Announcement of cn-vote Union: Re-evaluation of our support of Worker Proposals

[Permie22]

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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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. 

[block_chain]

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?

[Thul3]

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

[abit]

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.

[R]

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.

[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!

[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.

[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

[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.