The community urgently need reassurance and clarification from BM

[oco101]

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 !!! 

[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.

 

[mf-tzo]

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..

[emski]

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.

[mf-tzo]

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.

[Empirical1.1]

- 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.

[emski]

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! 

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

[James212]

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

[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! 

[emski]

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".

[emski]

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.

[Empirical1.1]

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]

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%?

[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.

[emski]

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)

[arhag]

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.

[emski]

Infact introducing non-dillutable BTS should calm these that "anchor" the development.

[emski]

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.

[donkeypong]

- 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.

[arhag]

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 = 1/6. 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.

However, I think it is better to not bother with all of this complication. It would be simpler if it was just one BTS token rather than adding GENESIS into the mix as well. Personally, I think the original social contract has outlived its usefulness and it is time for a change.

[emski]

I agree. This is a perfect opportunity for us to divest of the stakeholders who take a hard line on no diluton and are thus anchoring us down to the earth as the rest of us attempt to rocket to the moon.

If the hard-liners want the no-dilution model they can always fork BTSX and attempt to support the fork themselves. But I will bring up my trillion dollar question as a response to such a strategy:

So here's the trillion dollar question: if Dan and I3 support BTSXDilution and reject providing any additional support to BTSXnodilution other than "our code is on GitHub," what would you do then?

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

[Rune]

The damage from the inflation proposal has been massive, despite it being an overall extremely positive development. Far worse is the damage from the extreme uncertainty that is now going through the community. Noone has any idea what is actually going to and if inflation will or will not be implemented.

I dont think there is any going back on the singular bitshare DAC proposal. Even if everything was retracted, the damage to BTSX would already be done, seen from the perspective of the people who fear inflation.

What is now needed is reassurance that the PTS/AGS consolidation will be fair, and that the advantage from implementing inflation and all profitable DAC features into the singular blockchain will be positive in the long term.

Investors are in panic mode, the faster we get reassurance the better, every second of uncertainty hurts.

I agree with this. Inflation right now is not a good idea unless you want to make everyone panic and either completely cash out or go into BitGLD. No one in their right mind is going to sit back holding BTSX.

While nothing has been decided the market is showing that the ideas are so bad that it's not even worth attempting.

Inflation *right now* is not a good idea, but putting inflation on the table, and having it as a strong tool for delegates and developers to upgrade and market bitshares, is absolutely crucial. The ability to issue new shares to bootstrap and amplify consumer adoption will be a gargantuan advantage that no other blockchain will be able to match. When other chains try to implement it to compete with us, they will run into this same problem of market panic and will perhaps be set back even more than we currently have.

I don't even really consider what has happened now as a real sell off, but it is pretty important that the price doesnt fall any further in the short term. If market cap gets below 40 million there would be some quite significant long term confidence issues. That's why good (DA)corporate communication is crucial right now, and I'm talking every minute counts, the sooner we get a strong positive message from BM the sooner markets will calm, consolidate, bottom out and claw back some of the lost market cap.

It would be bad in the long term to have the announcement of these incredibly good news be mostly remembered as the catalyst of a "black friday" like sell off.

That is the key point. Inflation RIGHT NOW is not a good idea.

So why should Bytemaster present a plan as if he's going to do it now? Strategically I cannot think of a worse time to do it when the holiday season is near and the market cap of all coins are shrinking.

What's done is done. I think it's quite obvious that the team doesn't have a lot of PR and corporate communication experience, but that is to be expected from a crypto-anarcho start up. Honestly, even with the mistakes that have been made in the drama of the past few days, the end result and the proposal that has been made is such a ridiculously good thing for bitshares in the long term, that the short term mistakes that came with it are acceptable. Combining all profitable DACs under the BTS brand will be so much easier to sell, and will have significantly better network effect than DACs that are split.

The reality is that "superDACs" are inevitable no matter what, because stakeholders will always vote to increase their own profit and thus intrude into the market of other DACs and steal any and all of the innovations that they have that are profitable. People that are afraid of scaling issues need to realize that DPOS already scales incredibly well, and in the long run some sort of side-chain or multiblock/subblock system can be created that enables one giant network to behave as if it was several smaller, with specialized "semi-nodes" that only handle the portion of the traffic that they are concerned with.

