Should we continue to funding mining of PTS?

biophil · October 17, 2014, 11:47:45 PM

Quote from: Pheonike on October 17, 2014, 10:11:49 PM
Could we do a AGS style donation for the remaining PTS?

I normally hate it when people talk about "the remaining PTS", but I actually like this idea. This or simply scaling existing balances to reach some convenient round number total.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Ander · October 17, 2014, 11:46:40 PM

My lasting contribution to the Bitshares community for all time:

Coming up with the name Bitshares Genesis. :)

biophil · October 17, 2014, 11:44:31 PM

Quote from: donkeypong on October 17, 2014, 11:23:33 PM
Quote from: Ander on October 17, 2014, 10:54:14 PM
FounderShares sounds exactly like some "unfair" thing that a new person cannot buy into anymore. ;)

Bitshares Seed is a good name, imo. Or possibly Bitshares Genesis? Because it gives you a stake in the Genesis block of future DACs?

BitShares Genesis is good.

Ooh, I really like that. Can we please call it Genesis?

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

donkeypong · October 17, 2014, 11:23:33 PM

Quote from: Ander on October 17, 2014, 10:54:14 PM
FounderShares sounds exactly like some "unfair" thing that a new person cannot buy into anymore. ;)

Bitshares Seed is a good name, imo. Or possibly Bitshares Genesis? Because it gives you a stake in the Genesis block of future DACs?

BitShares Genesis is good.

Ander · October 17, 2014, 10:54:14 PM

FounderShares sounds exactly like some "unfair" thing that a new person cannot buy into anymore. ;)

Bitshares Seed is a good name, imo. Or possibly Bitshares Genesis? Because it gives you a stake in the Genesis block of future DACs?

donkeypong · October 17, 2014, 10:17:35 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on October 17, 2014, 09:27:34 PM
I think we are in agreement that PTS should result in the creation of a new liquid asset class that performs the same function.
I think we are in agreement that 2 weeks is too fast...
I think we are in agreement that issuing on BTSX is best

I just think it should be clear that any new asset is not "PTS" and not produced by I3 or DAC Sun and if done properly will be recognized as "fair" by us.

When we discussed this a few months back, a number of posters liked the name "FounderShares" as a PTS successor. Just for fun, I went ahead and registered the domains (I got .net and .org; .com was not available). It's fine with me if you guys choose another name, but if you want FounderShares, I'd be glad to transfer those at my cost.

Pheonike · October 17, 2014, 10:11:49 PM

Could we do a AGS style donation for the remaining PTS?

Gentso1 · October 17, 2014, 10:07:18 PM

Quote from: arhag on October 17, 2014, 09:50:50 PM
Quote from: bytemaster on October 17, 2014, 09:27:34 PM
I think we are in agreement that PTS should result in the creation of a new liquid asset class that performs the same function.
I think we are in agreement that 2 weeks is too fast...
I think we are in agreement that issuing on BTSX is best

Yup, at least I'm in agreement with all three, and have been for a while now.

Quote from: bytemaster on October 17, 2014, 09:27:34 PM
I just think it should be clear that any new asset is not "PTS" and not produced by I3 or DAC Sun and if done properly will be recognized as "fair" by us.

Darn. So I guess the answer to my question at the end of this post is no. Is this because of legal reasons?

As for not labeling it "PTS", I agree and I have previously suggested calling the combined PTS+AGS "BitShares PROTO". I also liked the suggestion by Pheonike to call it "BitShares Seeds". But I definitely do not like just calling it "BitShares" because that is super confusing.

+5%
make sure to announce it to give plenty of time.

xeroc · October 17, 2014, 10:01:06 PM

I agree with arhag

arhag · October 17, 2014, 09:50:50 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on October 17, 2014, 09:27:34 PM
I think we are in agreement that PTS should result in the creation of a new liquid asset class that performs the same function.
I think we are in agreement that 2 weeks is too fast...
I think we are in agreement that issuing on BTSX is best

Yup, at least I'm in agreement with all three, and have been for a while now.

Quote from: bytemaster on October 17, 2014, 09:27:34 PM
I just think it should be clear that any new asset is not "PTS" and not produced by I3 or DAC Sun and if done properly will be recognized as "fair" by us.

Darn. So I guess the answer to my question at the end of this post is no. Is this because of legal reasons?

As for not labeling it "PTS", I agree and I have previously suggested calling the combined PTS+AGS "BitShares PROTO". I also liked the suggestion by Pheonike to call it "BitShares Seeds". But I definitely do not like just calling it "BitShares" because that is super confusing.

Ander · October 17, 2014, 09:45:12 PM

I like the idea of converting to a BTSX asset!

Right now there is low volume in all of the BTSX assets: bitUSD, etc.
Daily volume in all of them combined is a few thousand dollars.

Having PTS as an asset in BTSX could multiply that amount by a factor of 10.

(Of course, in the future we expect and want to see a lot more bitUSD use. But for now, PTS would be the biggest asset on there).

CLains · October 17, 2014, 09:41:23 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on October 17, 2014, 09:27:34 PM
I just think it should be clear that any new asset is not "PTS" and not produced by I3 or DAC Sun and if done properly will be recognized as "fair" by us.

Hasn't this always been the deal? Haven't you guys been consistently overestimating the seeming value proposition third parties see in what you guys want done?

bytemaster · October 17, 2014, 09:27:34 PM

I think we are in agreement that PTS should result in the creation of a new liquid asset class that performs the same function.
I think we are in agreement that 2 weeks is too fast...
I think we are in agreement that issuing on BTSX is best

I just think it should be clear that any new asset is not "PTS" and not produced by I3 or DAC Sun and if done properly will be recognized as "fair" by us.

Fox · October 17, 2014, 09:21:47 PM

My investment in PTS was made with the understanding that it would remain liquid, allowing me to transfer the value to another party when I choose to exit the position. Doing anything to change that fact represents breach of social contract.

Given a Final PTS Snapshot making it illiquid:
Thinking ahead to end of life asset transfer, I struggle to understand how my PTS position could be divided to my wishes when the final snapshot key(s) would dictate the divisibility of the position. Worst case, a single key would represent my entire position making it impossible to divide.

Respectfully,
Fox

Ander · October 17, 2014, 09:09:01 PM

Quote from: bitsharesrussia on October 17, 2014, 08:08:11 PM
I'll come back to my argument and extend it to : If you this now, you'll see the price of btsx go down Lots (with a capital L), more so, NOT, for a short term

Edit : PTS has been live for a year.... for us...not for your average user! You'll kill the party without even starting it. People are VERY MUCH vary of btsx today. Believe me when i say so. I have 5 converstaion everyday convincing people btsx is good for them. Do this now and see that number of people that don't understand btsx and bitUSD grow

I agree.

The amount of FUD that is going to appear out there as a result of this is way beyond what any of you are imagining. We are all going to be posting 24/7 on every message board trying to fight it.

The price of BTSX will probably crash back to 1 cent USD, at least temporarily. All our momentum that we have achieved since the release of bitUSD in august will be dead. Everyone will see BTSX as a pump and dump that already got dumped, and they wont wont to buy back into it again. It will look like we had a huge pump when we released bitUSD, and that it is back to where it started because "it doesnt work and there is no volume".

That is what the narrative would be, unless you guys put up a huge buywall of tons of BTSX under the current price or something like that.