Author Topic: The community urgently need reassurance and clarification from BM  (Read 7684 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
So, with all of that said here is my new proposal that I don't actually believe the community would accept but is just my attempt at decoy pricing. PTS holders haven't contributed anything to I3 by speculating on that asset, so cut them out entirely. AGS holders have contributed funds (either BTC or PTS that then gave I3 about 10% stake in BTSX) to I3 which has made all of this wonderful technology possible. The pre-Feb 28 AGS holders have already gotten most of their reward from the BTSX snapshot. What remains is the value contributed by post-Feb 28 AGS holders, as well as the residual value of pre-Feb 28 AGS holders that wasn't included as part of the BTSX snapshot. Use the after-drop-off price immediately after Feb 28 to calculate the residual value that is distributed to pre-Feb 28 AGS holders. Use the total value contributed to the AGS fundraiser after Feb 28 until the end of the AGS campaign to distribute to post-Feb 28 AGS holders. Give them a little bonus to compensate them for opportunity costs (let's say a prorated 5% p.a. yield), and distribute that amount of value to them through diluted BTS. Done. The BTSX community wouldn't even need to that, but might do it anyway to be fair and not piss too many people off. Some PTS holders still got their fair share of BTSX, DNS, VOTE, NOTE. The current PTS holders lose their value since the social contract changes. Sorry, you lose. The VOTE holders lose whatever value they might have had (we won't ever know since VOTE hasn't started trading yet). Sorry, you lose. DNS may stay independent or all the development effort may go into the BTS chain (I guess it depends on what toast wants to do?). If it's the latter, then again, sorry, you lose. BitShares Music would still be independent for now. If necessary BTS might later acquire them and merge them into the chain. But for now NOTE holders don't necessarily lose.

Please note: The above is just my proposal that is not endorsed by anyone else, and even I don't really even believe in it much. Don't start panic selling anything because you think the above is what is going to happen.
This will never pass but I really like it !!!  :D

Offline GaltReport


- BM is lightyears ahead of us
- BM needs to ensure future funding for BTSX
- BM wants to let the community take part in the development of future funding methods

That's why I feel the community screw it this time ..
If you want BM to continue publishing his thoughts you should stop panicking on every word he writes! .. especially those declares as PROPOSAL / OPEN FOR DISCUSSION

It's not the first thread in which inflation is discussed .. still people panic .. not rational IMHO

Yes, I agree.

I disagree. Much of the proposal is just that a proposal up for discussion and feedback.
However I feel Bytemaster has recently been clear & honest that dilution is a necessary feature of his grand vision for BitAssets.

Those that want a stable money will use BitGold or BitSilver because those are not subject to change, only supply and demand. If you cannot trust the community of stakeholders to act wisely then create a rigid system with no rule changes and attempt to compete.

Therefore the market has clarity BTSX + no dilution is no longer viable within BitShares as it will not benefit from the full potency of Bytemaster's ability.

That is fine. I think the market has mostly adjusted to that. My BitShares investment is primarily an investment in Bytemasters grand vision. Also BitShares has a short window of opportunity in which to take its shot at the world, lets not miss it.

 +5%

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
Quote
That was entirely irrelevant and not a real proposal. Nothing to worry about.

Sorry...I do that a lot..I misunderstand things here. Not panicking though...I am pretty sure that we all have the same interests here..

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Sorry but as an AGS shareholder after 28 snapshot that gave ALL my liquidity away with the expectation to receive a fair cut from the other promising DACs other than BTSX "sorry you lose" is not a fair option unless I misunderstood something about your proposal.
That was entirely irrelevant and not a real proposal. Nothing to worry about.

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
Sorry but as an AGS shareholder after 28 snapshot that gave ALL my liquidity away with the expectation to receive a fair cut from the other promising DACs other than BTSX "sorry you lose" is not a fair option unless I misunderstood something about your proposal.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile

- BM is lightyears ahead of us
- BM needs to ensure future funding for BTSX
- BM wants to let the community take part in the development of future funding methods

That's why I feel the community screw it this time ..
If you want BM to continue publishing his thoughts you should stop panicking on every word he writes! .. especially those declares as PROPOSAL / OPEN FOR DISCUSSION

It's not the first thread in which inflation is discussed .. still people panic .. not rational IMHO

Yes, I agree.

I disagree. Much of the proposal is just that a proposal up for discussion and feedback.
However I feel Bytemaster has recently been clear & honest that dilution is a necessary feature of his grand vision for BitAssets.

Those that want a stable money will use BitGold or BitSilver because those are not subject to change, only supply and demand. If you cannot trust the community of stakeholders to act wisely then create a rigid system with no rule changes and attempt to compete.

