Re-add BSIP-83: Decouple BitAssets from Platform Governance Process #249
Conversation
abitmore
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
all his previous comments had been addressed and no further feedback has been provided for several days
Actually not all the concerns have been addressed. Comments moved to this PR.
Also there are lots of comments made by @grctest in the original PR (#238).
ryanRfox approved these changes 6 hours ago
@pmconrad pmconrad merged commit 967bcda into master 6 hours ago
By @abitmore in #238 (comment)
Transferring voting rights from BTS to another token is not acceptable and should never be an option. PR reverted.
By @pmconrad in #238 (comment)
That is not for you to decide single-handedly!
IMHO nor you have 2 people with 4 hands so you can decide over the community.
|
|
||
| At the hardfork date, the accumulated fees of the existing BitAssets will be transferred to the committee-account. | ||
|
|
||
| **Creation of BITASSET.MANAGEMENT asset** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As mentioned in #242 (comment),
A voting token would not have value if it tracks the voting weight of another token well (which is hard), in that case it is a simple utility token carries one role for another token. When we have this BSIP (token-based voting), I'd expect that people would directly vote with the tokens they already have but not create new tokens only for voting, because it would be economically much cheaper.
This is also the reason that I don't agree with the MANAGEMENT token idea proposed in BSIP83, because the new token can't track the distribution of BTS well in the long run. That idea means to privatize committee-owned smartcoins, which is something similar to STEALTH, and would divide the community.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mentioned by @shulthz in #238 (comment):
I don't think the “Creation of BITASSET.MANAGER asset” is necessary.
This will also push the bitasset to be a third party, it's no different with before words.
What's the right method is which the stakeholder of BTS vote the price feeder and committee of bitasset.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These your are opinions. The authors have a different opinion. Approve the proposal and let the community decide.
abitmore
changed the title
|
"Write a BSIP" has long been your montra @abitmore and so the authors did just that. The role of the BSIP Review Team is to get the specification to "done" so the Community can vote to approve/reject it. By usurping the power to an individual and reverting the merge the Community has been denied their voice. Decentralization and openness are paramount this project if it intends to retain any shred of dignity and respect. |
|
Transferring voting rights from BTS to another token is not acceptable and should never be an option. What we are talking about is the base of BTS, this PR shouldn't be approved if we have any key disagreement on it, and i didn't find any widely discussion in the forum, don't act like a baby. |
We do not decide over the community. We make a proposal to let the community decide. You refuse to let the community decide. Btw, BSIP-76 was created, approved and merged by 2 people, without discussion.
Core Team did this on their own time. You are free to not waste your own time here. |
I think i have said very clearly. I still waste my time in here, WHY, as the core team make a such ridiculous in there! This will waste everyone's time. Core team should focus on what they should do, and remember the responsibility of core team is maintaining the code not political game(Military Politics). |
|
I believe that the new voting token is not necessary. and it may bring bad. BSIP83 is not as urgent as BSIP76, so sufficient discussion is needed to resolve key debate. at the beginning BSIP83 suggest cn-vote be the owner of bitCNY, this sounds to me like a joking, now, the new token suggestion is not acceptable. I don't think it's time to put such a BSIP to voting now, as it is still in debate, it is on BTS base and not urgent. |
|
Like I said, what you think about the voting token is irrelevant. It is not your decision. This is a decision for the community. |
This is not a decision for the community. This is someone's decision want to force the community to vote it and impose personal idea on the community. You tell me this BSIP is technically complete, did BSIP84 has voted? or you didn't need it? |
This is clearly rubbish. The community is free to vote for it or not. That's the point of having votes, instead of the dictatorship this is becoming. Refusing the community the right to vote is imposing personal ideas, not asking them for a vote.
Oh, you mean like with BSIP-76? Suddenly it's not OK anymore? Once again: the BSIP process is not for filtering out BSIPs that certain people dislike. It is for bringing proposals into a generally agreed form, so when a vote is put up it is clear what the vote is about. This clarity has been achieved with BSIP-83, so there is no legitimate reason to refuse its inclusion, much less for removing it. |
|
BITASSET.MANAGEMENT is a good thing! |
|
Privatizing BitAssets is probably not a bad thing overall. However it's a huge change to a major economic model in BitShares, so IMHO we need to be extremely careful. Essentially it introduces the MAKER-DAI-ETH structure into BitShares by extracting some value from the core token (BTS) into a new token.
