I agree absolutely – I would like to test this idea so please advance the motion
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.
1 Like
I believe so
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.
What are the competing hourly rates for competing jobs that the signers could get?
Depends what country you are from. Hourly rates can go from $1/hour to over $100 /hour in Europe and the States.
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
How about letting qualified applicants bid? The lowest bidders get the job.
The lowest bidder may or may not provide best product.
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.
2 Likes
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.
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?
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.
1 Like
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?
1 Like
Not a single response from @jooize or @Phoenix or @JordanLee within this thread that came up with a reasonable proposal. Anyone wondering?
Edit: Not even a like from @jooize…
1 Like
I am interested to hear if anyone has thought of a plan if the reputed signers are given full responsibilities of B&C.
I will support the motion for reputed signers to control the B&C fund(if any).
@Sabreiib there is no more B&C dev fund left. It was stolen. @Phoenix “lost control of it”. Current B&C dev funds are zero.
I work for Nu, not B&C Exchange. Yet there is definitely value for Nu in B&C Exchange, and it’s probably in Nu shareholders’ interests to grant the lost funds to B&C Exchange shareholders.
You work for yourself, not for Nu, you piece of shit.