[oco101]

So why should Bytemaster present a plan as if he's going to do it now?

because:
- 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

[xeroc]

So why should Bytemaster present a plan as if he's going to do it now?

because:
- 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

[luckybit]

The damage from the inflation proposal has been massive, despite it being an overall extremely positive development. Far worse is the damage from the extreme uncertainty that is now going through the community. Noone has any idea what is actually going to and if inflation will or will not be implemented.

I dont think there is any going back on the singular bitshare DAC proposal. Even if everything was retracted, the damage to BTSX would already be done, seen from the perspective of the people who fear inflation.

What is now needed is reassurance that the PTS/AGS consolidation will be fair, and that the advantage from implementing inflation and all profitable DAC features into the singular blockchain will be positive in the long term.

Investors are in panic mode, the faster we get reassurance the better, every second of uncertainty hurts.

I agree with this. Inflation right now is not a good idea unless you want to make everyone panic and either completely cash out or go into BitGLD. No one in their right mind is going to sit back holding BTSX.

While nothing has been decided the market is showing that the ideas are so bad that it's not even worth attempting.

Inflation *right now* is not a good idea, but putting inflation on the table, and having it as a strong tool for delegates and developers to upgrade and market bitshares, is absolutely crucial. The ability to issue new shares to bootstrap and amplify consumer adoption will be a gargantuan advantage that no other blockchain will be able to match. When other chains try to implement it to compete with us, they will run into this same problem of market panic and will perhaps be set back even more than we currently have.

I don't even really consider what has happened now as a real sell off, but it is pretty important that the price doesnt fall any further in the short term. If market cap gets below 40 million there would be some quite significant long term confidence issues. That's why good (DA)corporate communication is crucial right now, and I'm talking every minute counts, the sooner we get a strong positive message from BM the sooner markets will calm, consolidate, bottom out and claw back some of the lost market cap.

It would be bad in the long term to have the announcement of these incredibly good news be mostly remembered as the catalyst of a "black friday" like sell off.

That is the key point. Inflation RIGHT NOW is not a good idea.

So why should Bytemaster present a plan as if he's going to do it now? Strategically I cannot think of a worse time to do it when the holiday season is near and the market cap of all coins are shrinking.

[Rune]

clarification: the 'announcement' was a PROPOSAL!

nothing has been decided ..
nothing has been implemented
nothing will happen 'soonish'

act accordingly ..

Markets dont think this way. For the people who fear inflation or DAC consolidation the mere open discussion of the idea is enough to send them running. Even if it was retracted those investors will not return.

Which is as it should be.  99% of our investors a year from now haven't even heard of us yet. 

I agree, but i think it is absolutely crucial to present a strong message of reassurance to those of us who remain. Short term panic and uncertainty can have tremendous consequences in the long run and i really dont think it is wise for BM to not be present on the forums during this market crisis. I realize that he didnt anticipate such a volatile reaction so he probably hasnt got a full proposal/plan ready yet, but I would really love to see a sort of "official statement to investors" that can reassure everyone that you guys know what you are doing and that anyone who trusts your judgement should have no reason to panic.

Perhaps now would also be a good time to reveal some new info about thw coming marketing push and other information that will help calm and reassure investors.

If, as you claim, the damage has already been done from inflation, what would be the benefit in hastily revealing the "secret sauce" and strategic marketing plans?

Yeah absolutely the "secret sauce" should not be revealed. Besides, I'm pretty sure it's not actually a fully fledged plan yet, it's probably just some vague ideas that wouldn't really inspire much confidence for investors. I'm talking about the roadmap for the debit/credit cards and the marketing push that Stan has been talking about for so long. Almost zero detail has been revealed about it, and I don't really buy that it will be bad competition-wise to reveal just some of it. At least considering that Investors would really love to hear something that will make them medium term confident and prevent the excessive uncertainty we are currently in. From a corporate communication standpoint the stakeholder dialogue has been really bad so far, and I'd love to see it get turned around.

Had there been put more thought into how to communicate this whole debacle, starting from the VOTE 2.0 thread Dan made, I think the sell off could have been avoided entirely, or at least mitigated considerably. I just hope the team will learn from their mistakes, and if they ever need input on stakeholder communication I'd be glad to volunteer.

[Rune]

The damage from the inflation proposal has been massive, despite it being an overall extremely positive development. Far worse is the damage from the extreme uncertainty that is now going through the community. Noone has any idea what is actually going to and if inflation will or will not be implemented.

