能力。
这两家交易所中必须有一家是 BitShares DEX。

“Mirrored” Arbitrage Feature Specification:
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJbAbWTiR_BEQW4WM

 Excerpt:
Mirrored Arbitrage is similar to traditional arbitrage except that it involves one limit order and one market order. As opposed to traditional arbitrage which involves two market orders.

Traditional arbitrage lies hidden ready to pounce on an arbitrage opportunity that arises out of two limit orders being placed by other traders on two separate exchanges.

Mirrored Arbitrage instead analyses the orderbook of Exchange-1 (CEX), and places a limit order on Exchange-2 (DEX) that if filled would allow DEXBot to take an offer from Exchange-1 and realise a profit. DEXBot should read the orderbook of the CEX and predict/front-run arbitrage opportunities by placing limit orders on the DEX and only acting on the CEX if the DEX limit-order is filled.

DEXBot supports liquidity and trading activity on the BitShares DEX so the exchange where limit orders are placed will be the DEX and the exchange where market orders are taken will be a CEX.

The orderbook of the CEX will be dynamic and ever changing so the limit orders on the DEX will have to be placed/cancelled and replaced in response to the updated CEX orderbook - within a margin of error to reduce wasting fees on unnecessarily minute order changes.

DEXBot must be aware of the state of the CEX orderbook with minimal time-lag and updated as frequently as is possible.

DEXBot will constantly monitor the CEX’s orderbook information and use the data to place limit orders on the DEX at prices %offset to the CEX.

“镜像”套利功能说明文档:
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJbAbWTiR_BEQW4WM

文档摘录:

镜像套利与传统套利相似,不同之处在于镜像套利包括了一个限价订单和一个市价订单,而传统套利则包括两个市价订单。

传统套利注重抓住套利机会,而套利机会的引发是由在两个不同的交易所的两个交易员发出的两个限价订单。

镜像套利则是分析 交易所 1  (CEX) 的已有订单,并在 交易所 2  (DEX) 发布一个限价订单;如果交易完成,DEXBot 就可以在 交易所 1  吃单,实现盈利。DEXBot 需要阅读 CEX  的订单,通过在 DEX 上发布限价订单,并仅在 DEX 限价订单完成时才对 CEX 采取行动,从而预测/提前获得套利机会。

DEXBot 支持 BitShares DEX 上的流动性和交易活动,因此发出限价订单的交易所为 DEX,而发出市价订单的交易所则为 CEX。

CEX 的订单簿将是动态的,并且会不断变化,因此 DEX 上的限价订单也需要根据更新后的 CEX 订单进行下单、取消或替换的操作——在一定的误差范围内,以减少不必要的微小订单更改所浪费的费用。

DEXBot 必须以最小的延迟来及时掌握 CEX 订单簿的状态,并且尽可能频繁的更新。

DEXBot 会持续监控 CEX 的订单簿信息,并根据 CEX 价格按照百分比的偏移量,利用相关数据在 DEX 上下限价订单。https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJaePNQU7T4aPfJiQ

传统套利功能说明文档:
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJaePNQU7T4aPfJiQ

文档摘录:

DEXBoxt 将使用 Ccxt 工具库,允许一次性访问 135 家中心化交易所(CEX)。这包括了币安和绝大多数大型交易所。
查看支持的交易所的完整名单:https://github.com/ccxt/ccxt/blob/master/wiki/Exchange-Markets.md

为什么比特股需要套利?

套利可以带来更大的交易量、更好的价格发现效果、更小的价差。套利机器人会接受好的报价,并鼓励做市商尽可能地给出接近去中心化交易所( DEX)中订单簿上市场价格的报价。交易量越大(部分交易量由套利机器人增加),做市商的资金周转就越频繁,也就更加吸引交易者参与做市。

为什么比特股需要与其他交易所相连接?

因为套利的原理是利用不同市场上资产的价格差异或变化滞后来赚取利润,所以要实现套利,需要至少可以访问两个不同的交易所。

DEXBot 的套利功能应该怎么运作?它应该遵循什么样的逻辑?

