"Hydra 2.0" and Other Changes (passed - Done)

[GreyFox]

First of all, I would like to thank @Marcelus @Monobody and @VandarGR that comparing with them on some points that are not clear to me was easy to clarify and outline a better version of the proposal.

Thanks to our comrade in arms @VandarGR e started to organize our community better and thanks to Hydra we took a huge step forward obviously it also brought new problems but it is normal, all new things need time to improve.

Hydra in its first version gave the following problems:

-the members had not been given the opportunity to stand and the elected managers remained more than the established time (and this is absolutely contrary to all the principles of decentralization that we are proud of), perhaps the short time with which we organized the first vote and the short time allowed to managers (3 months) did not give them time to organize themselves and make the right choices for us to prepare for a new election.

• the managers did not have enough funds to advertise or create new applications independently, each time the managers had to request new funds from the vaultz, hydra was also created to allow btcz to advance quickly thanks to the managers (chosen by the community) even when the community is busy in their daily lives and has no time to devote to btcz.

• The managers chosen in the 5 different areas found themselves limited, because they had to limit themselves to spending their funds for their relative area. But we have to think that managers must carry on btcz and sometimes there are different opportunities that we must not miss. An intelligent manager must recognize and immediately pick up an opportunity that can help btcz to explode (it does not have to be in his own area).

So I propose a review of Hydra and move on to Hydra 2.0:

Hydra 2.0:

1. The areas of interest are eliminated (Adoption Squad / Micro Bounties / Charity Projects / Community Rewards / Social Media) to better say the managers are no longer limited in one of these areas but these will be the guidelines with which they will spend their money. It does not make sense to limit a manager, if a person elected by us has a good opportunity to spread btcz he must be able to take it freely. We use managers because they are faster in approving innovations so let’s give them the confidence to choose what is best for us.

2. The time for the 5 managers is increased to 6 months (you can vote on the 5 managers in this section: https://forum.btcz.rocks/t/vote-the-managers-of-btcz/1586)

3. The funds available to managers are increased.

4. At this point amounts are just a personal idea, the amount will be decided by the community in the future. 54 million are produced by our vaultz every 6 months. This allows us to give managers 34 million to spend to bring btcz to the top and always have 20 million in excess and to put them aside. Some may think that 34 million divided by 5 (6.8 million per manager are many) but guys, remember that any important additions, such as plusbit, or other additions require money (for example, plusbit came 7.5 million). For example, advertising on coinmarketcap costs 3k-5k usd (30/50 million), so we either start moving our money to make ourselves known or we don’t get anywhere. For very large projects, two or more managers can come together to finance a bigger thing (example 3 managers can decide to use their funds to advertise on coinmarketcap). If the project is really too expensive but it can be worth it, as for example list btcz in binance then managers can ask the community for help via vault z. each manager will be recognized 6.8 million bitcoinz to spend in any way he thinks is useful for the project. Slightly before their assignment (about 30-14 days before), they will have to publish how they spent their funds and in case the community thinks they have been badly spent (by publishing on this section https://forum.btcz.rocks/t/end-of-term-manager-operated-manager-report/1584/2), obviously they will not be re-elected. A manager can spend up to 6.8 million but is not obliged to spend it. (this is clear).

5. The elections will be held on December 31st and July 1st, this is because before the new year and before the summer they are easy dates to remember for all the members, and being rest periods maybe they could give us time to worry about a fundamental thing of this community, the elections of our managers.

---

To apply as managers:

1. Member registered for at least one year on the btcz forum

2. It is no longer possible to name those who have been marked as ineligible (the community can vote to make a user ineligible), for stealing from the project or doing something that could compromise the stability and trust of the btcz project

3. Being a candidate publicly on the CANDIDATE ELECTIONS page (talking a little about yourself and saying what you could help would be good but not mandatory). this serves to be transparent towards the community that anyone can apply and the candidates are not chosen by a small secret circle (to apply you must apply publicly here https://forum.btcz.rocks/t/do-you-want-to-apply-to-be-a-btcz-manager/1583/2)

If you agree with the changes of Hydra 2.0 vote yes.

In case you are agree but you are not agree about the amount to leave to the managers,
please vote yes and below you can vote how many btcz to give to managers
if less than 10 million wins, a new vote will be taken to choose how much from 1 to 10!

Quantity will be voted even before the next elections!. remember that now btcz has a ridiculous price!

