Author Topic: Proxy: bitshares-vision  (Read 3849 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bitProfessor

Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« Reply #30 on: August 30, 2019, 05:31:05 pm »
Hello, I would like to thank @ioBanker very much for raising this matter and everybody who contributes to the discussion!

Athough I share most of the ideas highlighted by @ioBanker above, I am more crytical towards current situation of the community and do believe Bitshares are in deep crysis that may easily finish with the ecosystem's marginalization and stagnation, moving price of the core currency down.
IMHO the root cause of the problem is lack of leadership and vision. The founder has left the project in the early stage and there is noone who effectively replace him. Decentralized governance so far is not being effective enough to cope with the current challenges and drive the DAC towards success and mass adoption. The original idea and vision has never neen revised and most likely are not shared by most of the stakeholders at the moment. The fact that several people are expressing similar opinions at the same time, and major stakeholders undertake immediate and rough actions to change the trend, shows that it is time for major actions to address system issue that we have. I strongly believe this is not a subject for just, minor correction.

I would like to put here a copy of my post in the other thread, I do believe it is totally relevant for this discussion. Sorry for the long read.


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
  • This plan is not workable. It works only in centralized companies。Ronald H. Coase said, why do authoritarian companies exist in the market? Because it is efficient.
  • The Dpos mechanism is like the democracy of ancient Greece. It's childish.Dpos did not achieve its goals

I'll have to agree with 1) and 2) but with notice that 2) was because of the people not DPOS structure itself.
Agree,Your point of view reminds me of a book: Democracy in America
« Last Edit: August 30, 2019, 05:44:15 pm by bitProfessor »

Offline Ammar Yousef (ioBanker)

Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« Reply #31 on: August 31, 2019, 12:37:50 am »
WHOEVER WANTS TO INHERIT POWER OF VOTING FOR BITSHARES WORKERS MUST PROOF HIMSELF AS AN INVESTOR AND NOT A DUMPER.

What category do (software) service providers like me fall?

Hello Stefan, it's good to see you here, nobody can deny your great efforts in this network.

Operating expenses [OpEx] for the below workers "IS A MUST" and mandatory to keep the network alive:

1) OpEx-BitShare-Core-Infra: DR Full/Main-Faucet nodes: Proposed by committee to a trusted workers to maintain the technical side of the core nodes.
2) OpEx-BitShares-Foundation: Administrative side and mainly will find and report the efficiency of (Voted Workers, DR-Full Nodes, Faucet nodes, APIs UI lists, Gateways UI lists and Core seeds lists).
3) OpEx-BitShares-Core-Dev: Maintaining core code (solving bugs, applying enhancements and communicating with developers).
4) OpEx-BitShares-UI-Dev: Maintaining main UI code (solving bugs, applying enhancement and communicating with developers).

If I forget to mention any operating expense, please let me know.

Is that list meant as a suggestion how to set up a set of new workers?

It does not answer my question though. I am a software service provider, intellectually heavily invested in BitShares, but not monetary since I don't have the option to invest a lot at the moment. Investing worker income is also not possible since I am living off of it (indirectly).

Am I a dumper then?

I would argue that only hobbyists or otherwise wealthy people can afford to keep contributing without a worker, especially if they are risk-averse (like me, or any company that is dealing with its daily business).

The answer for your question was "OpEx-BitShares-UI-Dev" and obviously now or later any software service providers managing this worker are operating expenses for the network IMO.

I don't mind anyone to sell their BTS, it's a free market and everyone can sell their BTS at any time, dumper is not a bad word :) it's an action that effects BTS value.

