Has the community voting aspect of SFT changed? I no longer see it on the website at all. It was a major part of Safex throughout the years and now it’s seemingly gone from the website. An update on that would be great. Thanks.
2 Likes
I see this post is being purposefully ignored by the team. Guess the answer is community voting is vetoed after all these years.
I fear you are right, community voting was one thing that convinced me for safex.
Being able to vote who gets the development funds would make it really decentralized and not so dependend on Single person /team…
Not that I would not vote for the current team, they are slow but they are working, but on the long term it would be great to know that development is decentralized aswell…
But you can only implement something like that if you belive more in decentralization than in profit (probably the reason Noone else has it as far as I know)
I hoped Dan really was that idealistic man…
And community voting without dev fund voting would be worthless, cause there is nothing to ensure voting results will be followed by devs.
1 Like
I think it’s pretty obvious @dandabek and the rest of the safex team doesn’t give a shit about you or anyone else here.
Why not take a few minutes to answer a pretty easy question? It’s because they’re too busy!
But he has time for useless tweets like this:
Priorities I guess. The good thing is we are only 5 days away from a functional marketplace with dividends and a whole bunch of people lined up and ready to sell their stuff there. Plus marketing is running full force since August. You’ve seen all the advertisements and articles to market this thing right? Of course you did.
We’re in great shape.
For this, tell me: which development funds? you mean the ones from my pocket?
First of all, we would need to establish that we have some kind of community pool then we can decide what system to distribute those funding to if it happens at all. (Consider bitcoin, without some kind of funding pool and still gets along)
We only had $$ to hire developers since 2018 and that started in April. There is nothing slow about how we managed considering how Bootstrapped the whole thing is in the end. Can’t believe you people complain about this stuff.
Exactly.
======
Then in the first place. You can write all you want and vote all you want. But it is the software that enforces the rules.
You can all vote that the button is red. But if no one downloads that version then it doesn’t matter what the vote was.
In Blockchain it is a little bit more advanced than that. But basically if you wanted let’s say that the 5% was 10%, only if the majority of the group adopted that software (Not Tokens) would we enforce that new change.
In simple terms the software won’t care what your tokens tally up to if the group doesn’t adopt it.
The same situation in Bitcoin: when the bitcoin cash fork happened. It was a change of opinion and it led to a totally separate network. More lessons on how this decentralization works will be needed.
The best part is how clueless and wrong you are. I did not spend a dime on marketing until 2 months ago. 
I can’t believe how much you don’t give a shit. You listened to some random influencers on the internet bought a token the next day and expected magic within nights.
That magic is coming anyway, you’re right this idea doesn’t care about anyone, not even me. You have 0 clue how much effort and work went into making this, have 0 clue what it takes to put all these pieces together. You have no right to write like this.
In a few weeks when first version is on testnet, I’ll tell you it was easy anyway. You didn’t deserve my comment if you felt you should write to us those things.
6 Likes
On the other productive side:
I believe that the next step after v1 marketplace, we assign developers to create a platform that allows us to fund features and issues.
For example: the next feature after sell offer should be the auction. If we had this platform we could describe the feature we would like to see, fund it, take developers who apply to produce it, give a time scope, and payment is made on the schedule that is defined on the platform: such as if it is a simple feature then a fixed payment on delivery, if it is a bigger part it can be broken down and paid out on milestones.
This platform only operates on safex cash, it could be embedded into the blockchain as well. It would be possible for token holders to redirect their rev incomings directly to fund the feature for example: say you had 10,000 sft and it produced 10 sfx per day.
You set out a feature to change the color of the button to red, you offered 100 sfx to do it, and so you assign your 10,000 sft for the next 100 sfx to be paid out to your feature proposal and in 10 days it would be funded and active to go.
In this way features that become popular and could improve our platform could rally support of token holders and they would be able to contribute any part towards moving the development ahead on that proposal.
10 Likes
I’m speaking about the treasury that was mentioned in the bluepaper. I know it’s not there yet since the marketplace is not there, but voting was on the Roadmap once and it still makes sense on the roadmap even through it would not make sense to implement before marketplace. The point we are speaking about is not that it’s not implemented yet, but the question is why it’s removed from roadmap.
I also think lot of people have a wrong understanding of voting because of to little understanding of software development, but there could be some things that could be voted on based on smart contract as who get’s dev funds, payout intervals, marketplace fees (how much for creating a account, how much % fee, etc, that could be decided by a smartcontract based on voting aswell instead of beeing hardcoded, but of course new features can’t be voted in, there it only makes sense to vote for the team that would implement it to get (part) of the treasury funts. - of course it’s always a question as well how intelligent it would be to put everything to voting. I don’t know how many would vote the fees to high in short term greet and destroying the whole community with that, but the idea of having it free to decision sound attractive.
The question is if the owners of 50%+ of Tokens are those who can make educated decisions or if not ;/
@dandabek So is that a yes or no to remove community governance over proposals going forward as described in the blue paper? Has that all changed? I understand if no one adopts the new one it doesn’t matter. That’s not what I’m asking. I want to know if you altered things from the blue paper to remove the sft voting? That’s all. Because the blue paper clearly says there will be a fund. If you’re changing things this drastically an updated paper is needed to settle the confusion you’re creating.
