[Discuss] Motion of reputed signers take charge of B&C development fund management

Sabreiib 2016-07-05 05:19:09 UTC #1

Let’s talk about it!

Should we ask Angela and Jordan hand over the dev fund to reputed signers?

Reputed signers then negotiate with @sigmike about how to pay the software development.

Here is the example:

Signers: hi sigmike, we want to implement cold minting on B&C, what’s the cost?

Sigmike: I need 20,000$ to finish that work in one month.

Signers: We"ll discuss it and during the process, other developers may provide reference and community also can talk about it.

One week later

Signers: How about 15,000$? You can finish it within 2 months.

Sigmike: Ok. You should know that although my man hour rate is high, I spend less time to finish this work, so the total cost is relative low.

Signers: Yes. It’s meanless to focus on hour rate because different developers have various time to finish it. And We’ll pay you half in advance and another half after you releasing new version and it runs smoothly. You are the general contractor, you may hire other developers or code by youself, we don’t interfere you because we only care about the result: good quality product.

crypto_coiner 2016-07-05 05:36:27 UTC #2

A kind of BFT?

Sabreiib 2016-07-05 05:59:54 UTC #3

Yes, something like BFT, but reputed signers are long term position, as long as BCE’s life circle, although some of them can be replaced by others, the position of reputed signers are always there. And their responsibility:

1)Before BCE operation

Management of dev fund, discuss project direction with sigmike and community. Payment for developers

Host new crowdfund if nessesary.

2)After BCE operation

Comfirm transaction, arrange dividend, software development payment and crowdfund if needed.

crypto_coiner 2016-07-05 06:06:33 UTC #4

That sounds good and I would love to have the same reputed signers for Nu, btw

Sabreiib 2016-07-05 06:14:00 UTC #5

Because there are competitions among reputed signers and candidates, signers will try their best to implement the passed motion. Any signers fails to finish his work several times, in spite of whatever reasons, will be fired and a new one will replace him. In this way, motions become “dry codes”.

One more thing is the compensation, they should get some reward, but in this situation, I hope some volunteers to do such work, I"ll try to be one of reputed signers for free, untill BCE begins to receive enough revenue.

mhps 2016-07-05 06:28:32 UTC #6

I think signers should be a specialized group that does signing (actually maintaning signing bot server) only. The positions are highly competed to bring the cost down and performance up.

These people may not have the expertise and time for management work.

See how NU FLOT worked. Most volunteers (or people paid at minimal wage) cannot last if they have to work/pay attention more than a few times a week.

crypto_coiner 2016-07-05 06:41:09 UTC #7

I agree absolutely – I would like to test this idea so please advance the motion

Cybnate 2016-07-05 08:17:57 UTC #8

Don’t want to ruin the party, but how do you think this can happen? Passing a motion moving the funds into multisig and ask Jordan to comply?
This may get interesting, but I believe is one of the first steps. We need some decent funding to continue the development work. Besides all the B&C funding is in NBT. Even though Phoenix is doing some frantic attempts, I’m sure he wouldn’t succeed establishing a peg for a while if we going to spend a lot of NuBits for B&C devleopment which end up on the sell side.

I’m fine to be party of a multisig fund with the dev funds and keeping track of work and spending on development. But there has to be some kind of a reward even if it is relatively low or in the future. E.g. some BKS when reaching milestones.

This may proof more difficult. Crowdfunding comes with liabilities and most likely issuing shares. I can’t make myself available for that.

Good point, we may start with some overlap during the start, but when things get busy it will likely need to be dedicated roles. The reputation system is mainly for signing performance. Management performance likely needs other measurements. Maybe the reputation system can still be used for it with a tweak.

crypto_coiner 2016-07-05 08:34:58 UTC #9

I believe so

Cybnate 2016-07-05 09:41:19 UTC #10

I think we need a discussion about rewards for signers.
Assuming we start with say 6 signers and a reward of 0.005 BKS per block. That means 0.005 * 3600 blocks = 18 BKS/day shareholders will need to pay. Signers will get a share of that based on their reputation. When all things equal they will each get 3 BKS/day. Just gauging what aspiring signers and shareholders think. Is that a fair amount? Too low, too high?

Edit: my apologies calculations are wrong; a day has not 6060 blocks but 6012 blocks = 720. We can still assume the 3 BKS/day as example though.

crypto_coiner 2016-07-05 10:41:29 UTC #11

What are the competing hourly rates for competing jobs that the signers could get?

Cybnate 2016-07-05 11:00:23 UTC #12

Depends what country you are from. Hourly rates can go from $1/hour to over $100 /hour in Europe and the States.

irritant 2016-07-05 11:10:44 UTC #13

our current economy is flawed, and imo one of the flaws is payment per time period, it invites you to spend more time on a job, instead when paid per job it makes it more profitable to work faster

mhps 2016-07-05 12:35:00 UTC #14

How about letting qualified applicants bid? The lowest bidders get the job.

Sabreiib 2016-07-05 13:15:19 UTC #15

The lowest bidder may or may not provide best product.

Sabreiib 2016-07-05 13:37:59 UTC #16

Jordan said:

I have not received any compensation from NuBits since November 1, becaluse it is important for me to minimize my work with NuBits in order to properly focus on B&C Exchange. Mike is the Lead Developer on the project, and Angela handles invoices from contractors. I am eager to hand these funds over to others and a transition toward that end is well underway but not yet mature. Just as I provided incentives for the formation of FLOT, I will need to provide additional incentives for another backup liquidity operator to step up to replace me. We also need to designate someone (or multiple people) to hold development funds.

Sorry if this isn’t top notch service, but I am handling these funds for free and don’t want to do it anymore. Accordingly, I am not very interested in investing my time into improving the process.

Ultimately, I need to not hold any shareholder funds in order for the network to be completely decentralised. We are getting there at a pace that is sensible.

Sabreiib 2016-07-05 13:42:03 UTC #17

To sum up, Jordan dosen’t want to be the leader of B&C project nor hold the development fund either.

So let’s finish his wish.

mhps 2016-07-05 13:49:19 UTC #18

it’s a technicality of bidding – you have to find a way to choose winners. if you don’t choose the lowest bidder, why bidders want to lower prices? if they don’t lower prices, why bidding?

Sabreiib 2016-07-05 16:06:43 UTC #19

According to my experience in real world, I mean the petrochemical industry, the lowest price bidder sometimes provide less quality than average bidders. This is common in a refinery project of billions USD.

Evaluation of bid is a complicated work, sometimes we pick the lowest price, sometimes, we should choose the bidder with best combination of price and quality.

Picking the lowest price bidder without considering other factors is an oversimplified way.

backpacker 2016-07-05 17:36:31 UTC #20

As long as devs make informative proposals and shareholders decide based on them and their previous performance, a decision by shareholders who to pick should be pretty accurate. Wouldn’t you agree?