When we pay CapEx for investment purposes and specifically at this time where we don't see BTS gains, we should only be considering paying big BTS amounts to BTS use cases workers.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2019, 07:41:19 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 abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3874
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« Reply #32 on: September 10, 2019, 07:12:53 pm »
某年某月,一直叫嚣着拳打比特币、脚踢以太坊、鄙视EOS、狂怼XRP的比特股,在被市场狠狠按在地上摩擦疯狂打脸,大户勾心斗角、韭菜崩析瓦解之后,终于意识到,自己其实只是一个根本没人鸟的阿斗,就连昔日曾经被嘲讽为戏谑之作、无主之币的狗狗币,现在都稳稳地骑在他头上拉屎作威作福。

为改变自己横盘如便秘、下跌如拉稀、月进分文、日耗斗金的痞子瘪三形象,残存的bts信众决定从资金池中撬出1000万个bts作为活动资金,搞起一场声势浩大的宣传推介活动,他们相信,只要经过疯狂推广,以比特股历经5年牛熊而不归零的伟大战绩和历时5年致力于参数折腾的辉煌经历,外加众多石墨烯系创始人、布道者、资深人士、基金资本站台,自然是一挥DeFi之大旗而天下比特信众追随,足以成就去中心治理之霸业。

经多方努力,终于拉得几个恩客,颇为欢愉地进场消费。

客人A:我曹,这交易界面在某宝花300元买的套餐吧,和币安这些交易所完全不在一个档次啊,不玩了…….

客人B:我曹,内盘几十万个币,还全特么都是发币成本100块、买了就卖不出那种空气币,当我傻逼啊,不玩了……..

客人C:我曹,号称最安全的去中心化交易所,刚不小心点了个提案,资产全特么没了,不玩了……..

客人D:我曹,手续费双向千一,和CEX一鸟样,还没客服,不玩了………..

客人E:我曹,刚进来的时候市值排名30名,现在60名了,有毛前途啊,不玩了……..

客人F:我曹,转几个BTC进来,到底要换成gdex.btc、open.btc还是别的.btc???所谓的去中心化交易所,gdex、openledger跑路了,我的BTC找谁要去??不玩了…….

客人G:我曹,一个交易所只有CNY-BTS交易对有那么一点交易量,玩毛啊,不玩了……..

客人H:我曹,资金池10亿BTS随时都可以被人套出来砸盘啊,吓死我了,不玩了……..

客人I:我曹,一个自带盈利属性的去中心化的银行和交易所,见证人有钱拿,工人有钱拿,就特么我这个持有平台股权凭证BTS的股东没钱拿,玩我呢???不玩了……..

客人J:我曹,号称银河系最大的去中心化交易所,不想着在自家的平台上别人的币、赚别人的钱、割别家的韭菜,却整天指望着别人的中心化交易所能上自家的BTS和bit.CNY,指望着别人别割韭菜,本末倒置啊,不玩了……..

客人K:我曹,喂价是由外部平台和几个见证人说了算的,而不是BTS的价值决定的,不玩了……..

客人L:我曹,爆仓了,日了狗了,不玩了……..

以上内容,纯属虚构,如有雷同,纯属巧合。
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline wonder88

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2019, 09:39:25 pm »
niubility!!!

某年某月,一直叫嚣着拳打比特币、脚踢以太坊、鄙视EOS、狂怼XRP的比特股,在被市场狠狠按在地上摩擦疯狂打脸,大户勾心斗角、韭菜崩析瓦解之后,终于意识到,自己其实只是一个根本没人鸟的阿斗,就连昔日曾经被嘲讽为戏谑之作、无主之币的狗狗币,现在都稳稳地骑在他头上拉屎作威作福。

为改变自己横盘如便秘、下跌如拉稀、月进分文、日耗斗金的痞子瘪三形象,残存的bts信众决定从资金池中撬出1000万个bts作为活动资金,搞起一场声势浩大的宣传推介活动,他们相信,只要经过疯狂推广,以比特股历经5年牛熊而不归零的伟大战绩和历时5年致力于参数折腾的辉煌经历,外加众多石墨烯系创始人、布道者、资深人士、基金资本站台,自然是一挥DeFi之大旗而天下比特信众追随,足以成就去中心治理之霸业。

经多方努力,终于拉得几个恩客,颇为欢愉地进场消费。

客人A:我曹,这交易界面在某宝花300元买的套餐吧,和币安这些交易所完全不在一个档次啊,不玩了…….

客人B:我曹,内盘几十万个币,还全特么都是发币成本100块、买了就卖不出那种空气币,当我傻逼啊,不玩了……..

客人C:我曹,号称最安全的去中心化交易所,刚不小心点了个提案,资产全特么没了,不玩了……..

客人D:我曹,手续费双向千一,和CEX一鸟样,还没客服,不玩了………..