**The proposal will expire in 10 days (since the elections are close.) exactly on 6/18/2020 **

• Yes
• No

In 6 months vaultz generates 54 million, I agree to give him:

• • • 54 million to the managers
• • • 44 million to the manager and 10 saved in vaultz
• • • 34 million to the manager and 20 saved in vaultz
• • • 24 million to the manager and 30 saved in vaultz
• • • 14 million to the manager and 40 saved in vaultz
• • • Less than 10 million to managers

---

These are other small changes that will benefit the community:

1. put on the site the projects carried out by the community. The projects carried out by our community are projects that give strength to the community itself. The other day I wanted to buy 5 usd of bitcoinz via bitpaylink but I didn’t remember the name. I had to go and look in the emails, because on Google I could not find it if I wrote “buy btcz paypal” or other variants. A site that allows me to buy bitcoinz with paypal must be advertised more, because it increases our capitalization, and instead it was not found. So from this I think it is very useful to put all the projects of the btcz community on the site as an external link or maybe, to create a page that explains in a few lines what the project is and what the landing page is. The advertised projects must support btcz and accept btcz as payment, be more services dedicated to the btcz community or that support it and not just sites where you buy products and where you can pay with btcz (example: minecraft will be published, a game that allows you to win btcz but a hotel or restaurant that accepts btcz will not be published), obviously for the moment. Maybe in the future if you want you can create a section for hotels, restaurants etc., why not?

Do you want to publish the projects of the btcz community on the home of the main site?

• Yes
• No

4. When you propose to spend a part of the vaultz funds, you must indicate the percentage of the total wallet next to it. Many times they tell us we invest 500 usd. What is 500 usd and how do we quantify if they are many or few if we don’t have a reference point? It would be appropriate for future proposals, also indicate the% that you are requesting to spend on the vaultz. Because 500 usd may seem like a lot, but if you think it’s 2% it’s an expense you can do. Different if instead our total fund is of 1000 usd total. The community should always know how much you have available to think about whether it is right or not to spend a part. Either put the% or the total sum of the vaultz.

Do you agree?

• Yes
• No

5. A special Telegram and Discord channel will be made, where it will notify its users that something must be voted on and that it will automatically send a proposal on this channel when it is created. It is not a secret that we all have to do and time is short and sometimes I don’t even notice an important vote on the forum while it is easier for me to follow telegram, while others use much more discord. So many more users will not miss the opportunity to vote and will go to the forum to do so if there is one thing that interests them.

Do you agree?

• Yes
• No

• When you open a discussion with a vote, you must not allow to vote immediately. This is done only to give people time to discuss, and actually understand what they are talking about. The system will wait 72 to allow users to vote. Last time many people voted without it was actually clear what they were voting for and what the benefits were. To prevent this future behavior from giving us problems, it is better to get the community used to not responding immediately because every choice needs concentration and reasoning. We are a 1 sat coin in 1000th place in the coinmakertcap ranking. Do we want to reach the top 100? You have to understand the problem well (although sometimes it can be difficult because understanding the problem means understanding problems that relate to the blockchain and which cannot always be easy to understand), reasoning, dealing with the rest of the community and discussing with those who know more of us and only after this “vote”.

Do you agree?

• Yes
• No

• To vote you must be at least a member (level 1 of experience on the forum, it means having followed the community a little). Level 1 can be purchased automatically (it is already written in the forum code), it is enough to have participated a little on the forum to become level 1. This will help not have false votes made with fake accounts created specifically to direct the vote and also request new arrivals, to integrate a little into our community, to understand who we are and what we do and that btcz is not the classic currency created by speculation (cit. vandarGr). anyone (even levels 0) will be able to propose new initiatives because a good idea can come from anyone and above all because everyone can have their say. The liv 0 can propose or leave comments under the proposals without limitations.

Do you agree?

• Yes
• No

• For all the next proposals to be valid need that the votes put by the other members of the group are not published, who will have voted what will be seen only at the end of the vote. This is for voting without prejudice, friendships or other things. Many times we can vote the same thing as another component because there is a strong friendship or a strong esteem, and therefore our vote is to support him. But let’s remember that if we really want to see btcz in the top 100, our vote must be made only to support the project and not a component of it. We can talk about the groups and ask others for help under the post if we don’t understand the effects, but the main thing is to understand and vote by single individuals thinking about the good of the project. Obviously at the end of the vote, the votes will be shown with their authors, for the principles of transparency of the vote.

Do you agree?

• Yes
• No

[Nucashmining]

I like it!. The proposal is very informative, very intuitive, and brings a strong decentralized vibe to the project; which is what we stand for. This should be posted across our social media channels as well. I’m hoping we can perfect BTCZHemp.com and put it under community control. I’ve purchased a few BTCZ domains that I would like to have become legendary milestones.

In Decentralization WE Trust!

[GreyFox]

Sorry but i forget to publish a screen nothing mandatory is just an idea of where to put the section.