IMHO the draft as the current status is not yet ready for voting. We had STEALTH which was also privatization, which rushed for voting in the past, and we all can see where it has led us to (see #205). IMHO the draft needs to contain analysis about pros and cons in economics, governance (politics) and game theory so that the voters would have a clearer picture about it when voting, but not only techniques thus voters would vote cluelessly. Here are some points that I have thought of (some are already in the draft):
I wish more people to join the discussion seriously. |
The same was true when you decided to deliberately break the BitAsset peg, which has destroyed all credibility of our SmartCoins. You are applying double standards, and using this as an excuse for blocking out other opinions.
Yes, that's the point.
The community already is divided. The authors believe that the more-or-less recent changes to the BitAsset product has damaged the reputation not only of the BitAssets, but also of the platform.
No. Currently, the market fees end up in the committee account. The core token holders receive nothing. The committee is using the funds as it sees fit, without asking for the token holders' opinion, so the funds are out of reach for token holders.
This is only true if the holders of the BITASSET.MANAGEMENT tokens sell off their BTS after receiving the management tokens. The bitasset manger can use market fees for development. They can also propose core changes that are of general interest for all SmartCoins, and ask for platform funding. Apart from that, the same is true for all the other non-BitAsset SmartCoins and their owners. Which, again, is the point of this BSIP.
By what logic would the new token be a security but BTS wouldn't?
No. It is up the BTS shareholders to withdraw their BTS in time for the proposed sharedrop of BITASSET.MANAGEMENT. After the sharedrop they can send their BTS back again. Existing businesses don't have to care about this at all.
No, because it doesn't matter to them any more than e. g. the difference between BTS and HERTZ. |
Merging of a draft BSIP isn't the same as immediate implementation, despite the attempted precedence of BSIP76. Refer to your own comments than mine.
Again, merging a draft BSIP isn't the same as the community/network accepting/approving forced implementation. This is still in planning stages not being forced down anyone's throats unlike how BSIP76 was.
What absolute nonsense, these are your opinions not hardcoded rules/constitution in the BTS network/platform. I've written multiple BSIPs which will likely not be implemented in the near future, but their unlikelihood of implementation should not disqualify their creation. Further if we're talking about key disagreements disqualifying BSIPs, then how the heck is BSIP76 acceptable when so many people fundamentally disagree with its manipulative proposals and underhanded schemes relied upon for implementation? Seems very much like rules for thee but not for me, eh?
It's not the base of BTS, it's about changing owners of a very small subset of smartcoins to prevent their failure directly damaging the BTS network's integrity/stability. BSIP76 was forced down our throats without community input, without proper wp votes and without blocking due to disagreement; you're making up rules. They already said they did this on their own time, not on core dev wp time, so their core status shouldn't prevent them writing this BSIP. As BTS users they have an equal right to contribute towards BSIPs, don't talk down to people like this.
It may bring bad? What? Please complete your sentence coherently.
BSIP76's urgency was fake & it fully disregarded all past BSIP processes by being implemented prior to any WP activating through intimidation/coercion of price feed publishers to the direct detriment of the network's stability & bitasset/bts branding.
This has now changed, bringing it up is irrelevant.
Don't pretend to care about the voting mechanism when you support BSIP76's fraudulent implementation 😂
You're making rules out of thin air, I've created multiple BSIPs in the past where I picked a BSIP number myself (the next available numbers) then submitted the pull request which was merged in a draft status for future discussion and eventual voting. Just because it's merged with a BSIP doesn't mean it'll be forced down our throats, unlike BSIP76 fraudulently was.
So was the decision by a very small group of intimidators/coercers to force price feed publishers to submit fake price feeds ahead of BSIP76 polls passing, we're now dealing with the aftermath to avoid such incidents inflicting further network deterioration.
Why were such pro/cons & game theories omitted from your BSIP76? Sounds like delay tactics than standards you adhere to yourself.
