koampapapa
Member
Okay, do you know what an API is? Because there is no way it should take 3 weeks to create a bot that polls 3 exchanges and their order books.
Prioritization of fiat gateways
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
- Status
Okay, do you know what an API is? Because there is no way it should take 3 weeks to create a bot that polls 3 exchanges and their order books.
This is the kind of discussion we should be having about a budget proposal. Pros / Cons / Cost / Timing. The "automatic" payment for "public awareness" circumvents this kind of discussion.
isysd
Active member
Yes, I'm quite familiar with APIs. We've built many over the years, and this past year created our own framework for them.
https://github.com/deginner/bitjws
http://github.com/deginner/flask-bitjws
http://github.com/deginner/bravado-bitjws
Do you have any real questions or just ill-informed FUD?
I want to say that, having run one of the first consumer level Bitcoin trading bot companies (Butter-Bot); I can vouch for the fact that the process can take from several weeks to a few months, depending on how lean and reliable you want these to be. It's not a matter of hacking some code together if you want to build a quality, custom product. You have to start from the ground up for each specific application purpose.
Just my two cents.
Pablo.
Just my two cents.
Pablo.
Last edited by a moderator:
koampapapa
Member
I mostly am playing Devil's advocate here. It is a great use of funds... Dash community really shouldnt blame me for being a dick... Clearly this project was largely influenced by views expressed in previously rejected proposals (cough cough). Would have loved to play a part in building some of this, and would have done it for far less Dash too.
Also, again playing Devil's advocate, things have gotten a lot easier since Butter Bot's times. There are more libraries for each API and most exchanges offer websockets.
Last edited by a moderator:
Based on feedback from the community, and in consultation with the rest of the core team, I have added a "decision proposal" to the network to make the reallocation of the Public Awareness budget official. I think this is a good solution that addresses some of the concerns expressed here of the reallocation, and at the same time reduces the risk of unintended consequences of a (failed?) downvote of Public Awareness and upvote of a totally new proposal. The current version of the budget system certainly has some shortcomings, and unfortunately one of them is that the proposal owner cannot cancel a proposal. With a popular proposal like PR, which had 40+% net support at the time, it was unclear if we could actually get it voted out in time. While this solution is not perfect, it should go a long way toward addressing the concerns until the next, more robust, version of the governance system in 12.1 is released.
EDIT: I will also make sure that the OP on the PA project description on Dashtalk, and the description on Dashwhale are updated to ensure anyone reading the original project descriptions is aware of the change. I do not have access to those posts myself, but I will see that they are changed as soon as I can.
EDIT: I will also make sure that the OP on the PA project description on Dashtalk, and the description on Dashwhale are updated to ensure anyone reading the original project descriptions is aware of the change. I do not have access to those posts myself, but I will see that they are changed as soon as I can.
JGCMiner
Active member
Well you can find the proposal here (thanks babygiraffe):
https://www.dashwhale.org/p/PA-reallocation
And an interview with Daniel Diaz (Minotaur) about the project goals here:
Solarminer
Well-known member
Although there are some good intentions here, this is irresponsible. Like oaxaca said, this type of change needs to be voted in with a reasonable amount of discussion. This is what has happened whether intentional or not:
Split this up into the opensource plugins, the cryptocapital.io, and coinopult. Then vote them in on their own merit. But before we even put all these funds into development we should be paying the bills. Why is dash.org and dashtalk.org not paid first with these funds? Pay the bills and then put less into the fiat gateways.
Right now it looks like Dash World, which is one of the most thought out and innovative proposals, is not going to be funded. Ironically, this is at a time when we have no public awareness activities getting funded. Dash World would encourage community involvement with targeted marketing ideas to really push Dash awareness.
- This change was made with a very short timeline, basically forcing a binary decision to use the funds or loose them.
- This proposal is now so big and includes several activities. There is no way to vote on which activity has value - encouraging a yes if you want one of them.
- There is little detail on how the funds will be spent - look at all the other proposal with a detail list of deliverables.
