It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
(Summary from 12:00 August 7th till 12:00 August 8th)
User Achilles: Is ECAF a legal arbitration forum off-chain right now? User Paco: I would probably say onchain not offchain. Achilles: I know, but I mean off-chain my question is: When ECAF signs an order and asks for a foreign forum to help to execute, according to 1953 New York Convention, _will the foreign forum admit it if ECAF is not an off-chain legal arbitration? User Sun Tzu: In principle, the foreign court will accept the order as being an arbitration ruling. If it is disputed, then it depends what a claimant against the order says. But in principle, any arbitration can rely on the NY Convention. _
User Thomas Cox shares a conversation between him and User David P:
David P: https://github.com/EOSIO/eosio.contracts/commit/96cb73dbba6f74f2c5b45d8b136f741dc7de98b5 This requires a referendum to approve, surely we as BP’s cannot possibly implement this without consulting the community. Thomas Cox: Any change in policy or behavior like this requires community approval; it's tantamount to changing the Constitution. Same threshold required: 15% token/vote participation, 10% more yes than no, sustained for 30 continuous days. Any BP who tried to implement this without a referendum would (IMHO) be in violation of their role. David P: Good, thanks for confirming – fully aligned.
Thomas Cox: What high-level principle would favor ending the 4% inflation? What would oppose it?
User Haley Thomson: Given the challenge of building awareness for a referendum like this, it would be a shame to drop WPF to zero and then face voter fatigue when the community wants to roll out a functioning WPS. Since there is at least one group working hard on a WPS it would be ideal to combine this referendum with multiple options. 4% with new WPS, 3%, 2%, etc. Multiple referendums will result in voter fatigue for sure.
Users Rick Schlesinger and Red Giant think 4% inflation is too much. It needs to be reduced to something lower or abolished. Thomas Cox: The 4% figure was hardcoded (as was 5%) back before there was any real knowledge of what the token price would be. If EOS were trading at $0.05 or less, we'd be looking to allocate the entire 5% to keep the BPs afloat. If EOS were trading at $500, we'd be rushing to cut inflation dramatically and cut BP pay at least somewhat. (These are my guesses.)
User Sharif Bouktila: The rates for WPS and BP rewards should be reviewed annually and a budget put to referendum. 4% was the number to build a reserve. It may not be needed for projects in the coming year.
I would have loved by not to have seen a bunch of projects and teams from the community (No BPs) with projects looking for funding. All I’ve heard to date is GitHub and ECAF. _We’ve committed to allocate 10% of our rewards to EOS social projects (micro WPS), to date nobody has asked how it will work. _
Btw we’ve also committed 20% to seed invest in businesses, and have had interest in that, so it’s not as if we haven’t been communicating it. Thomas Cox: Nobody asked because it was your money, not theirs. Sharif Bouktila: That is one stipulation, they need to be better able to deliver value than us with those funds. Thomas Cox: I’ve suggested that one way to increase community beneficial tool creation is to increase BP pay, as BPs seem to be prolific at making tools and beneficial things. Sharif Bouktila: I’ve been impressed with what the BP teams have done. Would love to see a flatter pay distribution first before any more funds were considered.
User Syed Jafri: The WPS system is designed to be more like a public kickstarter on the blockchain. Not a bidding process by government agencies. Sharif Bouktila: Vendors bidding for work paid for by public funds, it’s very similar. Syed Jafri: Except for the fact that the public gets to vote on every single proposal. User Emma: A fee for submitting proposals should be included to discourage spam proposals. Thomas Cox: I totally agree, personally.
