BSIP83: Decouple BitAssets from Platform Governance Process #238

jmjatlanta · 2019-10-10T12:33:07Z

Update: The current text is being revised based on discussions with the community including the Committee, and will be updated in the future

ryanRfox · 2019-10-10T12:35:35Z

ACK

bsip-0083.md

christophersanborn

Looks good.

bitcrab · 2019-10-10T15:42:48Z

this is a complete joking, right?

TechsUsInc · 2019-10-10T20:07:55Z

In reference to voting;
In my opinion this is also a perfect opportunity to include valuable BTS that is either locked up in Open Orders and/or staking and apply it towards voting with the hourly maintenance.

In reference to BP's;
I suggest each BP submit substantial collateral on regular intervals which both helps the development of the network, and it forces them to be vested in the platform. Failure to produce satisfactory from the community results in forfeiture of vesting.

bsip-0083.md

thul3 · 2019-10-10T22:20:53Z

The most stupid idea i have read about giving power of price feeds to a small group.

"It is arguable who “owns” BTS"

Is it really ?Because i thought bitshares is being run like a business and for businesses and the current commercial law and business practise is cleary adding voting rights of bought stocks via margin to the debtor.
Who is taking the risk to lose BTS?The debtor ?Or the simple holder ?
Biitshares is borrowing me money but don't allow me to buy fully worth BTS,
but just BTS without voting rights ?

If i buy with the my borrowed money EOS coins will my EOS coins also have no voting rights ?

Defenition of Collateral:
Collateral is an asset that a lender accepts as security for a loan. If the borrower defaults on the loan payments, the lender can seize the collateral and resell it to recoup the losses.

So till the collateral is not being seized the ownership of that collateral is clearly owned by the debtor

bsip-0083.md

grctest · 2019-10-10T23:09:03Z

bsip-0083.md

+### Voting Power
+The voting power of debt holders will be reduced to only the portion of collateral that exceeds full collateral valuation of the debt assets that are borrowed from the blockchain. It is arguable who “owns” BTS that are locked up as collateral in BitAsset smart contracts. The authors of this BSIP hold the view that debt holders have received BitAssets in return for their collateral (which they may have sold on the market for more BTS), and thus have given up rights to the collateral itself, at least to the portion of collateral that represents the value of the BitAssets they have received. It is only logical that by exchanging the collateral for BitAssets they have given up the rights associated with the collateral, including its voting power.
+### Worker Proposals
+Worker proposals were originally denominated in BitAssets with the intent to add liquidity in their respective markets. With BitAssets now being placed under user control, liquidity is no longer the concern of the platform. A further implication of placing BitAssets under custodian control is that workers being paid in BitAssets would be exposed to the risk of devaluation and/or de-pegging at the custodian's discretion. This BSIP aims to remedy this by allowing different payout methods deemed less risky.


Originally denominated in bitassets to offer workers a stable source of income, not just liquidity reasons.

Payment in BTS is more risky than holding bitassets; bitassets have decreased in value less this year than BTS has.

I don't think this is neccessary to include in this BSIP.

The stability promise of BitAssets has been destroyed by BSIP-76. bitCNY is effectively pegged to 0.22 BTS/bitCNY now, with the same volatility as BTS.

The goal of this BSIP is to decouple platform governance (including worker proposals) from BitAsset governance. Demanding payout in BitAssets for platform workers means they remain coupled.

When the MSSR=110%, the bitasset still have the same volatility as BTS, but i didn't find someone say that.

That is not true. Only the spread was higher.

Why is not true, when MSSR=110%, we have 20% volatility in bitasset.
When GS happen, this also destroyed the stability promise of BitAssets which has happend in bitusd, but people still trade it.

grctest · 2019-10-10T23:19:37Z

bsip-0083.md

+
+Escrow agents administering existing worker proposals presently denominated in BitAssets shall be authorized to remit worker payments in BitShares core asset, or in a BitAsset selected at the discretion of the workers and escrow agents.
+
+# Discussion


Would be great to add:

Pro/cons for changing asset ownership

Risks (regulatory responsibilities, asset flag misuse risk)

Stakeholder impact (bitasset holder, debtor, bts holder, exchanges that integrated bitassets)

The "Discussion" section is meant for including a condensed version of discussion that has taken place elsewhere. As in "We have also considered X but decided to go with Y because Z."
So feel free to discuss, the outcome can than be added here if it is deemed important.

