ioBanker
commented
1 year ago Open source development is incredibly difficult to contribute towards without sustainable funding; a clear example of this is core-js which failed to achieve sustainable funding despite millions of daily users, leading to significant physical and psychological harm to its lead dev.
"sustainable funding" is a very perspectival wording; obviously developers of core-js had failed to convince BitShares development investors at this time to fund their work using the worker system, that's a very normal thing to happened as it is a choice; BitShares development investors are having the choice between deciding to fund any work through the worker system or through a private "one-to-one" grants and also have the full choice to stop it.
Are resources really that scarce? The reserve pool contains approx 17% of total supply, yet no worker proposal has been funded since AFAIK mid 2019 or earlier. Leaning into austerity measures during a downtrend has proven to be a fundamentally flawed neoliberal tricke-down economics measure; IMO spending your way out of a downtrend is more appropriate than to copy flawed western conservative economic policies.
Obviously I agree that some of the historically funded worker proposals may have sucked, however, I disagree that historically bad WPs should impede future development funding, especially when the focus is now on https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/issues/3583 to highly utilised BTS software; software which several gateways utilise as a reference. At a certain point without direct action it'll become more appropriate to instead direct users to actively maintained mobile & desktop wallets and to sunset the bitshares-ui web wallet interface.
Paying developers from the "reserve pool" using the worker system is a decision of BitShares development investors; hence it might impact the value of BTS negatively in every single payment as it deducts value from BTS, so a proper return of investment planning should always take a place before funding any work from "reserve pool" to make sure an equal ROI is achieved after these payments; in your specific case I highly doubt that your proposed improvements can achieve 1% as ROI of that 17% available funding, perhaps other BitShares development investors can see something else.
Further, the max supply cap of 3.6B BTS is a single mandatory/hard fork away from being raised to further grow the potential reserve pool pot. The vast majority of BTS funds do not participate in the DPOS voting mechanism, so we can't assume non-voters are on-board with the economics proposed by those who left the ecosystem a long time ago. Further, more funds on-chain going to active community members & developers strengthens decentralization against those who choose to store it all on CEX (see binance holding hundreds of millions of BTS yet providing no proof of reserves on CMC for BTS whilst being a direct competitor to BTS in both CEX and DEX terms).
Eco-system was driven intentionally to limit the growth on the expense of corruption existence within the DPOS voting mechanism which I call BitShares 5.0 Purge.
As we are promoting a free market; we do not mind Binance founder to invest in BTS nor Binance users to invest in BTS; that's their choice and we will not interfere with that, BitShares 5.0 Purge was about preventing DPOS voting mechanism to vote up workers that wouldn't have ROI which we'd achieved.
Do we compete on an equal field with other foundations? We're not on the Blockchain Grants website despite having a fully functioning worker proposal funding mechanism built into the chain, nor do we compete with graphene forks on-chain funding or CEX backed competitor DEX funding.
Thanks for the suggestions; as we are growing and participating more into grants we are aiming to participate in more partnerships with other parties for the sake of funding the development contributions.
grctest
Open source development is incredibly difficult to contribute towards without sustainable funding; a clear example of this is core-js which failed to achieve sustainable funding despite millions of daily users, leading to significant physical and psychological harm to its lead dev.
Are resources really that scarce? The reserve pool contains approx 17% of total supply, yet no worker proposal has been funded since AFAIK mid 2019 or earlier. Leaning into austerity measures during a downtrend has proven to be a fundamentally flawed neoliberal tricke-down economics measure; IMO spending your way out of a downtrend is more appropriate than to copy flawed western conservative economic policies.
Obviously I agree that some of the historically funded worker proposals may have sucked, however, I disagree that historically bad WPs should impede future development funding, especially when the focus is now on substantial required improvements to highly utilised BTS software; software which several gateways utilise as a reference. At a certain point without direct action it'll become more appropriate to instead direct users to actively maintained mobile & desktop wallets and to sunset the bitshares-ui web wallet interface.
Further, the max supply cap of 3.6B BTS is a single mandatory/hard fork away from being raised to further grow the potential reserve pool pot. The vast majority of BTS funds do not participate in the DPOS voting mechanism, so we can't assume non-voters are on-board with the economics proposed by those who left the ecosystem a long time ago. Further, more funds on-chain going to active community members & developers strengthens decentralization against those who choose to store it all on CEX (see binance holding hundreds of millions of BTS yet providing no proof of reserves on CMC for BTS whilst being a direct competitor to BTS in both CEX and DEX terms).
Do we compete on an equal field with other foundations? We're not on the Blockchain Grants website despite having a fully functioning worker proposal funding mechanism built into the chain, nor do we compete with graphene forks on-chain funding or CEX backed competitor DEX funding.