User Stephane Bisson: We have been approached by many groups wondering what the options are for funding and what the process is. Some people are certainly waiting to know more. User Vincent Fillion: Simplicity and accessibility are key. I agree with the fee. User Jem: This should be a great filter to keep out the riff raff developing country small startup teams who just clog the process with funny names and funny places. User Doghouse: _Despite what Thomas said in support of fees, some of us on the WPS team have been fighting strongly against Pay-to-play schemes for just this reason. I don't think its proponents have experience outside their developed world bubbles and so don't understand that when a barrier equals 2 weeks of groceries for a family of 4, most of us in the less developed countries are blocked completely -- unless we are able to get backers who will skew the results in favor of financial return. _
User Sun Tzu:
WPF / WPS
用户Thomas Cox分享了他和User David P之间的对话：
大卫P：https：//github.com/EOSIO/eosio.contracts/commit/96cb73dbba6f74f2c5b45d8b136f741dc7de98b5这需要一个公民投票才能批准，当然，我们作为BP不能在没有咨询社区的情况下实施。Thomas Cox：这样的政策或行为的任何变化都需要社区批准;这等于改变宪法。需要相同的门槛：15％的代币/投票参与率，同意票需要高于否决票的10％，持续30天。任何试图在没有公民投票的情况下实施行动（IMHO）都是违反违反其职责的。大卫P：好，谢谢你的确认 - 完全一致。
用户Haley Thomson：鉴于建立这样的公民投票意识是非常有挑战性的，当社区想要推出一个正常运作的WPS时，将WPF降至零然后面对心力交瘁的选民时是一种耻辱。由于至少有一个小组在WPS上努力工作，因此将这个公民投票与多个选项结合起来是理想的。 4％的新WPS，3％，2％等。众多的公民投票肯定会导致选民心力交瘁。
用户Rick Schlesinger和Red Giant认为4％的通货膨胀率过高。它需要降低到更低或直接废除。Thomas Cox：在对代币价格有任何实际了解之前，4％的数字被硬编码（之前是5％）。如果EOS的交易价格为0.05美元或更低，我们将寻求分配全部5％来维持BP的运营。如果EOS的交易价格为500美元，我们就会迅速的大幅削减通胀同时在一定程度上削减BP的薪酬。 （这些是我的猜测。）
用户Sharif Bouktila：应每年审查WPS和BP的薪酬，并将一部分预算用于公民投票。 4％是建立储备的数量。来年的项目肯能不需要用到这些预算。
顺便说一句，我们还承诺20％的种子投资企业，并对此感兴趣，所以我们并没有像以前那样沟通。Thomas Cox：没有人问，因为这是你的钱，而不是他们的钱。Sharif Bouktila：这是一个规定，他们需要能够用这些资金提供更好的价值。Thomas Cox：我已经提出，增加社区有益工具创建的一种途径就是增加BP薪酬，因为BP似乎在制作工具和有益的东西方面是多产的。Sharif Bouktila：我对BP团队所做的事情印象深刻。在考虑更多资金之前，我们希望先看到更平坦的薪酬分配。
用户Syed Jafri：WPS系统更像是区块链上的公共先驱者。不是政府机构的招标方式。 Sharif Bouktila：供应商竞标由公共基金支付的工作，它非常相似。 Syed Jafri：除了公众对每一个提案都可以通过投票决定。用户Emma：应设立提案手续费从而降低垃圾提案。 Thomas Cox：我个人完全同意。
用户Stephane Bisson：许多团体都与我们取得了联系，他们想知道资金的选择及流程是什么。有些人肯定在等着了解更多。用户Vincent Fillion：简单性和易接性是关键。我同意这笔费用。用户Jem：这应该是一个很好的过滤网，以阻止riff raff发展中国家的小型创业团队，他们只是用有趣的名字和有趣的地方堵塞这个过程。用户狗窝：尽管托马斯在费用方面表示支持，我们中的一些人在WPS团队中一直坚决反对付费游戏计划。我认为它的支持者不具备除了发达国家泡沫之外的经验，所以不明白当一个阻碍等于一家四口的2周杂货开销时，大部分在不是那么发达的国家的人都被完全封锁了 - 除非我们有能力让支持者扭曲支持财务回报的结果。