I dont think there is any going back on the singular bitshare DAC proposal. Even if everything was retracted, the damage to BTSX would already be done, seen from the perspective of the people who fear inflation.

What is now needed is reassurance that the PTS/AGS consolidation will be fair, and that the advantage from implementing inflation and all profitable DAC features into the singular blockchain will be positive in the long term.

Investors are in panic mode, the faster we get reassurance the better, every second of uncertainty hurts.

I agree with this. Inflation right now is not a good idea unless you want to make everyone panic and either completely cash out or go into BitGLD. No one in their right mind is going to sit back holding BTSX.

While nothing has been decided the market is showing that the ideas are so bad that it's not even worth attempting.

Inflation *right now* is not a good idea, but putting inflation on the table, and having it as a strong tool for delegates and developers to upgrade and market bitshares, is absolutely crucial. The ability to issue new shares to bootstrap and amplify consumer adoption will be a gargantuan advantage that no other blockchain will be able to match. When other chains try to implement it to compete with us, they will run into this same problem of market panic and will perhaps be set back even more than we currently have.

I don't even really consider what has happened now as a real sell off, but it is pretty important that the price doesnt fall any further in the short term. If market cap gets below 40 million there would be some quite significant long term confidence issues. That's why good (DA)corporate communication is crucial right now, and I'm talking every minute counts, the sooner we get a strong positive message from BM the sooner markets will calm, consolidate, bottom out and claw back some of the lost market cap.

It would be bad in the long term to have the announcement of these incredibly good news be mostly remembered as the catalyst of a "black friday" like sell off.

[amatoB]

clarification: the 'announcement' was a PROPOSAL!

nothing has been decided ..
nothing has been implemented
nothing will happen 'soonish'

act accordingly ..

Markets dont think this way. For the people who fear inflation or DAC consolidation the mere open discussion of the idea is enough to send them running. Even if it was retracted those investors will not return.

Which is as it should be.  99% of our investors a year from now haven't even heard of us yet. 

I agree, but i think it is absolutely crucial to present a strong message of reassurance to those of us who remain. Short term panic and uncertainty can have tremendous consequences in the long run and i really dont think it is wise for BM to not be present on the forums during this market crisis. I realize that he didnt anticipate such a volatile reaction so he probably hasnt got a full proposal/plan ready yet, but I would really love to see a sort of "official statement to investors" that can reassure everyone that you guys know what you are doing and that anyone who trusts your judgement should have no reason to panic.

Perhaps now would also be a good time to reveal some new info about thw coming marketing push and other information that will help calm and reassure investors.

If, as you claim, the damage has already been done from inflation, what would be the benefit in hastily revealing the "secret sauce" and strategic marketing plans?

[luckybit]

The damage from the inflation proposal has been massive, despite it being an overall extremely positive development. Far worse is the damage from the extreme uncertainty that is now going through the community. Noone has any idea what is actually going to and if inflation will or will not be implemented.

I dont think there is any going back on the singular bitshare DAC proposal. Even if everything was retracted, the damage to BTSX would already be done, seen from the perspective of the people who fear inflation.

What is now needed is reassurance that the PTS/AGS consolidation will be fair, and that the advantage from implementing inflation and all profitable DAC features into the singular blockchain will be positive in the long term.

Investors are in panic mode, the faster we get reassurance the better, every second of uncertainty hurts.

I agree with this. Inflation right now is not a good idea unless you want to make everyone panic and either completely cash out or go into BitGLD. No one in their right mind is going to sit back holding BTSX.

While nothing has been decided the market is showing that the ideas are so bad that it's not even worth attempting.

[nomoreheroes7]

I agree, but i think it is absolutely crucial to present a strong message of reassurance to those of us who remain. Short term panic and uncertainty can have tremendous consequences in the long run and i really dont think it is wise for BM to not be present on the forums during this market crisis. I realize that he didnt anticipate such a volatile reaction so he probably hasnt got a full proposal/plan ready yet, but I would really love to see a sort of "official statement to investors" that can reassure everyone that you guys know what you are doing and that anyone who trusts your judgement should have no reason to panic.

Perhaps now would also be a good time to reveal some new info about thw coming marketing push and other information that will help calm and reassure investors.

 . This is important right now.

[Rune]

clarification: the 'announcement' was a PROPOSAL!

nothing has been decided ..
nothing has been implemented
nothing will happen 'soonish'

act accordingly ..