DEXBot 应该具备至少能在另外两家交易所的订单簿上发布订单的能力。
这两家交易所中必须有一家是 BitShares DEX。

“镜像”套利功能说明文档:
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJbAbWTiR_BEQW4WM

文档摘录:

镜像套利与传统套利相似,不同之处在于镜像套利包括了一个限价订单和一个市价订单,而传统套利则包括两个市价订单。

传统套利注重抓住套利机会,而套利机会的引发是由在两个不同的交易所的两个交易员发出的两个限价订单。

镜像套利则是分析 交易所 1  (CEX) 的已有订单,并在 交易所 2  (DEX) 发布一个限价订单;如果交易完成,DEXBot 就可以在 交易所 1  吃单,实现盈利。DEXBot 需要阅读 CEX  的订单,通过在 DEX 上发布限价订单,并仅在 DEX 限价订单完成时才对 CEX 采取行动,从而预测/提前获得套利机会。

DEXBot 支持 BitShares DEX 上的流动性和交易活动,因此发出限价订单的交易所为 DEX,而发出市价订单的交易所则为 CEX。

CEX 的订单簿将是动态的,并且会不断变化,因此 DEX 上的限价订单也需要根据更新后的 CEX 订单进行下单、取消或替换的操作——在一定的误差范围内,以减少不必要的微小订单更改所浪费的费用。

DEXBot 必须以最小的延迟来及时掌握 CEX 订单簿的状态,并且尽可能频繁的更新。

DEXBot 会持续监控 CEX 的订单簿信息,并根据 CEX 价格按照百分比的偏移量,利用相关数据在 DEX 上下限价订单。


DEXBot has several features waiting in the planning stages that can only be developed if DEXBot gets voted back into the funding zone:
DEXBot 有几个功能还在计划阶段,只有在 DEXBot 被投票重新资助后才能继续完成开发:

DEXBot Translation into Mandarin and Russian
DEXBot has plans to translate the DEXBot wiki documentation and the GUI into Mandarin and Russian to increase the appeal to a wider audience and to include the very important Chinese and Russian BitShares communities.

将 DEXBot 翻译成简体中文和俄文
DEXBot 计划将 DEXBot 维基文档和图形用户界面翻译成简体中文和俄文,以提高对广大受众的吸引力,并加强与比特股中俄社区的关系。

Diversified-Portfolio Rebalancer
Users will be able to set parameters for a diversified portfolio. DEXBot will buy/sell components of the user-chosen basket of assets to maintain their portfolio at the user-set ratios. This feature will aid the bts price by buying bts when the price goes down, and selling bts when the price goes up. Dampening volatility and increasing the stability of bts price growth. The portfolio balancer will allow market makers to hold a diversified portfolio which is a proven strategy to reduce risk. Market makers who hold reserves in a diversified portfolio are more able and willing to provide liquidity as they can feel more comfortable about the risk of price volatility in the markets they choose to provide liquidity to.

    2.     多元化投资组合平衡器
用户将能够为多样化的投资组合设置参数。DEXBot 将购买/出售用户选择的一组资产的组成部分,以保持其投资组合在用户设定的比率内。该功能将通过在 bts 价格下降时购买 bts,在价格上升时出售 bts 来帮助稳定 bts 价格,抑制波动,并增强 bts 价格增长的稳定性。该投资组合平衡器将允许做市商持有一个多样化的投资组合,这是一个经过验证的可降低风险的策略。持有多元化投资组合的储备金的做市商将更有能力,也更愿意提供流动性,因为他们对自己选择提供流动性的市场的价格波动风险更有把握。
   
Lower Risk Profile = More Comfortable Market Makers = Higher Liquidity
风险越低=做市商越愿意操作=流动性越高

Liquidity Rewards Tool
DEXBot plans to develop a system to identify users who provide liquidity to a range of DEX markets. SmartCoin:bts and SmartCoin:Gateway. Different UIA tokens for each gateway will be developed to allow gateways to reward the liquidity that market makers are providing to them by buying their UIA on the free market that the gateway themselves choose to pay. Gateways will be able to compete with each other to attract market makers and the liquidity they bring to their Gateway. Gateways and the DEX will be able to easily reward the free market for providing liquidity. The alternative is for Gateways and the DEX to provide the liquidity itself, taking on 100% of the risk and consuming 100% of the capital required to place into open orders. Rewarding the free market with a 0.1-1% reward allows Gateways to reduce the cost of providing liquidity themselves by a factor of 100-1000. The ability to reward liquidity to these SmartCoin:Gateway markets by consequence increases the liquidity of bitCNY and other SmartCoins. There will be more bitCNY in circulation and thus more bitCNY available on the market for bitCNY debtors to service their debts and more easily avoid margin call. The DEX needs more bitCNY being traded on the DEX not sitting in accounts unable to be purchased. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uOQIZBuqFjiUnkBiWisoEkxQeEDe6xw00Zh-0GM0ly4/edit?usp=sharing