- This decentralized exchange isn't decentralized. It is a centralized exchange with customer funds privately controlled. Something like Coinffeine or OpenBazzar are decentralized.
- Now a proposal is created to again ask - loose the funds or ok the funds. It is the same binary decision.(I appreciate the effort BabyG)
Split this up into the opensource plugins, the cryptocapital.io, and coinopult. Then vote them in on their own merit. But before we even put all these funds into development we should be paying the bills. Why is dash.org and dashtalk.org not paid first with these funds? Pay the bills and then put less into the fiat gateways.
Right now it looks like Dash World, which is one of the most thought out and innovative proposals, is not going to be funded. Ironically, this is at a time when we have no public awareness activities getting funded. Dash World would encourage community involvement with targeted marketing ideas to really push Dash awareness.
Solarminer, I understand your points about short timeline, and wanting more granular control over how resources are allotted. And while I understand those concerns, I have very different views of how this process can and should work.
There is an inherent trade-off in running any organization between the extremes of 1) granular control over every decision made, right down to whether or not to buy pencils (not that you are proposing that), and 2) "black box" handing over control to someone else without any visibility or control over spending / decisions (basically a dictatorship). While 99.99% of all people would probably agree that those two extremes are undesirable, there is bound to be disagreement over where the "sweet spot" is in between.
If you expect voting on every project and want time for the masternode owners to debate, we pay a price in the form of reduced nimbleness (due to the time needed to educate the MN owners and coordinate a vote), the loss of the ability to coordinate activities as part of an overall strategy (e.g., what if only two pieces of a three-piece strategy are voted in?), and potentially poorer decisions (because every masternode owner likely lacks the time to study every decision in detail to make the best one vs. people working on that same issue 10 hours a day).
Swing too far the other way, though, and you risk bad managers destroying value, with little control over what they are doing.
I would look to companies and non-profits as models that are time-tested and seem to work pretty well. Shareholders and big donors to these entities don't make decisions on budgets and projects. They DO decide who sits on the boards of these entities, and if performance is lacking, they vote them out. For major decisions, they do get directly involved in the decision, like whether or not to change their bylaws, whether or not to merge with another entity, whether or not to split, or perform a major buy-back of shares.
However, Dash is a new entity. We don't need months to coordinate a vote at our annual meetings. We only have about 3,600 "shares" and even fewer shareholders. So while I think we can definitely be far more inclusive of decisions than say a public company (simply because the technology allows it), I feel that the "sweet spot" is a bit closer to delegating authority to good managers than us, as MN owners, trying to get involved in too many decisions.
I believe you may be atypical. You are far more involved in the project than most MN owners and I suspect many wouldn't even want the constant burden of having to get educated and vote on every project. Most investors will probably want to delegate responsibility to a "management team", perhaps make decisions about how much overall budget to give them (maybe even for a specific type like "marketing"), but beyond that I doubt we will end up in a place where you seem to want them. I could be wrong... the voting will decide... but based on other examples in the world, this is where I suspect things will end up.
Maybe there are opportunities to have the influence you seek without all the MN owner burdens and inefficiencies that would likely result from a project-level voting system. Perhaps we need more-involved representatives from the community, like you, that can represent the interests of MN owners in some way (e.g., endorsing plans, recommending that we vote out the current PR firm because they are doing a crappy job, etc.). I think there is a "sweet spot" somewhere. Through voting, we should be able to find it. If MN owners end up with higher votes for "general items", that means they want to delegate. If those are voted down in favor of individual projects and the general expense / management team type budgets are left out, then that means they want more control. I suspect that will change as the project grows, too. I think over time, fewer and fewer individual projects will get approved and more and more "management teams" will get voted in (for managing say, "Marketing 2017"). It will be interesting... we will see. I suspect, though, that we will always have more control over Dash than shareholders have over their investments.
There is an inherent trade-off in running any organization between the extremes of 1) granular control over every decision made, right down to whether or not to buy pencils (not that you are proposing that), and 2) "black box" handing over control to someone else without any visibility or control over spending / decisions (basically a dictatorship). While 99.99% of all people would probably agree that those two extremes are undesirable, there is bound to be disagreement over where the "sweet spot" is in between.