客人E:我曹,刚进来的时候市值排名30名,现在60名了,有毛前途啊,不玩了……..

客人F:我曹,转几个BTC进来,到底要换成gdex.btc、open.btc还是别的.btc???所谓的去中心化交易所,gdex、openledger跑路了,我的BTC找谁要去??不玩了…….

客人G:我曹,一个交易所只有CNY-BTS交易对有那么一点交易量,玩毛啊,不玩了……..

客人H:我曹,资金池10亿BTS随时都可以被人套出来砸盘啊,吓死我了,不玩了……..

客人I:我曹,一个自带盈利属性的去中心化的银行和交易所,见证人有钱拿,工人有钱拿,就特么我这个持有平台股权凭证BTS的股东没钱拿,玩我呢???不玩了……..

客人J:我曹,号称银河系最大的去中心化交易所,不想着在自家的平台上别人的币、赚别人的钱、割别家的韭菜,却整天指望着别人的中心化交易所能上自家的BTS和bit.CNY,指望着别人别割韭菜,本末倒置啊,不玩了……..

客人K:我曹,喂价是由外部平台和几个见证人说了算的,而不是BTS的价值决定的,不玩了……..

客人L:我曹,爆仓了,日了狗了,不玩了……..

以上内容,纯属虚构,如有雷同,纯属巧合。

Offline bench

Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« Reply #34 on: September 18, 2019, 07:07:13 pm »
BSIP45 - Add bitAsset Backing Collateral Flag/Permission
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0045.md

BSIP57 - Managed Vesting Balances
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0057.md

BSIP64 - Optional HTLC preimage length, HASH160 addition, and memo field
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0064.md

BSIP69 - Additional Assert Predicates
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0069.md

BSIP70 - Peer-to-Peer Leveraged Trading (Michel will review check latest comments)
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0070.md

BSIP71 - Add "Prevent Global Settlement" Flag for Smartcoin
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0071.md

BSIP72 - Tanks and Taps: A General Solution for Smart Contract Asset Handling
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0072.md

BSIP73 - Match Force-Settlement Orders with Margin Calls and Limit Orders
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0073.md

BSIP74 - Margin Call Fee Ratio
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0074.md

Bitshares-vision does support all BSIPs!

BSIP70 is one of the most important ones, because it enables for the first time p2p lending, which should improve liquidity and demand for BTS.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2019, 07:34:36 pm by bench »
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!

Offline Permie22

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Permie
Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« Reply #35 on: September 27, 2019, 10:24:22 am »
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=29657.0

The meeting minutes of the first Cabinet -hosted meeting between Fractalnode and Ammar Yousef on the agenda of:

Date: 21/09/19
Time: 13:00UTC
Discord Channel: “Cabinet Hosted Meeting”

Host: Cabinet, @Permie

Attendees:
@fractalnode
@AmmarYousef

Foreword/Introduction:

This is the first of a planned series of Cabinet-hosted meetings between small groups of BitShares supporters to discuss particular BitShares-wide issues and communicate a vision for the future. Multiple small-group meetings each discussing similar topics will help each other to see other perspectives and co-operate to reach a negotiated shared vision with some compromises. A compromised but united vision is superior to a variety of disjointed “purist” visions when it comes to BitShares voter governance.

Worker Proposals getting in and out of the funding zone due to competing visions does not make stable governance. Successfully implementing a subjectively “inferior” negotiated (but still positive) plan is more beneficial than starting and subsequently abandoning a subjectively “superior” un-negotiated plan.

Points to discuss:

BitShares is owned and operated by the community of bts holders. What is the goal of the BitShares community?

What does BitShares offer the world?

How can this community push the bts project forward?

How to enhance BitShares’ value proposition?

What challenges is BitShares facing? Describe your perspective on:

Governance

Voter Apathy - most bts stake does not vote.

Public Relations and Branding

Cascading SmartCoin Margin Calls. (Large topic)

DEX Liquidity

What should BitShares do next? Describe your perspective on:

Uniting the bts community behind a shared vision.

A rising bts price. Why does it rise? Speculators buying on technical analysis? Increased PR? Fee income?

Short term planning vs long term planning.