Thank you @Nucashmining, i m very happy that you like

At the moment as it was put in the proposal are published, websites and projects that do not just sell and accept btcz as a form of payment. but as I said, and with the support of the community we could think of a section: “where you can pay with btcz” restaurants, hotels and various sites. we’ll all be happy to see this section with many places only that today would be a little too empty.

[VandarGR]

Wow, what a long forum post!
Too many things to vote!

You had many nice ideas but I think that in this multi proposal you have misunderstood some facts.

1. The first 5 Managers haven’t stayed too long because they asked so or something. Simply, no new elections have been made because 1Q time is too fast for this procedure plus the fact that some of the managers hadn’t even spent the given btc sums. (Yes, the funds of the 1st cycle! They haven’t got any extra funds for the second or third cycle).

From your proposal I personally like the fixed elections date and the 6 months period instead of the 3 months period.
Many people have expressed that in the past and we would definetely propose this in the next Manager elections.

2. Beyond this, I find a totally different concept in your proposal which has no connection with the logic of the Hydra Community structure that the Community had voted for in the past.

In the original Hydra , the 5 managers were getting a minor sum that is a tiny percentage (5%) of the VaultZ in order to cover small spendings that would make it too difficult to be spent with endless voting procedures (for example imagine a Twitter give away or a minor bounty for translation to have to be approved after 14 days of voting and the forum flooding with such proposals).
The Managers’ roles had been designed in a way that they hadn’t any super strict “sector” usage of their budgets. @Rokmikuz had even covered a couple of faucet Rewards while I had paid some mini bounties for translations.
The sums, by being small, had been designed in a way that the Manager could feel comfortable to move freely with a minor report in the end of his period and the Community could afford to even lose it if something really bad happened in an extreme scenario that a Manager disappears.
The Extra function of the Managers is to protect the integrity of the Project (the fundamental characteristics like no halving plan Changes etc) together with the President by blocking a voting proposal that could distort the character of BITCOINZ.
I would personally add in a Hydra update , a section of core rules with which the managers will have to totally agree and accept that they would do whatever it takes in order to protect the BitcoinZ Community golden characteristics (like the immutable halving plan, the miners friendly character etc), by blocking every dangerous voting procedure (so there is no danger of fake voters that wish to harm the character of the project).

In your proposal you are asking to have managers with the share of the Lion of the VaultZ funding their wallets …?!
Even your lower proposed option is high enough!
This would be totally mistaken IMHO.
It is changing the Community Fund to a Managers Fund , distorting the logic of the original Hydra Managers role.

Sorry that I hadn’t proposed any updates for the Hydra Community Structure, but I had really limited free time because of the heavy workload of the upcoming site.

Unfortunately now I have to write down everything again to answer about my different view with this proposal and it is not a good period for me because of the upcoming site debut.

It would be nice to have the 6 months managers period with the fixed elections dates , plus a rules acceptance by the managers and oath to protect the btcz fundamentals (well, and maybe a smart bot reminding a voting procedure in our Discord a couple times per day ?)

[GreyFox]

hello vandar, sorry but with my slightly limited English I’ll have a little trouble answering quickly. but I’ll try. so try interpreting and don’t stick to a translator’s words
because you’re giving the proposal a wrong image.

1. I never said that because of you or because of some secret leaders. you’ve been left longer than the time. but the truth is that you’ve been there. (and that’s for something that hydra hadn’t thought of. not for you or becouse the managers wants) and I never even said that you continue to taking the money. if you are the manager and you have been chosen to make choices using your manager funds … it was your right to ask others, and also is your duty as manager. what I said that hydra gave trouble in its first version. as surely will give the next as the next one yet. The idea is to try to get better. I never said your job was bad. you read everything with the wrong key reading and that’s sorry.

2. even at the point of funds given to managers is not totally accurate. and I see you’re against giving other funds to managers. so I guess you’ll vote yes, but with less money.

• in the previously proposed hydra were 800k btcz for 3 months for 5 managers= 4 milion every 3 mounths, in my last option i writed less than 10milion for 6 mounths. so i dont understand what is your problem ? 2 milion more/ 5 managers? and anyway I put less than 10, why would we choose it in the future. but also is becouse today btcz is worth little. I never said that in the future it will have to be like this. even if a project advances at different costs. (so even here… it’s not clear. in the next version we can lower the money, I do not understand now what problem there is, unless you think that some managers today would run away with 600 usd). If that’s the case, you’re right

3. this proposal don t delete any power that the managers gave previously. (defend btcz and more) so I honestly do not understand your reply. managers will continue to defend btcz and what it represents. there will be no change. (the managers can continue to block the proposal that can damage ecouse we accepted in the last hydra proposal)

