Author Topic: dilution - who decides - where do the coins go?  (Read 2960 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Random delegates that do not have the community's trust will never get any inflation budget. The delegates with a budget will be prominent community members with broad support. If you look at bitcoin right now, there's a couple of developers who are all respected by the community: jgarzik, gavin, gmaxwell, etc. it would be these kind of prominent developers that can just be hired by the blockchain directly, instead of having to be on the payroll at random companies.

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
You could even make the increased fees asymmetrical - people who are new to crypto and who want to have stability can be charged the usual 0.1 BTSX to get their BitUSD, whilst day-traders who want to get back into the game can be charged 200 BTSX ($2) to acquire shares.

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
Delegates receive higher pay, not one time large dilutions.  It comes down to trust that stakeholders will vote for delegates that have spending authority proportional to their trust. 

Most delegates would get low spending authority. 

A max infusion rate can be hard coded and require a hard fork to change.   This can prevent some attacks.

Has there been any concrete plans for which delegates will be trusted to get this higher pay and what they will do with the funds?

Also I dont know if anyone has mentioned this idea before, but what about voting to increase the minimum transaction fee temporarily? On my recent round of day trading I payed 0.1 BTSX for each of my trades - the equivalent of 1/10th of 2 cents. Thats an insanely low fee.

I would gladly pay $2-5 per trade if I knew that delegates were spending that money on promoting BTSX and building infrastructure.

Wouldnt this idea give us all the revenue we need for promoting BTSX ?

Offline bytemaster

Delegate pay rate is fixed at the time they register.  Those who vote for them are approving that pay rate.  It can only go down or voluntarily burned.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline stuartcharles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile

Delegates receive higher pay, not one time large dilutions.  It comes down to trust that stakeholders will vote for delegates that have spending authority proportional to their trust. 

Most delegates would get low spending authority. 

A max infusion rate can be hard coded and require a hard fork to change.   This can prevent some attacks.

So the extra shares are issued to the delegates? and the delegates get to vote on whether they want more pay?

Voting is all ready a problem, something like this carnt work until the voting problems are sorted.

Delegates cannot vote themselves a pay raise.  Only decrease it.

But you say "Delegates receive higher pay, not one time large dilutions" and delegates decide how many extra shares to issue? Or am i missing something?

Offline bytemaster


Delegates receive higher pay, not one time large dilutions.  It comes down to trust that stakeholders will vote for delegates that have spending authority proportional to their trust. 

Most delegates would get low spending authority. 

A max infusion rate can be hard coded and require a hard fork to change.   This can prevent some attacks.

So the extra shares are issued to the delegates? and the delegates get to vote on whether they want more pay?

Voting is all ready a problem, something like this carnt work until the voting problems are sorted.

Delegates cannot vote themselves a pay raise.  Only decrease it.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline stuartcharles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
Delegates receive higher pay, not one time large dilutions.  It comes down to trust that stakeholders will vote for delegates that have spending authority proportional to their trust. 

Most delegates would get low spending authority. 

A max infusion rate can be hard coded and require a hard fork to change.   This can prevent some attacks.

So the extra shares are issued to the delegates? and the delegates get to vote on whether they want more pay?

Voting is all ready a problem, something like this carnt work until the voting problems are sorted.

Offline bytemaster

Delegates receive higher pay, not one time large dilutions.  It comes down to trust that stakeholders will vote for delegates that have spending authority proportional to their trust. 

Most delegates would get low spending authority. 

A max infusion rate can be hard coded and require a hard fork to change.   This can prevent some attacks. 

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline James212

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Been plowing through the posts and listened to the mumble.

I can see why the mumble session was positive, putting some of the DAC's together makes absolute sense, from a pooling of resource and not competing with ones self point of view. However, the problem which made me feel uncomfortable was not addressed. These are:-

We carnt fairly vote on whether to issue more shares or not (dilution) when i3 controls enough shares to sway the vote.
Where are any newly issued shares kept, who controls them?

Edit - To be clear i am not talking about the conversion of AGS,PTS and BTSX to BTS that can be reasoned out with discussion. I am talking about any future dilution which Dan said could be voted on and then used for development.
This looming question is why I'm against dilution schemes.  Sure proposals might be put to a vote but even if I3 didn't control a majority of the voting shares they would likely only have to make a recommendation and the votes would flock. 

If dilution proposals by I3 are anything like current proposals they only need to claim some big secret and everyone will rush to vote for the printing press based on information they don't even have.

I believe I3 will continue to try to do what they think will give them the greatest chances for success and maybe it's best to leave them an avenue to print money when wanted.  That's just not the system I was excited to invest in.