     3.     流动性奖励工具
DEXBot 计划开发一个系统来识别为一系列内盘交易对提供流动性的用户。包括智能货币对 bts,或者 智能货币对网关的交易对。每个网关都将开发不同的 UIA 代币,以允许网关通过在网关自己选择支付的自由市场上购买 UIA 来奖励做市商提供给它们的流动性。网关可以相互竞争,来吸引做市商,并为他们自己带来流动性。网关和 DEX 将能够轻松地奖励提供流动性的自由市场。另一种选择是让网关和 DEX 自己提供流动性,承担 100% 的风险,并消耗 100% 的资金来下单。用 0.1-1% 来奖励自由市场,可以使网关自身提供流动性的成本降低到原来的百分之一到千分之一。奖励这些智能货币对网关的交易对的流动性的能力将事实上增加 bitCNY 和其他智能货币的流动性。市面上将会出现更多的 bitCNY,供 bitCNY 债务人偿还债务,也更容易避免黄单。DEX 需要更多的 bitCNY 在 DEX 上交易,而不是存在账户中。

Rewarding Liquidity = Higher Liquidity.
奖励流动性 = 更高的流动性

Stop-Loss feature
DEXBot can provide Stop-Loss features to sell a given asset should that asset fall to a user-defined price. This allows market makers to limit their exposure to a particular asset and reduce the risk that comes from market making. DEXBot is the ideal environment to provide stop loss features as the logic can be held off-chain. If Stop Losses were to be added on-chain, stop losses would be visible for all to see. Stop-Loss “Hunters” would then deliberately try to push the price lower to trigger another traders Stop-Loss in order for the Hunter to profit.

     4.      止损功能
DEXBot 可以提供止损功能,以便在给定资产跌至用户设置的价格时出售资产。这使得做市商能够限制自己对特定资产的敞口,并降低其做市带来的风险。DEXBot 是提供止损功能的理想环境,因为逻辑可以在链下运行。如果将止损功能添加到链上,则意味着每个人都可以看见止损情况。止损”猎人”会故意压低价格,以触发另一个交易者止损,来使自己获利。

Lower risk = More Market Makers = Higher Liquidity.
更低的风险 = 更多的做市商 = 更高的流动性

Forecasting tools
To inform for prudent market making. Market makers want to know the likelihood of a bull or bear market in the assets that they provide liquidity to. Knowledge is power.

      5.     预测工具
做市商想知道他们提供流动性的资产出现牛市或熊市的可能性,而预测工具可以为谨慎的市场决策提供信息。知识就是力量。

Market makers with More Information = More Comfort with Supplying Liquidity = Higher Liquidity.
拥有更多信息的做市商 = 更乐于提供流动性 = 更高的流动性。


« Last Edit: September 10, 2019, 01:55:06 pm by Permie22 »

Offline Permie22

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Permie
Simplified Chinese Only:

简体中文:

DEXBot 暂时在投票中落选。请为 DEXBot 投票!

Permie

DEXBot 旨在增加 DEX(内盘) 的流动性。

DEXBot 致力于将机器人翻译成简体中文,并加强与比特股中国社区的关系。

https://www.dexbot.info/2019/06/04/dexbot-worker-proposal-wp3/

DEXBot 对 DEX 市场流动性的研究发现并初步得出以下结论:

在 OPEN.BTC/BTS 市场,约 75% 的订单采用 DEXBot 的错列订单策略功能。

https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cryptick/bitshares-liquidity-report-on-the-open-btc-and-bts-market

在 bitCNY/bts 市场,约 57% 的当前订单采用 DEXBot 的交错订单策略。

https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cryptick/bitshares-bitcny-and-bts-market