Markets dont think this way. For the people who fear inflation or DAC consolidation the mere open discussion of the idea is enough to send them running. Even if it was retracted those investors will not return.

Which is as it should be.  99% of our investors a year from now haven't even heard of us yet. 

I agree, but i think it is absolutely crucial to present a strong message of reassurance to those of us who remain. Short term panic and uncertainty can have tremendous consequences in the long run and i really dont think it is wise for BM to not be present on the forums during this market crisis. I realize that he didnt anticipate such a volatile reaction so he probably hasnt got a full proposal/plan ready yet, but I would really love to see a sort of "official statement to investors" that can reassure everyone that you guys know what you are doing and that anyone who trusts your judgement should have no reason to panic.

Perhaps now would also be a good time to reveal some new info about thw coming marketing push and other information that will help calm and reassure investors.

[donkeypong]

I agree. This is a perfect opportunity for us to divest of the stakeholders who take a hard line on no diluton and are thus anchoring us down to the earth as the rest of us attempt to rocket to the moon.

If the hard-liners want the no-dilution model they can always fork BTSX and attempt to support the fork themselves. But I will bring up my trillion dollar question as a response to such a strategy:

So here's the trillion dollar question: if Dan and I3 support BTSXDilution and reject providing any additional support to BTSXnodilution other than "our code is on GitHub," what would you do then?

What would I do? Stick with I3. And buy more.

[Stan]

clarification: the 'announcement' was a PROPOSAL!

nothing has been decided ..
nothing has been implemented
nothing will happen 'soonish'

act accordingly ..

Markets dont think this way. For the people who fear inflation or DAC consolidation the mere open discussion of the idea is enough to send them running. Even if it was retracted those investors will not return.

Which is as it should be.  99% of our investors a year from now haven't even heard of us yet. 

[Stan]

I agree. This is a perfect opportunity for us to divest of the stakeholders who take a hard line on no diluton and are thus anchoring us down to the earth as the rest of us attempt to rocket to the moon.

If the hard-liners want the no-dilution model they can always fork BTSX and attempt to support the fork themselves. But I will bring up my trillion dollar question as a response to such a strategy:

So here's the trillion dollar question: if Dan and I3 support BTSXDilution and reject providing any additional support to BTSXnodilution other than "our code is on GitHub," what would you do then?

Survival of the fittest applies to investors too. 

[xeroc]

Markets dont think this way. For the people who fear inflation or DAC consolidation the mere open discussion of the idea is enough to send them running. Even if it was retracted those investors will not return.

We are not talking a "regular" investment/market .. are we?

If they have fear .. let them sell ..
I am in for the bigger picture ... not the quick buck ..

[Rune]

clarification: the 'announcement' was a PROPOSAL!

nothing has been decided ..
nothing has been implemented
nothing will happen 'soonish'

act accordingly ..

Markets dont think this way. For the people who fear inflation or DAC consolidation the mere open discussion of the idea is enough to send them running. Even if it was retracted those investors will not return.

[xeroc]

clarification: the 'announcement' was a PROPOSAL!

nothing has been decided ..
nothing has been implemented
nothing will happen 'soonish'

act accordingly ..

[arhag]

I agree. This is a perfect opportunity for us to divest of the stakeholders who take a hard line on no diluton and are thus anchoring us down to the earth as the rest of us attempt to rocket to the moon.

If the hard-liners want the no-dilution model they can always fork BTSX and attempt to support the fork themselves. But I will bring up my trillion dollar question as a response to such a strategy:

So here's the trillion dollar question: if Dan and I3 support BTSXDilution and reject providing any additional support to BTSXnodilution other than "our code is on GitHub," what would you do then?

[Rune]

The damage from the inflation proposal has been massive, despite it being an overall extremely positive development. Far worse is the damage from the extreme uncertainty that is now going through the community. Noone has any idea what is actually going to and if inflation will or will not be implemented.

I dont think there is any going back on the singular bitshare DAC proposal. Even if everything was retracted, the damage to BTSX would already be done, seen from the perspective of the people who fear inflation.

What is now needed is reassurance that the PTS/AGS consolidation will be fair, and that the advantage from implementing inflation and all profitable DAC features into the singular blockchain will be positive in the long term.

Investors are in panic mode, the faster we get reassurance the better, every second of uncertainty hurts.