4. here it just improves the way people vote. precisely because managers should not be in a position to vote and to always block community proposals. when managers always say “you voted this is not good, let’s cancel the vote”, it’s not decentralisation or democracy. improve the voting system. is to create a democratic and decentralized environment. even the fact that you don’t know what you have to do to run for office was too centralized. who should we say we want to run for office? to you? (it’s ironic)

So I think it is right that the candidate should be public, and that the times that managers have to block the Community’s proposals should be limited, through a better voting system, if it’s not. it’s not decentralization. here only were given few simple rules to apply, and was given the option to spend a little more (it is not mandatory and you can choose less than 10million, the original hydra gave 8) but if it is a problem 2 million more. ok we’ll have a new vote on how much to give. and we have improved the voting system so that managers don’t always have to block proposals because maybe the votes were fake (in my opinion this thing is dangerous for decentralization) improving the voting system is important… don’t do it means centralize the project to managers and I didn’t believe in this btcz.

I’m sorry if not everything is understandable. my English is limited.

[Dio]

Hey man, from what I understood : @VandarGR Is saying that your proposed sums are completely blown, you have 4-5 ranges and the up to now manager budget had been the half of your lowest proposed budget.

The managers model was solving the microspendings problem and was adding an extra protection layer versus possible fake voters or bad mannered proposers with bad things in their minds.

Giving a big sum to every manager would only create problems because a bad Manager could make the Community to not trust the VaultZ model at all, as according to your proposal they would take its bigger part, and additionally you would increase the possibility for a fraudulent Manager who would like to intrude into the Community just to get money in his wallet.

By removing the ability from the managers to vote/block you would left the project unprotected with votes that would change the original rules.

[GreyFox]

you have 4-5 ranges and the up to now manager budget had been the half of your lowest proposed budget.

• @Dio so the problem is 2 million more?
  as I already explained the old hydra gave 8 million every 6 months. I put less than 10… and I have already said that less than 10 means that we will vote how many will have to be. so sorry if I didn’t specify it. we’ll have a vote of 1 to 10 million.

By removing the ability from the managers to vote/block you would left the project unprotected with votes that would change the original rules.

-(the proposal doesn’t say that managers don’t have the ability to block harmful behavior)

Giving a big sum to every manager would only create problems because a bad Manager could make the Community to not trust the VaultZ model at all, as according to your proposal they would take its bigger part, and additionally you would increase the possibility for a fraudulent Manager who would like to intrude into the Community just to get money in his wallet.

• in my opinion the problem is not that the next manager, can steal 600 usd. I don’t think any manager would do that now! But I think that of managers who stay longer, and who has never understood how or who is running for them, this is the real problem that the proposal faces!

[Monobody]

I find this proposal very important and substantial! In fact, it is so fundamental that I was hoping for it to be put together with several people before sharing it here, but here we are Let’s see what we decide based on these votes, some of which I do not understand to be honest. There is a lot of action recently on this forum! Try to say now this coin is dead

[GreyFox]

I’ve talked to everyone. and they all put theirs in this. sorry if i dont send you back, but my idea was the cryptorex read before for have his words too… and when he say me… “no, publish directly”, i thinked so… and you know that, for example, the 6 million a manager had thought of it together. no one ever asked me what I thought to write the first hydra. did they ask you for your opinion? if they asked me. I would have said right away that a system that doesn’t explain how to run… is not decentralized.
now we are at 1 sat, here the managers can do really somenthing for this project. i hope that you and the community will understand… and sure… prepare a hydra 3.0 for the next votations… thanks to everybody.

[Monobody]

This is a bit long, sorry for that, please bear with me

Thank you @GreyFox for this series of proposals! It’s a lot to digest

What I like about it and other things you posted today is:

• Candidates for manager pages (What you expect from managers, describe yourself, etc.);
• Fixed time for election 1st Jan and 1st July;
• Extended terms - 6 instead of 3 months;
• Some ‘clearance’ requirements to make sure the manager comes from a BTCZ-trusted circle;

All these points to me are logic and should be supported. This is all very good.

Now, a small digression. I have done some thinking (believe me, it’s possible! ) and after the process I found out that I couldn’t change my vote. This is something that I think we should always have - an option to change the vote (before the voting is finished) as we evolve and develop our opinion reading through comments and re-digesting the topic of proposed action.

What I find problematic:

• Another tele/discord channel for votings? I trust we have a lot of communication channels already. One thing though, I would maybe suggest in each proposal to include in brackets in the title that there is a vote and its time span, e.g. “New managers (Vote, 14d)” <- this proposal includes voting and you can only vote for 14 days.

• =>In decentralization we trust
  =>Centralized managers with most of VaultZ coins
  pick one.