How important is the focus on the price and key Technical Analysis  price-points in encouraging new-holders; for speculators? For long term holders?

Is BitShares out of  “startup mode” yet? - Should bts be a profitable DAO as soon as possible? Or should it be spending now to create profitable income for the community in the future?

Introduce yourself:

Fractalnode: 5-10 mins to outline a brief summary of your perspective on what you think is the biggest problem for BitShares currently.

Ammar: 5-10 mins to outline a brief summary of your perspective on what you think is the biggest problem for BitShares currently.

Main discussion:

As a group going through the above list 2 to 2.3.3.2 and discussing each perspective and discussing points that can be compromised to reach a goal that is acceptable to the most bts holders. If only some of these topics can be discussed that is ok.

Offline Ammar Yousef (ioBanker)

Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« Reply #36 on: September 30, 2019, 08:26:56 pm »
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=29657.0

The meeting minutes of the first Cabinet -hosted meeting between Fractalnode and Ammar Yousef on the agenda of:

Date: 21/09/19
Time: 13:00UTC
Discord Channel: “Cabinet Hosted Meeting”

Host: Cabinet, @Permie

Attendees:
@fractalnode
@AmmarYousef

Foreword/Introduction:

This is the first of a planned series of Cabinet-hosted meetings between small groups of BitShares supporters to discuss particular BitShares-wide issues and communicate a vision for the future. Multiple small-group meetings each discussing similar topics will help each other to see other perspectives and co-operate to reach a negotiated shared vision with some compromises. A compromised but united vision is superior to a variety of disjointed “purist” visions when it comes to BitShares voter governance.

Worker Proposals getting in and out of the funding zone due to competing visions does not make stable governance. Successfully implementing a subjectively “inferior” negotiated (but still positive) plan is more beneficial than starting and subsequently abandoning a subjectively “superior” un-negotiated plan.

Points to discuss:

BitShares is owned and operated by the community of bts holders. What is the goal of the BitShares community?

What does BitShares offer the world?

How can this community push the bts project forward?

How to enhance BitShares’ value proposition?

What challenges is BitShares facing? Describe your perspective on:

Governance

Voter Apathy - most bts stake does not vote.

Public Relations and Branding

Cascading SmartCoin Margin Calls. (Large topic)

DEX Liquidity

What should BitShares do next? Describe your perspective on:

Uniting the bts community behind a shared vision.

A rising bts price. Why does it rise? Speculators buying on technical analysis? Increased PR? Fee income?

Short term planning vs long term planning.

How important is the focus on the price and key Technical Analysis  price-points in encouraging new-holders; for speculators? For long term holders?

Is BitShares out of  “startup mode” yet? - Should bts be a profitable DAO as soon as possible? Or should it be spending now to create profitable income for the community in the future?

Introduce yourself:

Fractalnode: 5-10 mins to outline a brief summary of your perspective on what you think is the biggest problem for BitShares currently.

Ammar: 5-10 mins to outline a brief summary of your perspective on what you think is the biggest problem for BitShares currently.

Main discussion:

As a group going through the above list 2 to 2.3.3.2 and discussing each perspective and discussing points that can be compromised to reach a goal that is acceptable to the most bts holders. If only some of these topics can be discussed that is ok.

Thanks for drafting the conference, really appreciated.
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!
Committee account: iobanker-core
Ammar Yousef - CEO @ ioBanker OÜ

Offline Bangzi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • View Profile
    • Steemit: Bangzi
  • BitShares: bangzi
Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« Reply #37 on: November 02, 2019, 12:51:05 pm »
Please consider vote for Worker: 1.14.236 BAIP-Threshold to increase the number of votes required, one of the criteria to pass a BAIP(BitAssets Improvement Proposal).
Please Vote for My Witness: Bangzi
请投票支持比特股见证人: Bangzi
Witness Update: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26459.0

Offline bench

Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« Reply #38 on: November 03, 2019, 07:41:38 pm »
Please consider vote for Worker: 1.14.236 BAIP-Threshold to increase the number of votes required, one of the criteria to pass a BAIP(BitAssets Improvement Proposal).

