Author Topic: 4.0 投票机制变化  (Read 19983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2373
  • 世间太多瘪犊子
    • View Profile
Big holders like beos or alt can lock for 360 days 100million bts which is not an issue and get 400 million votes.Who is going to oppose them ?Where do you find on the other side 100 million bts willing to lock ?
Such a system favours big holders giving them the opportunity to get even more stronger if there is such a will from their side.


Also BTS was created as utlity token with the funcionality to be used as collateral.This voting system is in deny with that functionality as you can't participate in the ecosystem creating bitassets and getting more votes to participate in bitshares progress.


A general question.

Is a BTS holder who doesn't use his BTS better than somebody who uses his BTS in bitshares ecosystem for which it was constructed ?
The simple holder non active member gets a benefit of up to 8 times VP from his BTS where the active member who is using his BTS activly on bitshares dex gets punished for it?

A non active member should have the possibility to have up to 8 times more voting power than an active member ?


Collateral and participate ecosystem is trading behaviour not governance behaviors, the trading system and collateral system is part functions of BTS,

It's just like professional standard of the SEC staff,they can't trade in stocks,so the governance should be separated, shouldn't be effected by the trading behaviour,if the governance behaviors was effected by trading behaviour,what will happened i think we all clear about that.
Governance behaviors is not inactive, it is a very important avtive for system.

No one can stop BEOS and alt even they didn't lock to get VP, but still no one can stop the more and more vote of collateral when the price rise, then you will find there is not 36X for vote of collateral,the vote of collateral will become 100X in a very short time,then they will control everything.


I think the divergence is long locked time to get more VP, 2x/4x/8x voting power, the potential threat,if we just locked to get full VP not times VP, if it's more better?
« Last Edit: July 31, 2020, 10:14:00 am by binggo »

Offline matle85

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
My summary in English after reading Google Translate:

1.   Voter Decay – vote decay starts after 360 days of voting inactivity. The reduction is 12.5% and then a further 12.5% every 45 days. After 675 days of voting inactivity the voting weight is zero.
2.   Committee Voting – one BTS is equal to one committee vote so it can no longer be reused multiple times. If you vote for 3 people, then 1/3 of your voting weight goes to each of them.
3.   Lock Up voting mechanism – lock up BTS for increased voting power. The ratios are 180d/360d/720d eading to 2x/4x/8x voting power. You can also lock up BTS permanently and get up to 32x voting power with the remaining BTS you hold (not quite clear on this). It takes 15d to gain voting power for your lock up.
4.   Voting rules after permanent lock up takes place
4.1   Accounts without a lock up position will have zero weighting (I don’t understand this).
4.2   Collateral BTS will no longer be allowed to vote.[/li][/list]

In my view item 1, item 2 and item 4.2 sound very sensible and like an improvement to proper functioning of consensus.

Item 3 is interesting and I can understand the thought process behind it (empowering small holders etc) but I think we will see some unintended consequences when the big holders decide to lock up their holdings.

As a group I think the changes are positive for proper functioning of consensus and they eliminate some real problems/oddities that put us in a bad position. I suspect we will have some problems with the lock up voting / multiplier but hopefully less than we have now.

In terms of how it has been done…Abit has taken steps to fix a broken consensus system without first seeking approval of that broken consensus system. It is an interesting challenge of decentralised governance and consensus – if the system of decision making is broken then should it be allowed to continue its death spiral or is it better for someone to step up and make the necessary changes?


Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
Big holders like beos or alt can lock for 360 days 100million bts which is not an issue and get 400 million votes +  remaining 200 milliion votes.Who is going to oppose them ?Where do you find on the other side 100 million bts willing to lock  ?
Such a system favours big holders giving them the opportunity to get even more stronger if there is such a will from their side.


Also BTS was created as utlity token with the funcionality to be used as collateral and main currency on DEX.This voting system is in deny with that functionality as you can't participate in the ecosystem creating bitassets and getting at the same time the same amount of votes as being inactive to participate in bitshares progress.


A general question.

Is a BTS holder who doesn't use his BTS better than somebody who uses his BTS in bitshares ecosystem for which it was constructed ?
The simple holder non active member gets a benefit of up to 8 times VP from his BTS where the active member who is using his BTS activly on bitshares dex gets punished for it?

A non active member should have the possibility to have up to 8 times more voting power than an active member ?



Do we really favor inactive members over active members?

« Last Edit: July 31, 2020, 09:35:32 am by Thul3 »

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2373
  • 世间太多瘪犊子
    • View Profile
当然我可能理解这种机制是为了给bts持有量少者利用锁仓时间倍数来获取更大的声音,但是大象的腿即使瘦三圈还是比蚂蚁粗,这是任何机制都无法避开的,但可能会好过没有声音

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2373
  • 世间太多瘪犊子
    • View Profile
The whole voting system is weak.Has so many dangerous features which can be exploited to death by wealthy holders.
Take control over committee with x32 and you take control over bitassets income.
Get 11 witnesses voted in and you control the chain.

People are going to monitor and pay with their own investments to protect bitshares from these attacks ?


Personly i'm positive for voting changes but discussed within the community to not have these risky wholes and without destroying confidence that bitshares can't be controled by a single person.

This voting system mainly benefits BEOS and makes the reserve pool wide open to them to get the funding for their so desired gateway integration.

Who is going to pay millions of BTS to retort beos attempt getting funding ?
They can win ten's of millions of BTS what is the guy winning who is going to protect the reserve pool ?
Only a loss.Who is going to do that ?

This is the potential threat.