It would be good if manager’s budget should reflect a percentage of the VaultZ generated coins in a given term. For example this half a year will have (180 days * 24 h * 24 blocks * 12,500 block reward * 5% VaultZ) 64.8 mln BtcZ. It will change in a year’s time with the halving and should be thus corrected for in the next round (having term-normalized VaultZ coin ratio will do just that). IMHO managers should not have more than 10% of that total (so what I mean is 2% per each of the 5 managers).

This 10%, one tenth, should be a good balance/ratio, where a managers have a temporal freedom over 2% of the 6-month VaultZ content and do not need to put a vote on a forum each time they want to spend it. They can therefore subjectively use the funds to promote the coin from which they report at the end of the term and are reviewed by BtcZ forum members. BTW, we still need to review previous round of managers!

Importantly, of course it would not rule out the option where a manager “X” will have an amazing idea that will require for example 25% of VaultZ funds. She/he then proposes it independently of her/his managerial position and argues for it in a separate thread where BtcZ family votes. And that is in line with BtcZ spirit.

Also, I think we should rewrite this in a clearer format, I don’t understand several points.

Thanks!

[GreyFox]

Hello @Monobody,
I’m happy with what you like.

• it was not my choose: “don t allow change the vote” is inside the forum code, ok we can change it in the future but this also gives me reason on another point that was voted here. “Wait 72 hours to vote.”.

now I’d like you to think about something. what do we lose to give a little confidence and responsibility to the boys by giving them more money in this vote? why can’t we even try? we will give 80 usd at mounth. its nothing. don’t want to spend even 80 usd per month? but how do we think we’re going to grow up?

I understand that for big things there would always be an option to ask the community but this slows down our currency so much too much and we are at a delicate time. if we start to be delisted by the Exchanges?

I think one thing. I don’t think centralizing it helps (as the vote is public the managers represent us and work for us! at most is delegating. ) the community is small and i m not afraid that now somebody will steal this 80 usd for mounth. i know only that somentimes, even just a manager’s desire to amaze the community can bring benefits…

the ledger project was born by posting a post in upwork. rok saw the post and wanted to participate, and decided to put 500 usd and help me with the choice the freelencer. (born whithout vote). the poker site talking whit marcelus, I thought it could help the community advertise itself. Paybitlink i think born in the same mode…

none of us asked for money at the community, we just put money in (our money and our time). but this is done because sometimes an individual is driven by a strength and enthusiasm that passes with time, which is destroyed when he sees things slow or hesitant. if managers to amaze us can really bring benefits? what do we lose to do a test? you never think, my money I can also lose but a friend’s money or a family member doesn’t. (I think now the managers will think the same they will spend, bargaining and work hard not to disappoint us)

the fact is that we’ve been coming down a long time. today I wrote to an old user and he answered me. friend but what do you want to do? we’re at 1 sat. now I have seen that there are sites that trade btc at less than 1 sat. (crex24) if the price does not stay at a sat but drops safely we will lose volume in stex, Alpha-btc, and other Exchanges. a problem he had already expressed @Oduvanchik in the first live meeting in rome. people are losing interest, and we had lost a lot of investors in the Russian community. why? why is it so much 80 usd a month? 300 usd? are there many?

you wanted to give 8 million to marcelus, allow a manager to spend 8 million on advertising, or take a freelencer to help the project. please only try. we can already say from the outset that everything will be revisited for the next vote. but say no regardless. will continue not to change things. and things are that under the sat, we will lose volume in the other Exchanges! think about it before you’re against a change. we are all choosing together, this remains decentralization! please do a try, if it doesn’t work, or some money spent by someone will not bring benefits I put them! I’m sure the managers will want to try so well towards the community that they will work 5 times better.

i hope you understand my point! and when I say I put them on I’m not playing (I’m willing to send my warranty for the 1st of July!)

thanks to everybody, and sorry if my manners may have seemed rough, but to see btcz like this, worries me and in my opinion in a moment of stalemate it is necessary to move the waters a little to start again. I would continue to support the project and the choice of the community always as I have shown in other votes. but I hope someone understands what I’m trying to say. in the end, trying can only bring us hope and a new energy. and most likely the managers will be the same as they are now. so what do we care about?

[VandarGR]

If a Manager thinks that has an amazing idea, which could help the Community, is free to propose it with the budget requirement for its completion. Like you did with ezDefi gateways or Monobody did with the Plusbit multiwallet proposal and so on.