DEXBot 已经在提供至关重要的流动性。如果 DEXBot 能够持续获得资金支持,我们将在这一成功基础上继续完成这项工作。

DEXBot 目前的预算状况

由于资金的谨慎管理,DEXBot WP3 有两个月($4.8 万美元)的储备金。储备金是为了降低由于工作提案暂时被投票落选而产生的短期资金短缺风险。目前,由于 DEXBot 的工作提案落选,这笔储备金正用于支持 DEXBot 继续开发工作。

DEXBot 的套利功能不会因为这段时间工作提案落选而丢失或放弃。60 天的 DEXBot 储备金能够支撑 DEXBot 完成部分开发,而不会让关键开发人员被迫转移到其他项目。

DEXBot WP3 项目周期为 2019 年 7 月至 12 月,预算为 $14.9 万美元。从 2019 年 7 月 1 日至 8 月 20 日,项目已经花费了 $3.8 万美元。

这是记录 DEXBot 项目费用支出的文档

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XPTGlHe6Xiw2xii9QQ-RWgS55oTEWerAXwMPEsgTbe0/edit#gid=2025101644

以及

https://1drv.ms/x/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJagkgB81_-drYTh4
DEXBot 仍需在未来大约 90 天内通过投票重新被资助,才能获得足额预算。

高流动性就如同餐馆里高质量的服务员:

我们需要更多的做市商为潜在的 DEX 用户提供良好的服务,以让他们在比特股上交易,而不是在中心化交易所进行交易。

DEXBot 开发了新的功能来吸引更多的做市商加入 DEX

流动性低的DEX就像服务很差的餐厅。用户不会单纯的因为 DEX 便宜就来 DEX 交易,用户选择 DEX 不仅仅是为了交易,更多的是为了隐私和安全。

但最重要的就是服务。

用户希望在流动性高的市场上交易他们喜爱的代币

高流动性 = 高质量服务

低流动性会带来糟糕的用户体验,更有可能使用户远离 DEX。

低流动性就像去一家高级餐厅吃美味的食物,但那里的服务员效率很低,每次只给你拿来一小片食物,而不是一次全部拿来。

做市商对于比特股来说,就像优秀的服务员对于高档餐厅一样重要。

目前比特股的做市商报酬较低。低收入的餐馆服务员很难提供良好的服务。

DEXBot 计划制定流动性奖励机制,但由于目前的资金情况,这些计划暂时无法付诸实施。DEXBot 需要重新得到资助。

DEXBot 为比特股创建工具,为用户提供高质量的服务。比特股提供了非常强大的安全和隐私条件,而隐私和安全正是用户愿意买单的服务。

削减重要开发项目的资金,尤其是有助于提高流动性的 DEXBot 项目,只会加剧比特股流动性不足和用户使用率低的问题。

继续为 DEXBot 提供资金支持,将允许开源做市机器人 DEXBot 持续开发,使做市商更容易使用 DEXBot。

由于 DEXBot 的 60 天储备金,DEXBot 的套利功能将会完成开发

传统套利功能说明文档:
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJaePNQU7T4aPfJiQ

文档摘录:

DEXBox 将使用 Ccxt 工具库,允许一次性访问 135 家中心化交易所(CEX)。这包括了币安和绝大多数大型交易所。
查看支持的交易所的完整名单:https://github.com/ccxt/ccxt/blob/master/wiki/Exchange-Markets.md

为什么比特股需要套利?

套利可以带来更大的交易量、更好的价格发现效果、更小的价差。套利机器人会接受好的报价,并鼓励做市商尽可能地给出接近去中心化交易所( DEX)中订单簿上市场价格的报价。交易量越大(部分交易量由套利机器人增加),做市商的资金周转就越频繁,也就更加吸引交易者参与做市。

为什么比特股需要与其他交易所相连接?

因为套利的原理是利用不同市场上资产的价格差异或变化滞后来赚取利润,所以要实现套利,需要至少可以访问两个不同的交易所。

DEXBot 的套利功能应该怎么运作?它应该遵循什么样的逻辑?