But want to get pay from the reserve pool is not a cost-effective operation,take control over bitassets income is a good way.
It is dangerous for this account to get 32X VP,if he want to picked up sesame and lost watermelon?

But it is still better than the old system, use vote of the margin position to rebalance the big vote like BEOS is another dangerous behavior,very easy lost control.

About control 11 witnesses, this the design problem of DPOS witneess, the DPOS witneess design is a disaster,let's learn the EHT2.0 and VSYS to improve it.

No design can stop the vote type like BEOS,as he control the bts in wallet directly, he is a exchange and rainfall again and again, the people love these too much...

So what i think is only locked position will have full VP,unfreeze time is more less, may be 7 days,let they go to support wittness get dividend, one witness one vote,let 21 witness to instead of committee.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2020, 08:43:01 am by binggo »

Offline matle85

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Only getting partial translation but the change to exclude collateral voting sounds completely sensible - the debt positions dominating the vote has led to fake price feeds to protect those debt positions. That can't be sustainable.

Consensus has been a mess for a while now so overall I think this one sounds like a positive change.

Locking your BTS for increased voting power...that's interesting and on paper means longer term thinking voters get more power. It may be open to abuse by big holders locking up large sums but hopefully also means smaller long term thinking holders can come together and have more of an impact.

Decaying votes feels sensible too but I need to read the details a bit.

How much difference has this change actually made to voting?

Offline lochaling

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
    • View Profile

现在的机制可能依然存在漏洞,但明显比原来的规则合理,支持

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
The whole voting system is weak.Has so many dangerous features which can be exploited to death by wealthy holders.
Take control over committee with x32 and you take control over bitassets income.
Get 11 witnesses voted in and you control the chain.

People are going to monitor and pay with their own investments to protect bitshares from these attacks ?


Personly i'm positive for voting changes but discussed within the community to not have these risky wholes and without destroying confidence that bitshares can't be controled by a single person.

This voting system mainly benefits BEOS and makes the reserve pool wide open to them to get the funding for their so desired gateway integration.

Who is going to pay millions of BTS to retort beos attempt getting funding ?
They can win ten's of millions of BTS what is the guy winning who is going to protect the reserve pool ?
Only a loss.Who is going to do that ?
« Last Edit: July 31, 2020, 06:46:25 am by Thul3 »

Offline btstodamoon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
support the fucking change

Offline mike.wang

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
support the change

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2373
  • 世间太多瘪犊子
    • View Profile
这个规则本来就是老外社区提出来的,老外肯定支持啊
BTS已经没救了,Abit一个人可以敌得过整个BTS社区和全部理事会,Abit一个人敌得过30亿BTS票权,还有什么好投票的?理事会全是渣渣了,干不过一个Abit。Abit一人即是天下。

我看到国外社区基本对这个规则意见不大啊😂,国内部分社区也没意见啊😹

至于规矩嘛,不是早就坏了嘛,MM投票换仓作弊,用未被社区投票激活的BAIP做规则不也是溜的不行嘛😹

所以不要激动😅

No the foreigner doesn't support anything which has not being implemented according to protocol.
Don't call Digital Lucifer/BEOS foreigners

We have lost rules long time ago,  the process may be not right, but the things looks not so bad, the big
affected party is cn-vote, more and more bigger vote of margin position is a more serious problem than this in the further, and we will can't do anything with it.
i don't support this process, but i support this change, maybe the change is not so good, will make beos or baozi become big vote,maybe not so good as we think in the further, but if it is more worse than now? Let's hope this process doesn't happen again.



« Last Edit: July 31, 2020, 06:12:40 am by binggo »

Offline btstodamoon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
这个规则本来就是老外社区提出来的,老外肯定支持啊
BTS已经没救了,Abit一个人可以敌得过整个BTS社区和全部理事会,Abit一个人敌得过30亿BTS票权,还有什么好投票的?理事会全是渣渣了,干不过一个Abit。Abit一人即是天下。

我看到国外社区基本对这个规则意见不大啊😂,国内部分社区也没意见啊😹

至于规矩嘛,不是早就坏了嘛,MM投票换仓作弊,用未被社区投票激活的BAIP做规则不也是溜的不行嘛😹

所以不要激动😅

No the foreigner doesn't support anything which has not being implemented according to protocol.
Don't call Digital Lucifer/BEOS foreigners

Offline ripplexiaoshan

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: jademont
这个规则本来就是老外社区提出来的,老外肯定支持啊
BTS已经没救了,Abit一个人可以敌得过整个BTS社区和全部理事会,Abit一个人敌得过30亿BTS票权,还有什么好投票的?理事会全是渣渣了,干不过一个Abit。Abit一人即是天下。

我看到国外社区基本对这个规则意见不大啊😂,国内部分社区也没意见啊😹

至于规矩嘛,不是早就坏了嘛,MM投票换仓作弊,用未被社区投票激活的BAIP做规则不也是溜的不行嘛😹

所以不要激动😅
BTS committee member:jademont

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2373
  • 世间太多瘪犊子
    • View Profile
BTS已经没救了,Abit一个人可以敌得过整个BTS社区和全部理事会,Abit一个人敌得过30亿BTS票权,还有什么好投票的?理事会全是渣渣了,干不过一个Abit。Abit一人即是天下。

我看到国外社区基本对这个规则意见不大啊😂,国内部分社区也没意见啊😹

至于规矩嘛,不是早就坏了嘛,MM投票换仓作弊,用未被社区投票激活的BAIP做规则不也是溜的不行嘛😹

所以不要激动😅

不破不立,力挺✊
« Last Edit: July 31, 2020, 05:33:46 am by binggo »