Author Topic: Announcement of cn-vote Union: Re-evaluation of our support of Worker Proposals  (Read 4558 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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: 323
  • 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: 323
  • 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.

Online 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: 1678
    • 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: 323
  • 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: 1678
    • 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: 323
  • 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: 1678
    • 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: 510
    • 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.

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1591
    • 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 »

Online 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.