Author Topic: Announcement of cn-vote Union: Re-evaluation of our support of Worker Proposals  (Read 14506 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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 set bitshares-vision as your proxy!
Committee account: iobanker-core
Ammar Yousef - CEO @ ioBanker OÜ

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 set bitshares-vision as your proxy!
Committee account: iobanker-core
Ammar Yousef - CEO @ ioBanker OÜ

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • 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.

Offline Permie22

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • 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 BTSMoon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
    • 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 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 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 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 ljk424

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 347
    • 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

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 R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 841
    • 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 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 Permie22

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Permie
I have uploaded the docs to onedrive so they can be viewed in China