So there is no need having Managers with a great percentage of the VaultZ in their wallets.
In the most of your proposed scenarios, the percentage of the VaultZ in the Managers’ wallets is jumping to two digits numbers like 40% , 50% and 60% .
Managers are there in order to SOLVE the problem of bureaucracy, the voting time requirement, the forum flooding etc for the accomplishment of some spendings with small sums (like a giveaway or a mini bounty).
And the most important : they are there to protect the core rules of the project guarantying the integrity of its white paper.
(This is what needs an important update IMHO, in order to protect the future of the project).

Your proposed model is changing the very nature of the Community Funds: Because the Community wouldn’t decide mainly for VaultZ use cases like previously, but for people who will be given a bery big part of the Community Funds to mamage (and secondly for proposed use cases).
The percentage of the VaultZ funds which are saved for future usage, is significantly lower this scenario, changing many balances.

I cannot personally see anything good in this change, as there will be possible fights between Managers funding their projects with the given budget and some members who don’t want them to proceed with this. Managers who would feel bad for the behaviour against them that may wish to exit btcz, people who would join the project just to steal the Managers’ budgets in the future etc. A circle of unhappy events that could be potentially bad for the Project, maybe not immediately but after some time.

The fact that the btcz is devaluated right now, doesn’t change what is described above. When we are speaking for funding the Managers’ budgets every 6 months , we have to see the percentage of the btcz and not the usd number, as this is not a one time payment.

In the future if the valuation gets for example to 10 sats, even during their 6 months period, the Managers could find themselves with really too many funds , increasing the danger of disappearing and the Community feeling cheated by this model. Because the VaultZ would seem weak, despite the valuation increase of the btcz, with important parts of it lost !
For example with your medium proposed number of 34m to the Managers/20m to the VaultZ, VaultZ would need 3 years in order to gather the funds that has now gathered in LESS than one year !

At the same time a manager would have in his wallet almost 7millions of btcz x 10 sats = 7 thousands of euros! (with 30 sats would be 21 thousands of usd) This sum, especially for people coming from certain parts of the world could be a fortune that they could possibly take them and leave.
For a scenario like this, you could have many people willing to wait for one year or more and willing to organize a fake voting party in order to be managers in the btcz Community.

The aforementioned scenario was just an example using only the medium scenario of your proposal and not those with the even higher percentages of 44 or 54 millions to the Managers!!

This is why the original VaultZ/Hydra proposal had been very carefully designed in order to offer solutions and at the same time minimizing the potential risk for the Community Funds , putting usd caps and small % percentages from the Managers budgets coming from VaultZ in any case.

I hope that you understand why this proposal is really dangerous, centralizing the funds in the hands of some people and increasing the risks for potentially fraudulent behaviours,
fake votes, bad actors, Communityy fights, and in the end for a total VaultZ degradation into something different from what it was originally designed for.

PS. I see that you are trying to use the argument “hey we have been at 1 sats now, and we could even go lower with the 0.1 steps in some exchanges” spreading panic in order to push people to make a decision.

The devaluation of the coin has been in effect many months before the VaultZ model.
In fact VaultZ is one of the strong cards for the recovery for this project , and every change should be examined extremely wisely.
By underlining the low price of the btcz coin and trying to push for a vote for a surprising extremely long proposal, doesn’t really help the Project at its current phase IMHO.

First of all the potential new members would hardly read all these for an “updating” proposal.
Noticing that an updating proposal is so long with so many different voting choices in just one post, they would probably seek the exit of the forum.

Secondly, you are surprisingly “forcing” the active people around the project to lose many hours in order to read, understand and interact with this extremely long proposal which came online on a very bad timing. We had recently 4 other proposals and many of us are trying to catch up with the next e-meeting in order to complete many big tasks.

Sorry for this but I am describing exactly how I feel. Instead having some extra help and proofreaders for the site (something that I have asked in vain for months) I am losing many hours of work in order to respond here for something that I had to, because you are referring to an update of something that it was in my own mind.

At the meantime , just think that inside this proposal you are proposing site changes in the btcz.rocks while the original btcz site has not been updated with things that have taken effect many months ago. It still has EXMO as a btcz exchange…! It seems that you have not understood that actually we DON’T even have a normally working site right now …!

Obviously almost no-one has understood the importance of having a fresh and updated site?!.. Hello guys ??

[GreyFox]

if you want to make fun of the community by focusing attention on the money continues as well. but you’re not kidding me.

1. if the problem is the money are a lot, just vote yes, then vote hand of 10, and then you can vote 1 or 0.1btcz!

2. your problem is that not hydra 2.0 now everyone can apply and become managers. you personally chose all the managers in the past elections.! and a yes or no vote, without being able to apply to be managers are democratic elections in Syria, no here.