DEXBot 应该具备至少能在另外两家交易所的订单簿上发布订单的能力。
这两家交易所中必须有一家是 BitShares DEX。

“镜像”套利功能说明文档:
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AjNxlbf-fDQJbAbWTiR_BEQW4WM

文档摘录:

镜像套利与传统套利相似,不同之处在于镜像套利包括了一个限价订单和一个市价订单,而传统套利则包括两个市价订单。

传统套利注重抓住套利机会,而套利机会的引发是由在两个不同的交易所的两个交易员发出的两个限价订单。

镜像套利则是分析 交易所 1  (CEX) 的已有订单,并在 交易所 2  (DEX) 发布一个限价订单;如果交易完成,DEXBot 就可以在 交易所 1  吃单,实现盈利。DEXBot 需要阅读 CEX  的订单,通过在 DEX 上发布限价订单,并仅在 DEX 限价订单完成时才对 CEX 采取行动,从而预测/提前获得套利机会。

DEXBot 支持 BitShares DEX 上的流动性和交易活动,因此发出限价订单的交易所为 DEX,而发出市价订单的交易所则为 CEX。

CEX 的订单簿将是动态的,并且会不断变化,因此 DEX 上的限价订单也需要根据更新后的 CEX 订单进行下单、取消或替换的操作——在一定的误差范围内,以减少不必要的微小订单更改所浪费的费用。

DEXBot 必须以最小的延迟来及时掌握 CEX 订单簿的状态,并且尽可能频繁的更新。

DEXBot 会持续监控 CEX 的订单簿信息,并根据 CEX 价格按照百分比的偏移量,利用相关数据在 DEX 上下限价订单。


DEXBot 有几个功能还在计划阶段,只有在 DEXBot 被投票重新资助后才能继续完成开发:

将 DEXBot 翻译成简体中文和俄文
DEXBot 计划将 DEXBot 维基文档和图形用户界面翻译成简体中文和俄文,以提高对广大受众的吸引力,并加强与比特股中俄社区的关系。

多元化投资组合平衡器
用户将能够为多样化的投资组合设置参数。DEXBot 将购买/出售用户选择的一组资产的组成部分,以保持其投资组合在用户设定的比率内。该功能将通过在 bts 价格下降时购买 bts,在价格上升时出售 bts 来帮助稳定 bts 价格,抑制波动,并增强 bts 价格增长的稳定性。该投资组合平衡器将允许做市商持有一个多样化的投资组合,这是一个经过验证的可降低风险的策略。持有多元化投资组合的储备金的做市商将更有能力,也更愿意提供流动性,因为他们对自己选择提供流动性的市场的价格波动风险更有把握。
   
风险越低=做市商越愿意操作=流动性越高

流动性奖励工具
DEXBot 计划开发一个系统来识别为一系列内盘交易对提供流动性的用户。包括智能货币对 bts,或者 智能货币对网关的交易对。每个网关都将开发不同的 UIA 代币,以允许网关通过在网关自己选择支付的自由市场上购买 UIA 来奖励做市商提供给它们的流动性。网关可以相互竞争,来吸引做市商,并为他们自己带来流动性。网关和 DEX 将能够轻松地奖励提供流动性的自由市场。另一种选择是让网关和 DEX 自己提供流动性,承担 100% 的风险,并消耗 100% 的资金来下单。用 0.1-1% 来奖励自由市场,可以使网关自身提供流动性的成本降低到原来的百分之一到千分之一。奖励这些智能货币对网关的交易对的流动性的能力将事实上增加bitCNY 和其他智能货币的流动性。市面上将会出现更多的 bitCNY,供 bitCNY 债务人偿还债务,也更容易避免黄单。DEX 需要更多的 bitCNY 在 DEX 上交易,而不是存在账户中。

奖励流动性 = 更高的流动性

止损功能
DEXBot 可以提供止损功能,以便在给定资产跌至用户设置的价格时出售资产。这使得做市商能够限制自己对特定资产的敞口,并降低其做市带来的风险。DEXBot 是提供止损功能的理想环境,因为逻辑可以在链下运行。如果将止损功能添加到链上,则意味着每个人都可以看见止损情况。止损”猎人”会故意压低价格,以触发另一个交易者止损,来使自己获利。

更低的风险 = 更多的做市商 = 更高的流动性

预测工具
做市商想知道他们提供流动性的资产出现牛市或熊市的可能性,而预测工具可以为谨慎的市场决策提供信息。知识就是力量。

拥有更多信息的做市商 = 更乐于提供流动性 = 更高的流动性。


« Last Edit: September 10, 2019, 01:58:10 pm by Permie22 »

Offline Permie22

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Permie
« Last Edit: September 15, 2019, 04:49:25 pm by Permie22 »