Therefore the market has clarity BTSX + no dilution is no longer viable within BitShares as it will not benefit from the full potency of Bytemaster's ability.

That is fine. I think the market has mostly adjusted to that. My BitShares investment is primarily an investment in Bytemasters grand vision. Also BitShares has a short window of opportunity in which to take its shot at the world, lets not miss it.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 10:52:26 pm by Empirical1.1 »

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Its 01:30 but I think I agree with BM's original proposal. Its just least complex solution which is "good enough".

Sweet! So the decoy pricing strategy really does work!  ;D

I saw what you did there. I still think it is different than original promise. However most people will not notice the difference. And non-dillutable shares are certainly too much in favor of AGS/PTS. I'm not even sure anymore if the original proposals state no-dillution for AGS/PTS...  I should sleep.

PS: mumble session certainly helped changing my mind
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 10:48:58 pm by emski »

Offline James212

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Just came out of a direct Mumble session with Bytemaster and Stan. There were 23 of on the call.  After the meeting we were all convinced that the new proposal was be good for Bitshares investors.  The audio will be linked here shortly. 
\

Edit:  Link to the unedited audio download of the Mumble session

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B521Uvk7QIpYUlBBQld2b25pTVE/view?usp=sharing
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 12:45:59 am by James212 »
BTS: theangelwaveproject

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Its 01:30 but I think I agree with BM's original proposal. Its just least complex solution which is "good enough".

Sweet! So the decoy pricing strategy really does work!  ;D

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Please note: The above is just my proposal that is not endorsed by anyone else, and even I don't really even believe in it much. Don't start panic selling anything because you think the above is what is going to happen.

You don't need shareholders that will panic sell due to such proposal. It is better if they remove themselves from stakeholder's list.

Its 01:30 but I think I agree with BM's original proposal. Its just least complex solution which is "good enough".

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Infact introducing non-dillutable BTS should calm these that "anchor" the development.

Non dilutable shares are not an option as they would benefit unfairly from the benefits that all the other shareholders were funding via dilution, no?

An option discussed here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10175.0 is to offer newly issued shares to shareholders first.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Infact introducing non-dillutable BTS should calm these that "anchor" the development.

Non dilutable shares are not an option as they would benefit unfairly from the benefits that all the other shareholders were funding via dilution, no?

Ggozzo

  • Guest
What do you think about some shares to be non-dillutable? Explanation here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10161.0 .

If PTS/AGS holders are okay with that deal, then I have no problem with it. And GENESIS holders absolutely should not have any voting power on BTS matters (particularly dilution).

But if I understand your proposal, another (IMHO clearer) way of stating your proposal is that the social consensus would change such that the genesis stake of a new DAC should be awarded according to the following breakdown:
  • (1-x/100)*83.4% awarded to BTS
  • (1-x/100)*16.6% awarded to GENESIS
  • x% awarded to other stakeholders (possibly some to founders and some to IPO)

I used 16.6% because (400 million / 2.4 billion = 0.1666...). Was this your intention? Or did you mean to say that future DACs would snapshot 400 million of every 2 billion shares to the non-dilutable GENESIS holders and 1.6 billion of every 2 billion shares to the dilutable BTS holders? If so the breakdown would instead be:
  • (1-x/100)*80% awarded to BTS
  • (1-x/100)*20% awarded to GENESIS
  • x% awarded to other stakeholders (possibly some to founders and some to IPO)
This would honor the original social consensus as long as x = 0. But that leaves no funds for the developers of the DACs, other than possibility through further dilution of the new DAC.

Your calculations are correct. I was too lazy to fix it as these are only numbers.
However my idea includes an additional property on GENESIS. They are non-dillutable. Meaning GENESIS should always have 20% of the total stake.

I was sold on this until....

I remembered BTSX was a 50/50 split and the other DACs weren't. So if all AGS and PTS are now only 40% of the total supply, who is getting the other 60%?

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
x is always 0.
What I currently see is continuous dillution via (business proposals/delegates etc) that allocates % dillution over time.
What I meant is that GENESIS shares should be non-dillutable - meaning:
If you print 10% stake in the new DAC all GENESIS increases with 10%.
The result will be ~+12% total (10% for the business proposal and 2% for GENESIS)

You can propose whatever you want, if DAC creators feel it is a ridiculous deal they will ignore it and do a better distribution (and they will likely succeed with that better distribution).

There are two purposes mixed together here when dealing with snapshots.