On top of that, to my knowledge there is no code base or even proposal to autonomize the restriction of use for added funds, tracking them or the calculation for how much extra profit they've bought.  Let's say I spend all the dilution funds raised on hooker and blow, then what?  You vote me out and hopefully the next guy doesn't also sweet talk more funds out of shareholders with some grand plans?
[/b]

They are in printing money, they are issuing shares.  THIS IS NOT BITCOIN.   The mechanics and function of crypto shares are/should be totally different from crypto currency   People are still getting confused with this! 

The details of the delution/ infusion plan are still to be worked out.  As I understand it, nothing has been divided yet.  The only thing the many are starting to come around to is that the general idea is worth exploring.    There are many details to be worked out before agreement is reached. 
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 12:33:34 pm by James212 »
BTS: theangelwaveproject

Offline stuartcharles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
There will be no inflation of bitassets. Inflation of bitshares will ONLY be used in profitable ways that generate a return significantly higher than what has been spend. Think of it as Facebook issuing stock to acquire Oculus, because they know that the two companies will be a lot stronger together in the future, than apart.

With inflation we will be able to fund exponential growth in development and marketing avenues. If a delegate is ever discovered to inflate for no reason and just runs off with the money, he will be instantly kicked out.

This doesn't answer my concerns as posted above

We carnt fairly vote on whether to issue more shares or not (dilution) when i3 controls enough shares to sway the vote.
Where are any newly issued shares kept, who controls them?

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
There will be no inflation of bitassets. Inflation of bitshares will ONLY be used in profitable ways that generate a return significantly higher than what has been spend. Think of it as Facebook issuing stock to acquire Oculus, because they know that the two companies will be a lot stronger together in the future, than apart.

With inflation we will be able to fund exponential growth in development and marketing avenues. If a delegate is ever discovered to inflate for no reason and just runs off with the money, he will be instantly kicked out.

Offline stuartcharles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
One big reason we bought into this was the lack of inflation, Bitshares is not like bitcoin which is inflationary.

We get interest not inflation remember  +5%. If you add the value of one thing to another say PTS to BTSX to make BTS thats not inflation that's consolidation and that perfectly reasonable. I understand the need for development funds but adding an unknown value to that, at this stage, is beyond messy.

What ever has to be done has to be done quick, when figures like 80% development fund appear you can expect even more panic than before.

Dev's you need to be quick (very), decisive and clear. Your decision must been seen by the majority of shares to be fair, if it doesn't feel fair then there will be no confidence that something like this wont happen again.

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
Perhaps if i3 had locks on a material amount of their Bitshares for 3 years, there would be a powerful incentive to maximise the value from any dilution. In that case even if they do effectively have most of the control over dilution decisions, they would be shooting themselves in the foot if not acting in everyone's best interests.

Offline amencon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
Been plowing through the posts and listened to the mumble.

I can see why the mumble session was positive, putting some of the DAC's together makes absolute sense, from a pooling of resource and not competing with ones self point of view. However, the problem which made me feel uncomfortable was not addressed. These are:-

We carnt fairly vote on whether to issue more shares or not (dilution) when i3 controls enough shares to sway the vote.
Where are any newly issued shares kept, who controls them?

Edit - To be clear i am not talking about the conversion of AGS,PTS and BTSX to BTS that can be reasoned out with discussion. I am talking about any future dilution which Dan said could be voted on and then used for development.
This looming question is why I'm against dilution schemes.  Sure proposals might be put to a vote but even if I3 didn't control a majority of the voting shares they would likely only have to make a recommendation and the votes would flock. 

If dilution proposals by I3 are anything like current proposals they only need to claim some big secret and everyone will rush to vote for the printing press based on information they don't even have.

I believe I3 will continue to try to do what they think will give them the greatest chances for success and maybe it's best to leave them an avenue to print money when wanted.  That's just not the system I was excited to invest in.

On top of that, to my knowledge there is no code base or even proposal to autonomize the restriction of use for added funds, tracking them or the calculation for how much extra profit they've bought.  Let's say I spend all the dilution funds raised on hooker and blow, then what?  You vote me out and hopefully the next guy doesn't also sweet talk more funds out of shareholders with some grand plans?

Offline stuartcharles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
Been plowing through the posts and listened to the mumble.

I can see why the mumble session was positive, putting some of the DAC's together makes absolute sense, from a pooling of resource and not competing with ones self point of view. However, the problem which made me feel uncomfortable was not addressed. These are:-

We carnt fairly vote on whether to issue more shares or not (dilution) when i3 controls enough shares to sway the vote.
Where are any newly issued shares kept, who controls them?

Edit - To be clear i am not talking about the conversion of AGS,PTS and BTSX to BTS that can be reasoned out with discussion. I am talking about any future dilution which Dan said could be voted on and then used for development.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 09:17:50 am by stuartcharles »