BTS holders don't receive any income directly from bitasset market fees. Multiple BSIPs in the past attempts this but received little to no support.
Market fees are sufficient at the moment to cover the minute cost of price feed script development.
That's what BTS is for, this BSIP doesn't propose to erase BTS rather sharedrop the new token onto BTS holders.
You have no problems misleading bitasset holders about the current valuation of said tokens. |
|
@abitmore, can you elaborate on some points that @grctest made please? @pmconrad boiling down, this BSIP requires only two things for the protocol upgrade:
Is that correct, or did I miss something? Most controversy left seems to stem from introducing new voting token. Splitting it up, there could be the following subsequential steps: a. Disable Step a. is already done. Can you please elaborate what benefits / downsides you see going from b. to c.? |
Elected authorities as specified in BSIP-84 are not possible with BTS. See BSIP-84 for an explanation.
The goal of this BSIP is a complete separation of the platform from the BitAsset product. In the authors' opinion, the image of the platform has been damaged severely by BSIP-76, which is seen as fraudulent by some community members. The proposed decoupling will hopefully restrict future damage to the BitAsset manager instead of the platform and the community as a whole. Not switching BitAsset management to a separate asset will retain the connection between BTS, which is the platform's core token, and BitAsset management. In consequence, any future fraudulent actions performed by BitAsset management will ultimately be done within the responsibility of BTS shareholders, and will thus be a problem of the platform, not only a problem of the product. |
Yes, I was refering to #249 (comment) and the reasonable questions within. |
|
Just FWIW, it's mentioned in BSIP-01: BSIP Purpose and Guidelines:
If we have questions about the process, perhaps better revise BSIP-01 first. |
|
@sschiessl-bcp can we merge this now? I don't see any unanswered questions left. Except some rhetorical ones perhaps. |
|
This BSIP has a dependency, namely #81. I've put further thoughts there. |
|
Main problem on this idea is that majority of the community loses confidence on bitfiat if its hold by a third party which after time can't be controled anymore. Posting something like that "No. It is up the BTS shareholders to withdraw their BTS in time for the proposed sharedrop of BITASSET.MANAGEMENT. After the sharedrop they can send their BTS back again. Existing businesses don't have to care about this at all." Just proofs our claim that you would destroy the communities confidence in bitfiat. I also would like to remember since you demand yourself to stick on protocol "Asking the BitShares community first if an idea is original helps prevent too much time being spent on something that is guaranteed to be rejected based on prior discussions (searching the internet does not always do the trick). It also helps to make sure the idea is applicable to the entire community and not just the author." I guess the author has become a clear answer from committee aswell from community |
No. bitFIAT has already been killed by BSIP-76. Our proposal intends to save the BitShares platform from receiving further damage due to criminal activity by bitFIAT debt holders.
The comment that you quoted was in response to abit's claim that the proposed changes affect 3rd party businesses. This is completely unrelated to bitFIAT.
Guessing is irrelevant. We vote so we don't have to guess what the community wants. There is clear indication that parts of the community are in favour of the proposed separation, and there is clear indication that a majority supports part of the proposed separation (i. e. separation of price feed from block production is already in place, separation of bitasset management discussion from BSIP process is already in place). I therefore think our proposal is valuable, and there is nothing to support your implication that it "is guaranteed to be rejected". Again, we vote to find out if something is rejected or not. |
|
Your wording is funny,criminal activity. Ethereum hard forked to get back its users funds from hackers ,i guess that was also a criminal activity? Binance freezing trading when trying to protect user asset must be also criminal activity since price is during that time changing and people can't do anything. Seems any action to protect users asset against manipulation is in your eyes criminal activity. I recommend to research about duties as exchange you need to fullfill to protect your users asset against manipulations.
Somehow i still see it being used by nearly all users as before.So how has it been killed ?
Its very realted to bitfiat.Abit raised a valid concern that for example BEOS would get a massive amount of that bitasset management coins which they are not forced to redistribute between their rain dropping users. "Asking the BitShares community first if an idea is original helps prevent too much time being spent on something that is guaranteed to be rejected based on prior discussions" Even one of the authors said he knows that BSIP has no chance to pass. But of course you can proof me wrong to name some supporters of that BSIP which voting power have any kind of influence on the result.