First, it is to get a strong initial network effect and strong hands to not dump your stock. You know what is the really good way of achieving that? An ICO specific to that DAC. The people who donate will be self-selected to be strong hands and the DAC creators get good initial seed funding. Later, shareholder-approved dilution can allow further funds to support development. I don't believe guaranteeing a 20% stake of your DAC for all time to a group who was able to get into that position without even financially contributing to the project is a smart move for any DAC creator (at least not unless there are other benefits, see second point). If I was a DAC creator and I wasn't going to get any help from I3 anyway (see second point), I would probably just say: screw that deal, I'll fork the BitShares toolkit, learn how to master it, do my own ICO, and compete.

Second, it is to get help from I3, Dan, and the team who are experts in the toolkit. This can tremendously help the DAC succeed in these early days. But my conclusion from the discussions these past two days is that it is in the best interest of the BitShares community for I3 to focus their limited time on one DAC and try to make it grow really big (and if that requires developing some new technology and secret sauce plan that was meant for the Voting DAC, so be it). Only after that one DAC has gotten the critical network effect it needs can they start focusing on multiple DACs specializing in various different industries. At that point, the network effect will be in BTS, so with regards to the first point, DAC creators will want to snapshot from BTS because that is where the value is at. So, it makes sense for I3 to change the social contract to: we will eventually help out third party DACs after we first get the critical network effect we need for BTS, but only if they credit BTS holders sufficiently (whatever the community decides that means).

So, with all of that said here is my new proposal that I don't actually believe the community would accept but is just my attempt at decoy pricing. PTS holders haven't contributed anything to I3 by speculating on that asset, so cut them out entirely. AGS holders have contributed funds (either BTC or PTS that then gave I3 about 10% stake in BTSX) to I3 which has made all of this wonderful technology possible. The pre-Feb 28 AGS holders have already gotten most of their reward from the BTSX snapshot. What remains is the value contributed by post-Feb 28 AGS holders, as well as the residual value of pre-Feb 28 AGS holders that wasn't included as part of the BTSX snapshot. Use the after-drop-off price immediately after Feb 28 to calculate the residual value that is distributed to pre-Feb 28 AGS holders. Use the total value contributed to the AGS fundraiser after Feb 28 until the end of the AGS campaign to distribute to post-Feb 28 AGS holders. Give them a little bonus to compensate them for opportunity costs (let's say a prorated 5% p.a. yield), and distribute that amount of value to them through diluted BTS. Done. The BTSX community wouldn't even need to that, but might do it anyway to be fair and not piss too many people off. Some PTS holders still got their fair share of BTSX, DNS, VOTE, NOTE. The current PTS holders lose their value since the social contract changes. Sorry, you lose. The VOTE holders lose whatever value they might have had (we won't ever know since VOTE hasn't started trading yet). Sorry, you lose. DNS may stay independent or all the development effort may go into the BTS chain (I guess it depends on what toast wants to do?). If it's the latter, then again, sorry, you lose. BitShares Music would still be independent for now. If necessary BTS might later acquire them and merge them into the chain. But for now NOTE holders don't necessarily lose.

Please note: The above is just my proposal that is not endorsed by anyone else, and even I don't really even believe in it much. Don't start panic selling anything because you think the above is what is going to happen.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 10:04:05 pm by arhag »

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
However my idea includes an additional property on GENESIS. They are non-dillutable. Meaning GENESIS should always have 20% of the total stake.

Ah, okay, so the breakdown would instead be:
  • 20% awarded to GENESIS
  • (80-x)% awarded to BTS
  • x% awarded to other stakeholders (possibly some to founders and some to IPO)

Sure, that would honor the original social consensus, so I can't imagine AGS/PTS holders complaining about that.

But I guess my greater point here is what exactly is the point of all of this. DAC creators will only prefer to snapshot some amount of their genesis stake to others rather than keeping it themselves and/or doing an IPO specific to their DAC if it provides them greater value to do so. If the network effect is in BTS (because everyone wants to take advantage of huge profits by holding BTS), then DAC creators can just ignore the social consensus and go for a distribution that provides them the greatest value. As for whether I3 should be supporting these third-party DACs, perhaps very minimally if they credit BTS and maybe GENESIS holders, but wasn't the proposal in bytemaster's thread all about the team narrowing their focus to the single BTS DAC for the time being? In which case, I don't think they should be diverting resources helping third party DACs even if they credit PTS/AGS holders. Because of this change in priorities, it seemed "fair" to compensate current PTS/AGS holders with some value (in the form of diluted BTS) because otherwise the value of their holdings would likely drop to zero with the support of I3 gone.

x is always 0.
What I currently see is continuous dillution via (business proposals/delegates etc) that allocates % dillution over time.
What I meant is that GENESIS shares should be non-dillutable - meaning:
If you print 10% stake in the new DAC all GENESIS increases with 10%.
The result will be ~+12% total (10% for the business proposal and 2% for GENESIS)