3. another thing you don’t like is that in the proposal your new website (advertised as the future btcz site was put into community projects under the name wikicrypto). no one has ever voted for a new main website and I like what we have. so until you get a vote whether to change it or not, I don’t want to hear about your website as the “new website of btcz”

4. Another point for you uncomfortable is that limiting fake clicks, really increases democracy and decentralization here. I have never said that managers cannot block a dangerous vote or with false votes. but not improving this voting system, it means giving them more and more decision-making power. and since to this day you decide who can be candidate to manager… I don’t like that.

5. the thing I don’t like, is also the power and negative influence with which you’re advertising the proposal. and how above all you control the votes of the community. I’d talked to monobody in private and he’d told me 1 million a month for manager, that sounds good. after you’ve spoken. he also started to say that it was too much etc. and also asked to change the vote. I’m sorry about that. we don’t have people here thinking. we follow vandar. I understand the new users… but no the main components that represent us.

komete4 says that someone has taken possession of btcz. now i understand what he meant. it was also possible because of his fault, because instead of getting up and abandoning the project he had to stand here fighting. I do not know if he is good or bad, what I know and that you are checking the votes in a dirty way and focus on the money when there are many good things in the proposal.! (it’s obvious nothing is perfect, but you can always propose hydra 3.0 next week). say that btcz is less than a sat, it’s not spreading fear, it’s the truth. and this is also because of you. I have already said, that for every new vote the community will choose how much to give to managers! where’s the problem? the problem is that I’m trying to give the whole community a chance to do something. that’s what you’re trying to neutralize.

I appeal to the community. if the problem is only the money. vote yes and allow everyone to run for office and then vote less than 10 million! then you can choose 1 milione! please focus on the important points!

[cryptorex]

I suggested to @GreyFox that he just post it - I believe the details of peoples ideas sometimes need to be pure from their own mind…and the original ideas can be discussed as they are now.

[VandarGR]

About all the lies for the Managers “chosen by me” , thankfully there are proofs, just check my answer to you during the manager elections :

There was a msg informing for days about the elections but nobody applied.

And just think that Hydra and VaultZ had 100+ voters.

The recent proposals have hardly 20 to 30.

What does make you think that there will be dozens candidate managers now ? …lol again we would currently end up with hardly the number the Managers that we are looking for, so this would end up to an approval vote again. Do you understand this ?

Obviously you came into conclusions having ignored completely that there was a msg informing everyone for taking part as an election candidate, there were again a few requirements but we ended to have only 5 candidates (some of the most active members in the given period of time). Not my personal choices, or my alter egos like you may imagine.

You have not dedicated any time to read something that you are supposedly propose to upgrade???
This is not good.

Ps. I can even find you all the social media msgs and the discord msgs calling any members that are interested to take part in the elections. So stop because you are exposing your ignorance.

[GreyFox]

I repeat you vandar you can make fun of the community. not me.

many users use telegram and no discord, so your mistake, no mine. I created a page on the official forum to apply. and I also suggested creating a section in the channel to notify you of new proposals so that everyone can be notified. this is improving decentralisation

https://forum.btcz.rocks/t/do-you-want-to-apply-to-be-a-btcz-manager/1583

did you send another message about the creation of the new btcz site? why do I tell you again. better speak to you clear. what’s not said and voted here doesn’t matter and I’m not interested in reading it after 8 months of managers chosen by you.

and since you’ve posted a discord message. that was sent to me after I pointed out the problem…
you can send me where you wrote: “guys we are looking for btcz managers, please contact me in private”

the message that you post…, in discord is 19 july, your candidate vote is 19 july.

the truth is that no one ran because you couldn’t. I repeat you make fun of the new ones, I’m not new. I remember things

[GreyFox]

I’m sure they’ll win the no’s, because your English is better. because you’re much more active on social media than I am. so it is useless to continue. but as I said. hydra is not your, and the money here is not in question. you can vote “yes”, less than 10 million and vote 1 million!

here you are creating centralization under the guise of project security.!

and these fake messages to be right and show that everything is in normal when it is evident that hydra has centralization issues… and your strong commitment to throw down the proposal and not to improve it. Point… that I’mright…, show me where you asked the community to candidate on discord, telegram or text message… and I’ll give you a right. if not, we have all voted for a centralized system!

[GreyFox]

vandar, i wait for your message where you show that you have warned (where was possible apply to be manager). or your apologies to the community for personally choosing managers in secret!

@everyone

[VandarGR]

The rules are clear and nowhere is saying that I am the one that is choosing the Managers.

Of course everyone could call for manager elections because no new elections had been held after the low participation that had been noticed.

There had been many calls in the Discord channel asking @everyone to participate (maybe not in the announcement section but surely in the general one and I had even asked everyone who was interested in participating to send me a msg).