As far as marketing… you hired/fired Milan to market in 2017. Same with the expecting magic comment. That’s uncalled for. You did post one week from Black Friday the MP would be ready Black Friday 2018. It wasn’t our expectations of expecting magic. That was yours. Some of us didn’t forget that. I’m not interested in the extra bs though. Your mistakes are there for the world to see. I simply want to know if you removed sft voting that was promised/posted about for years. Simple yes or no.
How is it I make a forum post with a yes/no question and my question is the one that gets glossed over? It’s my thread lol wtf
To be honest, premining was not that much and it was kind of necessary to get a stable network first. You can’t blame them for that. There are coins with serious premining, true, but Safex is not one of them, and they actually let others a litte more tech savey people in quite early, I also mined a couple of blocks with 100 H/s in a Virtual Maschine on my laptop in the first hours of Safex Blockchain.
The way I thought it worked was proposal —-> voting—— > development from treasury funds.
If there is none of that anymore and is all on donations then I’d like to be alerted. We spent years with this idea that has seemingly changed overnight like magic.
It was just for starting the blockchain in a controlled way.
I just checked, the first block my Laptop mined was on blockheight 856. I was not the first miner not part of the dev team in there, but if you assume so, They had max. 855 blocks premined…
At 60 SFX per block its 51300 SFX - at 0.007 $ per SFX at the moment it’s a amazing Treasury worth about 360$…
There was no so called premining, it was just a controlled start of the blockchain which happend to force them to mine part of the blocks themselfs. But since I alreadd could mine there at block 856 (the first block I got, I was mining somehow earlier of course, but I can’t proof when I started, can only proof what I got first) - and I know others did way earlier it has nothing to do with premining at all.
I hope it will be that way aswell, but since treasury only can start with marketplace since it driven by market fees Voting really only can work on operational marketplace as I said.
Yeah, but that’s all covered in the blue paper. But they did receive 5 mill sfx? If that was not for a treasury will those funds be dispersed back to the community or will that stay under balkaneums control? And with the estimated 500 mill of volume dan is suggesting…
Honestly the whole thing is ridiculous, did he remove the voting or not?
If he did he should update his investors. How hard is it?
That’s a true point, half of SFX airdrop goes to development, but I don’t know the actual mechanism of releasing those funds, would be interesting.
As far as I know all SFX that are not claimed becauso of missing migrations will also go to the development funts (SFT on the other hand will just not be created)
The thing is you spent years with your own interpretation. I have accepted 5m sfx as amortization for my outlay. You didn’t spend a dime towards creating the project. Who I Hire/Fire with my own money is my own business.
If you have any skin in this, then where is your development and pull requests. You maybe only bought a token, then behave on your place. Do not come into this attempting to dictate any terms you are not equipped for it.
I welcome anyone who wishes to join into the development. So far I only hear comment about what I am doing and little no action from your likes in progressing.
We are welcome to make a treasury, you are welcome to contribute towards it. If you like and want to play on these terms, let us summarize my expense and we can work toward paying it back. I will ignore this because I dont give a damn about that course.
I care though that all you can bring to the table is point out my ambitions that I am funding myself so far. Be totally clear, 5m sfx is my repayment for my Fronting putting upfront the cost of development.
=====
The treasury written in the blue paper suggest an additional charge of 0.02% on the marketplace. I am not sure that it is necessary since it will be too insignificant amount: 0.02% of 500m is only 100,000$
So we can do fuck all with that.
So yes, I suggest that the safex project will need to come up with some system that will be sufficient to achieve future goals. What that system looks like I am not sure at this stage. It of course has some elements of voting,
Maybe we should make a committee where you need a certain amount of tokens to even participate?
I disagree with the idea, yet I can see it filtering out the nuisance noise that comes up, why courts are full of frivolous claims etc.
1 Like
The truth is different actually,
Also 5m sfx was development fund not your personal “amortization for my outlay”.
How did you spent the crowd sale money? why do you claim it was just 50k?
Who you hire and fire is your business as lead dev, but don’t lie and say nothing was spent towards marketing.
I guarantee mining counts as spending a dime. The hash rate is very low especially if you exclude nicehash. Our interpretation changes with your mood. If it stuck to the blue paper there wouldn’t be confusion. Not once was it mentioned the lead dev would take the air drop for his payment. It was explained to me that those funds were for Balkaneum development going forward. Not as a personal repayment for your time served. Which, afterall, was out of your own pocket. So you can’t say it’s out of your pocket now and accept the air drop. That’s having your cake and eating it too.
Here’s the meat of the issue. We are no closer to a consensus on how the project will be ran than we were in 2017. Those figures were there when you wrote the blue paper, but you lacked foresight then to see it was worth fuck all?
I suggest going forward you offer real updates as to what’s going on. It is a fact that you espoused “community driven voting” for years. Any alteration should be followed with an update. Otherwise you should change “investors” on the website to HOLDERS.
Who offered them to you so you can “accept” the funds? I don’t get it. I thought those funds were for safex related things. I might be wrong.