The risks and stakeholder impact can be estimated without a prior discussion having taken place.

In some of my past BSIPs I've used the discussions section to preemptively cover both for/against perspectives for issues informally raised outwith Github.

bsip-0083.md

MichelSantos · 2019-10-16T00:57:15Z

Creation of BITASSET.MANAGER asset

If this creation is necessary? please explain.

This is the new voting token for the new BitAsset manager.

"The initial distribution will be made equal to the current BTS distribution."
"Subsequently, tokens of this new asset can be freely transferred or traded."

shulthz · 2019-10-16T01:04:53Z

Creation of BITASSET.MANAGER asset

If this creation is necessary? please explain.

This is the new voting token for the new BitAsset manager.

What's that mean of “new voting token”？

shulthz · 2019-10-16T12:40:22Z

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.

pmconrad · 2019-10-16T15:32:10Z

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.

As the title of the BSIP implies, this is exactly the point. We suggest to decouple the bitAssets from the platform. Initially, the BITASSET.MANAGER distribution will match BTS distribution. This can and will change, when the new asset starts being traded independently from BTS. "interested parties" can buy more of these tokens, and those who aren't interested can sell them.

This should be the stakeholder of BTS, not the "interested parties"

You are of course entitled to have a different opinion, but in the opinion of the authors what should happen is what this BSIP proposes.

thul3 · 2019-10-16T20:06:11Z

""interested parties" can buy more of these tokens, and those who aren't interested can sell them."

Is this a joke ?

thul3 · 2019-10-16T20:07:35Z

or the second trojan horse from dev team trying to create a possibility to give control over bitassets to private group ?

thul3 · 2019-10-16T21:18:58Z

Update: The current text is being revised based on discussions with the community including the Committee, and will be updated in the future

" As the title of the BSIP implies, this is exactly the point. We suggest to decouple the bitAssets from the platform. Initially, the BITASSET.MANAGER distribution will match BTS distribution. This can and will change, when the new asset starts being traded independently from BTS. "interested parties" can buy more of these tokens, and those who aren't interested can sell them."

COMMITTEE said cleary that it do not want to give away bitassets management to third parties.

pmconrad · 2019-10-17T05:40:26Z

COMMITTEE said cleary that it do not want to give away bitassets management to third parties.

This is reflected in the current text. The committee account will be the owner of the new manager account, which gives them full control.

second trojan horse from dev team trying to create a possibility to give control over bitassets to private group

It's not a joke, and not a trojan either. It is our opinion that BitAsset governance should be decoupled from platform governance. The title clearly says so.

It is also our opinion that currently BitAssets are effectively controlled by a small group of debt holders. The fact that witnesses have been coerced into providing a fake price feed clearly proves this.
This BSIP attempts to clean up the current governance mess by creating a clear separation of duties.

shulthz · 2019-10-17T06:18:17Z

It is also our opinion that currently BitAssets are effectively controlled by a small group of debt holders. The fact that witnesses have been coerced into providing a fake price feed clearly proves this.

This is not the fact, BSIP76 is voted in by the stakeholder of bts, if someone disagree it, he needs to bid for votes, this is very fair for everyone.
No body can coerce witnesses, but the witnesses need to follow the vote.
And don't call "fake price feed", if the authors always have this thought in the price feed, this will can't make this BSIP better, and this BSIP will can't make somthing better.

This BSIP attempts to clean up the current governance mess by creating a clear separation of duties.

Whether you admit it or not, the debt holders has a big Voting weights in the governance now.
The debt holder is tightly connected with the community and a part of community, not "interested parties" or "private group", they are inalienable part to the platform and community.
If the authors have the hostile attitude to the debt holder, can't make thing better.

pmconrad · 2019-10-17T06:23:39Z

No body can coerce witnesses, but the witnesses need to follow the vote.

Fact is that witnesses were voted out for not providing a fake feed even before the vote was active.

And don't call "fake price feed",

It is my personal opinion that the feed is fake.

But let's agree that we disagree on some points and focus the BSIP contents. The wording in the BSIP is sufficiently neutral in that regard IMO.

shulthz · 2019-10-17T06:36:41Z

Fact is that witnesses were voted out for not providing a fake feed even before the vote was active.