I If somebody who sent any msg didn’t found his self in the participants of the Elections is FREE to show his msg and of course was free to reply under these elections that had been held for 14 days, exposing the “unfairness” or the “dictatorship”.

You can ALL check the elections post where I clearly stated that I had received no
msg/application for this so we had only 5 Proposed Managers @Rokmikuz @Monobody @Dennis333319 @Vegan2Go and me , which in reality were some of the most active members during the specific period.

Again, if someone would like to undervote them he was free to do so.

So again, saying that with the current system the Managers are chosen by me and they are not elected is a total lie. The procedure is described analytically in the original Hydra thread.

I am saying sorry to the Community that I hadn’t enough time to make a page for this procedure or I haven’t even moved the Community for new elections , however this was not be a the Managers earned something right now. In reality they have never received any other budget and some of them have not even spent their whole first budget (!).

So all this postponing for new elections has taken effect because we all had no time to spend for this in combination with the previous low participation and the fact that we all had realized that this election should probably not take effect so frequently /like you propose/ because the participants would be even less than the ones that are required for the positions.

So we have no new managers right now, the managers are in reality managers in honour, they have not received any extra funds for expanding their duties without any voting.

How you conclude from all the above that you discovered a guilty team or something ?

We are just a very small community right now and the most active members are doing the job of 10 people so they cannot have the required free time for chitchat about endless theoretical proposals which are made to just satisfy the ego of the proposer.

I am saying that, because obviously you have written so many things without reading well the current rules and after some negative responses which were really based on arguments , you have started an offence saying many inaccuracies that can be considered disgraceful from the most active members of this community.

You have even stated in other section of the forum that you would leave if your proposal is not voted.

This is our big difference, I will be here working for the project like I always did, respecting even the proposals that I disagree and the judgement of Cryptorex who can approve or not a voted proposal.
I never left this project independently if I liked something or not.

I support with a good heart everyone who is trying to work for a development and I always try to be helpful , like I did with your pokerz project when some inpatient members were saying that they had withdrawal issues.

Unfortunately I see that you started by saying good things for people but when they expressed their different point of view , you started an offence to these same people using inaccuracies and lies, trying to present them as dictators, thieves etc and that your proposal is the one and only lifeline for the project.

Sorry but this behaviour is hurting the project and it could only bring back a few people who will join just to let their poison and leave like they always did.

Even in the recent meeting I have to confess that the only part with negative energy was the one when you were yelling about how the Voting system is and that you fear the fake voters because you made two fake accounts in the forum to test it.
You know , I always express my mind with a nice way, I then commented that it is not so easy for bad actors to push a proposal that comes against the projects’ rules, because there is an elected managers/ council (which has to be committed in protecting the white paper /this is the fix I personally see as highly needed) and a President that could block everything that is against the integrity of the project or a paranoid spending that would add almost nothing to the project.

[GreyFox]

The difference between you and me. ?
me while I talk to rok, telling him. quiet rok I won’t answer… I see you continuing. Right now… as I wrote to you in the group. I’ll let you talk but I want to be precise in one thing. my problem here, that anything I say quickly can be said so that it can be misinterpreted. for my english.

what I meant is that if original hydra is:

1. Inability to become a manager (or little clarity so you need choose the managers and the community need ony push yes or no)

2. avoid improving in voting and their processes to avoid problems because there are so many managers with super powers to block the proposals

I don’t feel like this reflects my ideas of decentralisation and I can say. I certainly leave the participation very willingly. even just the fact that you thought about doing the official community website without asking. sincerely I do not share it. it’s a very different thing from a poker or a maincraftZ. it would have been nice to know before and maybe give the possibility to the community to participate in its creation, and ask what the community wanted on the new website. (but also there with the excuse of the time you chose for us and present the finished product ). But I’ll tell you again. that’s your attitude that I didn’t like. from me you won’t have other sticks in the wheels.

I don’t leave the community because it wins the no or the yes. I leave the community because the community itself, the same friends known, the same companions did not have the courage to say This…

I’ve now denounced this problem. but I’m sure from now on. you’ll think more about giving it to become decentralized btcz instead of taking care of a site that no one had the courage to tell you before today (if it’s the main site it would have been right and community communicate it, and maybe do it as the community wanted… no as vandar wanted ).

I hope that this “denounce and leave” can give awareness to the community and take strength and therefore the project can go on, and I hope it’s good for you too, and you can really help the community (but in the meantime, sometimes you can help the community by making a mistake, giving them the courage to tell you. vandar that yellow site is horrible. (even in friendship) . here this courage is not there, and without courage there is no decentralization.

that’s what marcelus said of the secret vote. and even though he’s very neutral like all Swiss

It’s simple.

I send a hug to everyone.

In Decentralization we Trust