If you expect voting on every project and want time for the masternode owners to debate, we pay a price in the form of reduced nimbleness (due to the time needed to educate the MN owners and coordinate a vote), the loss of the ability to coordinate activities as part of an overall strategy (e.g., what if only two pieces of a three-piece strategy are voted in?), and potentially poorer decisions (because every masternode owner likely lacks the time to study every decision in detail to make the best one vs. people working on that same issue 10 hours a day).
Swing too far the other way, though, and you risk bad managers destroying value, with little control over what they are doing.
I would look to companies and non-profits as models that are time-tested and seem to work pretty well. Shareholders and big donors to these entities don't make decisions on budgets and projects. They DO decide who sits on the boards of these entities, and if performance is lacking, they vote them out. For major decisions, they do get directly involved in the decision, like whether or not to change their bylaws, whether or not to merge with another entity, whether or not to split, or perform a major buy-back of shares.
However, Dash is a new entity. We don't need months to coordinate a vote at our annual meetings. We only have about 3,600 "shares" and even fewer shareholders. So while I think we can definitely be far more inclusive of decisions than say a public company (simply because the technology allows it), I feel that the "sweet spot" is a bit closer to delegating authority to good managers than us, as MN owners, trying to get involved in too many decisions.
I believe you may be atypical. You are far more involved in the project than most MN owners and I suspect many wouldn't even want the constant burden of having to get educated and vote on every project. Most investors will probably want to delegate responsibility to a "management team", perhaps make decisions about how much overall budget to give them (maybe even for a specific type like "marketing"), but beyond that I doubt we will end up in a place where you seem to want them. I could be wrong... the voting will decide... but based on other examples in the world, this is where I suspect things will end up.
Maybe there are opportunities to have the influence you seek without all the MN owner burdens and inefficiencies that would likely result from a project-level voting system. Perhaps we need more-involved representatives from the community, like you, that can represent the interests of MN owners in some way (e.g., endorsing plans, recommending that we vote out the current PR firm because they are doing a crappy job, etc.). I think there is a "sweet spot" somewhere. Through voting, we should be able to find it. If MN owners end up with higher votes for "general items", that means they want to delegate. If those are voted down in favor of individual projects and the general expense / management team type budgets are left out, then that means they want more control. I suspect that will change as the project grows, too. I think over time, fewer and fewer individual projects will get approved and more and more "management teams" will get voted in (for managing say, "Marketing 2017"). It will be interesting... we will see. I suspect, though, that we will always have more control over Dash than shareholders have over their investments.
rustycase
Active member
lol ...so much it hurts.
Those of us borg toiling away in the us being sucked dry by the vampire elite are so fortunate we may select between mickyD or takobel as we rush from our choice of salt mines to the underwater domicile where the family units reside on trips between indoctrination center and shopping malls.
P2P has Got to be an improvement !
I am newbie... and do not yet understand the details of eduffield and the core devs yet I am very pleased to see they recognize it is the 'direct fiat access ramps' which are among the greatest impediment to proper implementation of P2P.
I am nearly consumed with bitterness towards those who have saddled each and every one of us with this system.
This day I was forced to pick up the phone and ask why their digits did not travel at the speed of everyone else's...
I did Not get an acceptable answer... a hold, for possibly 21 to 30 days for a simple, direct transfer of digits.
People are gonna notice.
P2P is the only acceptable means of inter-action.
So now I gotta learn about cryptocapital.co and others similar ? So be it.
My heartfelt thanks to each and every one of the core devs.
... and all those in the community that make this work.
rc
rustycase
Active member
the voting system in us is designed to present advice to the electoral college.
...and whoever may have bought Them !
is Not a direct democracy here in us.
rc
edit... otherwise, how could She who's name shall be stricken from the history books' even be considered, by anyone who ever looked at youtube or a web article ?
Why has that person not been indicted for crime when people like you and I endure significant penalty, life-changing, perhaps, for as little as a traffic violation ??? rc
- Status