This is a preconceived idea, every wittness will vote out for something, it was decided by the stakeholder, and the stakeholder can't forecast the behavior of the wittness which will be actived.

Resolved

abitmore · 2019-10-25T18:00:05Z

Transferring voting rights from BTS to another token is not acceptable and should never be an option. PR reverted.

pmconrad · 2019-10-25T18:57:17Z

That is not for you to decide single-handedly!

sschiessl-bcp · 2019-10-25T19:02:38Z

Transferring voting rights from BTS to another token is not acceptable and should never be an option. PR reverted.

BTS holders may decide it, unlikely but who knows. Given the controversy this bsip might still have been merged prematurely.

What process do we have for conflicts like this? Discuss and iterate.

jmjatlanta · 2019-10-25T19:07:38Z

Evidently, the current process is if Abit likes it, he pushes it through without discussion. If he doesn't like it, he reverts it even if there was thorough discussion. I think the process needs improvement.

See #249

thul3 · 2019-10-25T19:33:29Z

Who liked it outside of the core team ?

Am asking cause i didn't saw the committee supporting it or any proxy.

pmconrad · 2019-10-25T19:34:41Z

Who liked it outside of the core team ?

That is beside the point. No single member has a veto right to anything.

thul3 · 2019-10-25T19:47:07Z

Would be nice if core could also focus on non LTM refferals to get bitshares real growth instead discussing on something which clearly has no chance to pass.

I asked core to have a look at it how it can be done since i'm not a tech guy and i guess this is currently the most important part for bitshares to get growth.Would be nice to see Core focusing on that the same way as you focus on this one.

shulthz · 2019-10-25T22:10:17Z

Transferring voting rights from BTS to another token is not acceptable and should never be an option.
We shouldn't approved any PR which clearly has no chance to pass, this is a waste of time and money.

What we are talking about is the base of BTS, this PR shouldn't be approved if we have any key disagreement on it.

MichelSantos · 2019-10-28T21:01:45Z

@shulthz I was unaware that anything could be considered "unacceptable" given the BSIPs that have have been presented to voters during the past year

ryanRfox changed the title ~~Decouple BitAssets from Platform Governance Process~~ BSIP83: Decouple BitAssets from Platform Governance Process Oct 10, 2019

pmconrad suggested changes Oct 10, 2019

View reviewed changes

bsip-0083.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pmconrad reviewed Oct 10, 2019

View reviewed changes

bsip-0083.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pmconrad mentioned this pull request Oct 10, 2019

BSIP-83: Decouple BitAssets from Platform Governance Process #239

Open

Initial commit of BSIP0083

06657d3

jmjatlanta force-pushed the jmj_bsip83 branch from c24a575 to 06657d3 Compare October 10, 2019 13:37

pmconrad previously approved these changes Oct 10, 2019

View reviewed changes

jmjatlanta marked this pull request as ready for review October 10, 2019 14:46

ryanRfox self-requested a review October 10, 2019 14:48

ryanRfox previously approved these changes Oct 10, 2019

View reviewed changes

christophersanborn previously approved these changes Oct 10, 2019

View reviewed changes

pmconrad requested review from nathanielhourt, oxarbitrage and MichelSantos October 10, 2019 15:03

nathanielhourt previously approved these changes Oct 10, 2019

View reviewed changes

oxarbitrage previously approved these changes Oct 10, 2019

View reviewed changes

sschiessl-bcp requested a review from abitmore October 10, 2019 15:15

abitmore previously requested changes Oct 10, 2019

View reviewed changes

bsip-0083.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

grctest reviewed Oct 10, 2019

View reviewed changes

bsip-0083.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

grctest reviewed Oct 10, 2019

View reviewed changes

bsip-0083.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

grctest reviewed Oct 10, 2019

View reviewed changes

bsip-0083.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

grctest reviewed Oct 10, 2019

View reviewed changes

bsip-0083.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

grctest reviewed Oct 10, 2019

View reviewed changes

bsip-0083.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

grctest reviewed Oct 10, 2019

View reviewed changes

bsip-0083.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Clarifications, changes for smoother transition