You have talked to committee which clearly refused that idea.Nearly all main proxies also refused that idea so you can read above why it's a time waste . Of course like mentioned before you can proof me wrong and name any supporters with any voting relevancy who would be in favour of that BSIP as even some of your authors clearly said it has no chance to pass. Also for your information BSIP76 is a temporarly action to implement protection against manipulations which is already being worked on. Your proposal is a permanent disaster |
Those manipulations have never been proven. Now, after two months, the "temporary" solution is still in place, despite the fact that the current market situation has obviously nothing to do with the alleged "shorting attack". It is clear that BSIP-76 only serves to protect the debt holders from taking losses, at the cost of asset holders.
Nobody with a sane mind will ever trust bitFIAT again, because BSIP-76 is proof that debt holders can and will deprive asset holders of their token value at any time.
Users who are interested in bitasset management can withdraw their BTS from BEOS before the change. Those who aren't, don't have to - it's their choice. (I would assume that anyone who has given their BTS to BEOS either doesn't care about voting anyway, or is happy with the way BEOS are voting using their assets.) The same goes for other businesses like CEXs. The rest of your comments is irrelevant. Never before has it been a requirement to present voters before even merging a BSIP. We have an on-chain voting process in place, there is no need for performing a separate vote on merging a proposal into the repo. That's ridiculous. |
|
Ultimately, BSIPs should present themselves holistically to allow the BTS holders an informed decision. If that is present in a comprehensive manner, I don't see reasons why there should be censoring or any forbidden topics at the stage of merging (with exceptions of course). One of the BSIP repositories guidelines is to keep the BitShares philosophy. Now who decides what is the BitShares philosophy? For me, the current focus is on finalizing BSIP-0084, since it is a requirement for this BSIP. If that is not accepted, this BSIP as it is simply can't be realized as it is. |
I'm sorry if your brain is unable to process the evident manipulations.
Thats your opinion which i can proof wrong since i used USDT to buy more bitfiat.
Based on that statement i can guarantee you majority of bitfiat holders would spit blood on you.
This BSIP harmed enough core members who know exectly it won't pass. I have been contacted by some core members who clearly said they know it won't pass and letting me know they are also against it. Seriously explain to me what the goal is when everyone knows it has no chance to pass voting but will surely publicly discredit cores ability to find good solutions I know you don't live in a reality but i can tell you based on your comments should your BSIP be implemented ZB and BEOS would get control over Bitfiats. I'm sure people will "regain" full trust in bitfiat when these 2 get control over bitshares bitfiat. Also the political game and bait tactic some core members did gives a very bad taste. Thats disgusting for a core team which in my eyes received correct admonitions from other members that they exceed their competence as this BSIP was proposed as core team and not individuals. The conference with committee was also advertised as finding a solution with core team and not some individuals. I would also like to add that core members like Peter call BSIP76 supporters and debtors criminals but made at the same time cn-vote the bait offer to give them full control and income over bitcny. |
The current governance system has proven to be corruptible. We're not proposing a more trustworthy governance solution, we're trying to contain this breach of trustworthiness to bitassets only instead of letting it taint the whole platform. Whoever the new bitasset manager will be, it will be their job to establish new trust.
Just more double-standards arguments. You didn't care about harming people or dividing the community when you enacted BSIP-76.
This is not a core team proposal. We have always stressed that the authors have come up with this on their own time. Given our role it is of course not always easy to uphold the distinction, especially because it's a core job to look for solutions. |
|
In other ways, i think this is right in some points. The vote weight of debtor should be balanced as the margin ratio. |
|
Even i don't agree your point about decouple BitAssets from Platform Governance Process, but i think we should and must remove the vote power of margin positions, if we didn't remove these vote power, one day BTS will be destoryed by these margin positions vote power. |
Against all processes in our community, BSIP-83 has been removed at the decision of a single community member, despite the fact that all his previous comments had been addressed and no further feedback has been provided for several days.
This PR re-adds the BSIP.