At the moment bitshares-vision sees no benifit in increasing the threshold.
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3874
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« Reply #39 on: November 04, 2019, 12:51:57 am »
Please consider vote for Worker: 1.14.236 BAIP-Threshold to increase the number of votes required, one of the criteria to pass a BAIP(BitAssets Improvement Proposal).

At the moment bitshares-vision sees no benifit in increasing the threshold.
I didn't think you could talk on behalf of bitshares-vision.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline bench

Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« Reply #40 on: November 04, 2019, 01:20:20 am »
Please consider vote for Worker: 1.14.236 BAIP-Threshold to increase the number of votes required, one of the criteria to pass a BAIP(BitAssets Improvement Proposal).

At the moment bitshares-vision sees no benifit in increasing the threshold.
I didn't think you could talk on behalf of bitshares-vision.

Bitshares-vision does support all BSIPs!

BSIP70 is one of the most important ones, because it enables for the first time p2p lending, which should improve liquidity and demand for BTS.

Take a look above or beneath.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2019, 01:30:50 am by bench »
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!

Offline Ammar Yousef (ioBanker)

Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« Reply #41 on: November 04, 2019, 01:27:15 am »
Please consider vote for Worker: 1.14.236 BAIP-Threshold to increase the number of votes required, one of the criteria to pass a BAIP(BitAssets Improvement Proposal).

At the moment bitshares-vision sees no benifit in increasing the threshold.
I didn't think you could talk on behalf of bitshares-vision.

He's a part of bitshares-vision

I'm a fan of the idea behind segregating BitAssets parameter control from BSIP of code, I agree with the direction of having BAIP.

But as bench said, I don't see increasing number of required votes for anything would benefit bitshares now, this would let it be more harder to change these parameters while our utility token is still at early stage now.

I would always like to understand your point of view, why would we need to increase the threshold of votes required to pass a BAIP?
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!
Committee account: iobanker-core
Ammar Yousef - CEO @ ioBanker OÜ

Offline sschiessl

Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2019, 09:35:35 am »
I would always like to understand your point of view, why would we need to increase the threshold of votes required to pass a BAIP?

Same reason why a threshold for worker proposals makes sense. Keep an eye on it, just in case.

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3874
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« Reply #43 on: November 04, 2019, 08:11:30 pm »
Please consider vote for Worker: 1.14.236 BAIP-Threshold to increase the number of votes required, one of the criteria to pass a BAIP(BitAssets Improvement Proposal).

At the moment bitshares-vision sees no benifit in increasing the threshold.
I didn't think you could talk on behalf of bitshares-vision.

He's a part of bitshares-vision

I'm a fan of the idea behind segregating BitAssets parameter control from BSIP of code, I agree with the direction of having BAIP.

But as bench said, I don't see increasing number of required votes for anything would benefit bitshares now, this would let it be more harder to change these parameters while our utility token is still at early stage now.

I would always like to understand your point of view, why would we need to increase the threshold of votes required to pass a BAIP?
I didn't say that I agree or disagree to increase the threshold of BAIPs.

As commented in https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/2 , I don't think the BAIP-01 draft is ready for voting.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline Ammar Yousef (ioBanker)

Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« Reply #44 on: November 05, 2019, 10:36:41 am »
Please consider vote for Worker: 1.14.236 BAIP-Threshold to increase the number of votes required, one of the criteria to pass a BAIP(BitAssets Improvement Proposal).

At the moment bitshares-vision sees no benifit in increasing the threshold.
I didn't think you could talk on behalf of bitshares-vision.

He's a part of bitshares-vision

I'm a fan of the idea behind segregating BitAssets parameter control from BSIP of code, I agree with the direction of having BAIP.

But as bench said, I don't see increasing number of required votes for anything would benefit bitshares now, this would let it be more harder to change these parameters while our utility token is still at early stage now.

I would always like to understand your point of view, why would we need to increase the threshold of votes required to pass a BAIP?
I didn't say that I agree or disagree to increase the threshold of BAIPs.

As commented in https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/2 , I don't think the BAIP-01 draft is ready for voting.

Thanks for stating you valuable opinion, bitshares-vision would consider readiness and reasoning behind voting.
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!
Committee account: iobanker-core
Ammar Yousef - CEO @ ioBanker OÜ