e02d4d8

pmconrad dismissed ryanRfox’s stale review via e02d4d8 October 19, 2019 16:51

jmjatlanta added 2 commits October 25, 2019 09:27

worker proposal changes

d0db1a0

Remove leftover sentence

b80ac84

ryanRfox approved these changes Oct 25, 2019

View reviewed changes

pmconrad merged commit 967bcda into master Oct 25, 2019

pmconrad deleted the jmj_bsip83 branch October 25, 2019 14:33

abitmore mentioned this pull request Oct 25, 2019

Revert "BSIP83: Decouple BitAssets from Platform Governance Process" #248

Merged

abitmore mentioned this pull request Oct 25, 2019

Re-add BSIP-83: Decouple BitAssets from Platform Governance Process #249

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

BSIP83: Decouple BitAssets from Platform Governance Process #238

BSIP83: Decouple BitAssets from Platform Governance Process #238

jmjatlanta commented Oct 10, 2019 •

edited by MichelSantos

Loading

ryanRfox commented Oct 10, 2019

christophersanborn left a comment

bitcrab commented Oct 10, 2019

TechsUsInc commented Oct 10, 2019

thul3 commented Oct 10, 2019

grctest Oct 10, 2019

pmconrad Oct 11, 2019

shulthz Oct 11, 2019 •

edited

Loading

pmconrad Oct 11, 2019

shulthz Oct 11, 2019 •

edited

Loading

grctest Oct 10, 2019

pmconrad Oct 11, 2019

grctest Oct 12, 2019

MichelSantos commented Oct 16, 2019

shulthz commented Oct 16, 2019

shulthz commented Oct 16, 2019

pmconrad commented Oct 16, 2019

thul3 commented Oct 16, 2019

thul3 commented Oct 16, 2019

thul3 commented Oct 16, 2019

pmconrad commented Oct 17, 2019 •

edited

Loading

shulthz commented Oct 17, 2019

pmconrad commented Oct 17, 2019 •

edited

Loading

shulthz commented Oct 17, 2019

abitmore commented Oct 25, 2019

pmconrad commented Oct 25, 2019

sschiessl-bcp commented Oct 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

jmjatlanta commented Oct 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

thul3 commented Oct 25, 2019

pmconrad commented Oct 25, 2019

thul3 commented Oct 25, 2019

shulthz commented Oct 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

MichelSantos commented Oct 28, 2019


		Escrow agents administering existing worker proposals presently denominated in BitAssets shall be authorized to remit worker payments in BitShares core asset, or in a BitAsset selected at the discretion of the workers and escrow agents.

		# Discussion

BSIP83: Decouple BitAssets from Platform Governance Process #238

BSIP83: Decouple BitAssets from Platform Governance Process #238

Conversation

jmjatlanta commented Oct 10, 2019 • edited by MichelSantos Loading

ryanRfox commented Oct 10, 2019

christophersanborn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bitcrab commented Oct 10, 2019

TechsUsInc commented Oct 10, 2019

thul3 commented Oct 10, 2019

grctest Oct 10, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pmconrad Oct 11, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shulthz Oct 11, 2019 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pmconrad Oct 11, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shulthz Oct 11, 2019 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

grctest Oct 10, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pmconrad Oct 11, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

grctest Oct 12, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

MichelSantos commented Oct 16, 2019

shulthz commented Oct 16, 2019

shulthz commented Oct 16, 2019

pmconrad commented Oct 16, 2019

thul3 commented Oct 16, 2019

thul3 commented Oct 16, 2019

thul3 commented Oct 16, 2019

pmconrad commented Oct 17, 2019 • edited Loading

shulthz commented Oct 17, 2019

pmconrad commented Oct 17, 2019 • edited Loading

shulthz commented Oct 17, 2019

abitmore commented Oct 25, 2019

pmconrad commented Oct 25, 2019

sschiessl-bcp commented Oct 25, 2019 • edited Loading

jmjatlanta commented Oct 25, 2019 • edited Loading

thul3 commented Oct 25, 2019

pmconrad commented Oct 25, 2019

thul3 commented Oct 25, 2019

shulthz commented Oct 25, 2019 • edited Loading

MichelSantos commented Oct 28, 2019

jmjatlanta commented Oct 10, 2019 •

edited by MichelSantos

Loading

shulthz Oct 11, 2019 •

edited

Loading

shulthz Oct 11, 2019 •

edited

Loading

pmconrad commented Oct 17, 2019 •

edited

Loading

pmconrad commented Oct 17, 2019 •

edited

Loading

sschiessl-bcp commented Oct 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

jmjatlanta commented Oct 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

shulthz commented Oct 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading