Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Example of DAC(s) using PTS/AGS and BTS (BM's proposal)  (Read 1218 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Example of DAC(s) using PTS/AGS and BTS (BM's proposal)
« on: October 20, 2014, 07:03:29 AM »

I agree with BM that PTS/AGS should be killed and merged with BTSX. However I'm uncertain in the numbers due to the cases below:

Imagine a DAC "OLD" using the "old" AGS/PTS consensus:
10% allocated to AGS
10% allocated to PTS
80% allocated to developers for dev/marketing/increase value/blabla

Imagine a DAC "NEW" using the newly proposed consensus:
100% allocated to BTS
   This includes:
          10% allocated to former AGS
          10% allocated to former PTS
          80% allocated to former BTSX (lets for simplicity state that we have 40% AGS and 40% PTS from feb 28 snapshot)
            0% allocated to developers for dev/marketing/increase value/blabla

In order for the NEW DAC to have the same dev funds of 80% all stakeholders should be diluted to 20% of the DAC. This will look like this:
          2% allocated to former AGS
          2% allocated to former PTS
          16% allocated to former BTSX (lets for simplicity state that we have 8% AGS and 8% PTS from feb 28 snapshot)
          80% allocated to developers for dev/marketing/increase value/blabla

This looks fair as AGS and PTS both seems to have 10%. However lets see 2 cases here:
AGS/PTS holders of pre-feb 28 snapshot will get:
          10% of diluted DAC for AGS
          10% of diluted DAC for PTS

AGS/PTS holders post-feb 28 snapshot will get:
          2% of diluted DAC for AGS
          2% of diluted DAC for PTS

So anyone entered in Bitshares after feb-28 is magically robbed of his value. This includes all post feb28 PTS buyers. All post feb28 AGS donators. All post feb28 PTS miners.

Please tell me if I'm wrong somewhere because I see anyone who entered bitshares post feb28 as inequal.

Offline onceuponatime

Re: Example of DAC(s) using PTS/AGS and BTS (BM's proposal)
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2014, 07:16:33 AM »

Imagine a DAC "NEW" using the newly proposed consensus:
100% allocated to BTS
   This includes:
          10% allocated to former AGS
          10% allocated to former PTS
          80% allocated to former BTSX (lets for simplicity state that we have 40% AGS and 40% PTS from feb 28 snapshot)
            0% allocated to developers for dev/marketing/increase value/blabla



Where are you getting 100% allocated to BTS? Wouldn't a "new DAC" allocate at least 20% to BTS, and keep the remainder for development etc.?

zerosum

  • Guest
Re: Example of DAC(s) using PTS/AGS and BTS (BM's proposal)
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2014, 07:23:37 AM »
AGS
This seems to be quite solvable by diluting BTSX, in such a way that before and after 28th donations have equal weight... [which will greatly benefit me, personally btw] but I do not see this happing... 

PTS
And the PTS as of what day should have the same weight? And most all [all excluded mined after that date] of them were also in somebody's position as of Feb 28th ...total load of BS...


PS
I do appreciate the effort you have put to make the system better, but I just fail to see it working.

PSS
I did not create this complicated system of 750 products... I will be happy with semi-fair solution... maybe my stake is not big enough to actually care too much, but that's how I feel.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 07:34:05 AM by zerosum »

Offline svk

Re: Example of DAC(s) using PTS/AGS and BTS (BM's proposal)
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2014, 07:29:08 AM »
I think you're wrong because you're still thinking in terms of the old paradigm of snapshots and percentage allocations. Whenever a new feature gets added to the future BTS DAC, you won't have an allocation or dilution etc, you'll just have a new feature and more value added to an existing DAC. At least that's how I understand it.

You're assuming a 10/10/80 split between AGS/PTS/BTSX in the buyout, but we don't know yet what the allocation will be for an eventual dilution of BTSX. I'm not sure how the post 28th feb donations compare to the pre-28th donations, but I guess it will need to scale according to that.

Basically I think we need to know more details before doing an analysis like this.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Example of DAC(s) using PTS/AGS and BTS (BM's proposal)
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2014, 07:34:32 AM »
Imagine the following:
Average Joe hears about Bitshares 1 mar (after 28 feb).
Average Joe research a bit and realises that if he want to enter in future DACS he needs to buy/mine PTS. He reads that this will get him 10% of all future DACs. This was iterated many times by practically anyone on the forum including anyone from III. Average Joe gets all in on PTS and he believes he will get 10% of any future DAC (while developers will have 80% for development). What happens now? Average Joe gets 2% and he doesn't know why. He must read the whole forum with its multiple threads and he needs to UNDERSTAND all of this and developer's issues and desires. Average Joe doesn't care if it is hard to implement it or any other thoughts and considerations of developers. Average Joe clearly saw how III promised him 10% but now he has 2%. Average Joe doesn't understand any of this. Average Joe is unhappy.

How would you explain this to Average Joe?

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Example of DAC(s) using PTS/AGS and BTS (BM's proposal)
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2014, 07:36:05 AM »

Imagine a DAC "NEW" using the newly proposed consensus:
100% allocated to BTS
   This includes:
          10% allocated to former AGS
          10% allocated to former PTS
          80% allocated to former BTSX (lets for simplicity state that we have 40% AGS and 40% PTS from feb 28 snapshot)
            0% allocated to developers for dev/marketing/increase value/blabla



Where are you getting 100% allocated to BTS? Wouldn't a "new DAC" allocate at least 20% to BTS, and keep the remainder for development etc.?
Doesn't matter if it is initially allocated or diluted afterwards. Just see the next distribution.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Example of DAC(s) using PTS/AGS and BTS (BM's proposal)
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2014, 07:39:43 AM »
AGS
This seems to be quite solvable by diluting BTSX, in such a way that before and after 28th donations have equal weight... [which will greatly benefit me, personally btw] but I do not see this happing... 
True. Lets see it.
PTS
And the PTS as of what day should have the same weight? And most all [all excluded mined after that date] of them were also in somebody's position as of Feb 28th ...total load of BS...
Day 0. Initial "suggestion"/"promise"/"consensus" . PTS and AGS have identical calculations. Just the distribution is different. The same argument is valid for AGS
PSS
I did not create this complicated system of 750 products... I will be happy with semi-fair solution... maybe my stake is not big enough to actually care too much, but that's how I feel.
Me too. I imagine how hard it is to solve all of this. I'm just trying to ask questions before Average Joe (see above).

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Example of DAC(s) using PTS/AGS and BTS (BM's proposal)
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2014, 07:42:38 AM »
You're assuming a 10/10/80 split between AGS/PTS/BTSX in the buyout, but we don't know yet what the allocation will be for an eventual dilution of BTSX. I'm not sure how the post 28th feb donations compare to the pre-28th donations, but I guess it will need to scale according to that.

Basically I think we need to know more details before doing an analysis like this.
You are correct my assumption about AGS/PTS distribution might not be accurate. Lets wait.

zerosum

  • Guest
Re: Example of DAC(s) using PTS/AGS and BTS (BM's proposal)
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2014, 07:44:06 AM »
AGS
This seems to be quite solvable by diluting BTSX, in such a way that before and after 28th donations have equal weight... [which will greatly benefit me, personally btw] but I do not see this happing... 
True. Lets see it.
PTS
And the PTS as of what day should have the same weight? And most all [all excluded mined after that date] of them were also in somebody's position as of Feb 28th ...total load of BS...
Day 0. Initial "suggestion"/"promise"/"consensus" . PTS and AGS have identical calculations. Just the distribution is different. The same argument is valid for AGS
PSS
I did not create this complicated system of 750 products... I will be happy with semi-fair solution... maybe my stake is not big enough to actually care too much, but that's how I feel.
Me too. I imagine how hard it is to solve all of this. I'm just trying to ask questions before Average Joe (see above).


Imagine the following:
Average Joe hears about Bitshares 1 mar (after 28 feb).
Average Joe research a bit and realises that if he want to enter in future DACS he needs to buy/mine PTS. He reads that this will get him 10% of all future DACs. This was iterated many times by practically anyone on the forum including anyone from III. Average Joe gets all in on PTS and he believes he will get 10% of any future DAC (while developers will have 80% for development). What happens now? Average Joe gets 2% and he doesn't know why. He must read the whole forum with its multiple threads and he needs to UNDERSTAND all of this and developer's issues and desires. Average Joe doesn't care if it is hard to implement it or any other thoughts and considerations of developers. Average Joe clearly saw how III promised him 10% but now he has 2%. Average Joe doesn't understand any of this. Average Joe is unhappy.

How would you explain this to Average Joe?

I will be more than happy if your solution actually works. It might be the intake of substances tonight, but I do not see how you can make all parties happy, regardless of the will and effort you put towards this goal.

sumantso

  • Guest
Re: Example of DAC(s) using PTS/AGS and BTS (BM's proposal)
« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2014, 09:10:55 AM »
Post 28th Feb AGS and PTS holders are screwed when it comes to third party DACs. Initially anybody following the social consensus and using toolkit would've used 20% for PTS/AGS. Even some which didn't use that like Lottoshares awarded 20%. This was one of the points stressed that beyond I3 (and I consider Music, DNS etc I3), there will be DACs who would award to PTS/AGS at the very least to stop getting negative reputation.

In the new scheme, they will award 20% to BTS, which means less than 4% for PTS/AGS post Feb 28.

Before zerosum gets angry I should add that the new proposal benefits me; doesn't mean its fair.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Example of DAC(s) using PTS/AGS and BTS (BM's proposal)
« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2014, 09:30:53 AM »
Post 28th Feb AGS and PTS holders are screwed when it comes to third party DACs. Initially anybody following the social consensus and using toolkit would've used 20% for PTS/AGS. Even some which didn't use that like Lottoshares awarded 20%. This was one of the points stressed that beyond I3 (and I consider Music, DNS etc I3), there will be DACs who would award to PTS/AGS at the very least to stop getting negative reputation.

In the new scheme, they will award 20% to BTS, which means less than 4% for PTS/AGS post Feb 28.

Before zerosum gets angry I should add that the new proposal benefits me; doesn't mean its fair.
They will award 100% to BTS initially but that is without any DEV funds. Then there MUST be dilution. The old model awarded 20% but ensured 80% goes to developers thus the need for dilution is much smaller.

Offline svk

Re: Example of DAC(s) using PTS/AGS and BTS (BM's proposal)
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2014, 09:31:54 AM »


Post 28th Feb AGS and PTS holders are screwed when it comes to third party DACs. Initially anybody following the social consensus and using toolkit would've used 20% for PTS/AGS. Even some which didn't use that like Lottoshares awarded 20%. This was one of the points stressed that beyond I3 (and I consider Music, DNS etc I3), there will be DACs who would award to PTS/AGS at the very least to stop getting negative reputation.

In the new scheme, they will award 20% to BTS, which means less than 4% for PTS/AGS post Feb 28.

Before zerosum gets angry I should add that the new proposal benefits me; doesn't mean its fair.

You're jumping to (imo incorrect) conclusions. Stating that pts/AGS are getting screwed when you have no details about the implementation is scaremongering,  and also a bit disrespectful to I3 who I'm sure will do their best to find a fair solution.

Like I said above I think we need to stop thinking in terms of snapshots and allocations for new DACs, you'll simply have new features added to the super DAC BTS..

What needs to be discussed though is the amount of BTS shares issued to buy out PTS/AGS.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BTS: Stan
Re: Example of DAC(s) using PTS/AGS and BTS (BM's proposal)
« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2014, 09:41:33 AM »
I agree with BM that PTS/AGS should be killed and merged with BTSX. However I'm uncertain in the numbers due to the cases below:

Imagine a DAC "OLD" using the "old" AGS/PTS consensus:
10% allocated to AGS
10% allocated to PTS
80% allocated to developers for dev/marketing/increase value/blabla

Imagine a DAC "NEW" using the newly proposed consensus:
100% allocated to BTS
   This includes:
          10% allocated to former AGS
          10% allocated to former PTS
          80% allocated to former BTSX (lets for simplicity state that we have 40% AGS and 40% PTS from feb 28 snapshot)
            0% allocated to developers for dev/marketing/increase value/blabla

In order for the NEW DAC to have the same dev funds of 80% all stakeholders should be diluted to 20% of the DAC. This will look like this:
          2% allocated to former AGS
          2% allocated to former PTS
          16% allocated to former BTSX (lets for simplicity state that we have 8% AGS and 8% PTS from feb 28 snapshot)
          80% allocated to developers for dev/marketing/increase value/blabla

This looks fair as AGS and PTS both seems to have 10%. However lets see 2 cases here:
AGS/PTS holders of pre-feb 28 snapshot will get:
          10% of diluted DAC for AGS
          10% of diluted DAC for PTS

AGS/PTS holders post-feb 28 snapshot will get:
          2% of diluted DAC for AGS
          2% of diluted DAC for PTS

So anyone entered in Bitshares after feb-28 is magically robbed of his value. This includes all post feb28 PTS buyers. All post feb28 AGS donators. All post feb28 PTS miners.

Please tell me if I'm wrong somewhere because I see anyone who entered bitshares post feb28 as inequal.

Thank you for these kind of calculations and deep thinking.
That's what we need - neutral parties with great wisdom and thick skins to analyze and propose the most fair way to do this.
We have suggested what is needed as a general strategy.
It is best if others help figure out the details.

 :)
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

sumantso

  • Guest
Re: Example of DAC(s) using PTS/AGS and BTS (BM's proposal)
« Reply #13 on: October 20, 2014, 10:21:15 AM »
Post 28th Feb AGS and PTS holders are screwed when it comes to third party DACs. Initially anybody following the social consensus and using toolkit would've used 20% for PTS/AGS. Even some which didn't use that like Lottoshares awarded 20%. This was one of the points stressed that beyond I3 (and I consider Music, DNS etc I3), there will be DACs who would award to PTS/AGS at the very least to stop getting negative reputation.

In the new scheme, they will award 20% to BTS, which means less than 4% for PTS/AGS post Feb 28.

Before zerosum gets angry I should add that the new proposal benefits me; doesn't mean its fair.
They will award 100% to BTS initially but that is without any DEV funds. Then there MUST be dilution. The old model awarded 20% but ensured 80% goes to developers thus the need for dilution is much smaller.

I am talking of some third party dev, who might want to use the toolkit and decide to award the 20% as per social contract.

sumantso

  • Guest
Re: Example of DAC(s) using PTS/AGS and BTS (BM's proposal)
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2014, 10:23:11 AM »


Post 28th Feb AGS and PTS holders are screwed when it comes to third party DACs. Initially anybody following the social consensus and using toolkit would've used 20% for PTS/AGS. Even some which didn't use that like Lottoshares awarded 20%. This was one of the points stressed that beyond I3 (and I consider Music, DNS etc I3), there will be DACs who would award to PTS/AGS at the very least to stop getting negative reputation.

In the new scheme, they will award 20% to BTS, which means less than 4% for PTS/AGS post Feb 28.

Before zerosum gets angry I should add that the new proposal benefits me; doesn't mean its fair.

You're jumping to (imo incorrect) conclusions. Stating that pts/AGS are getting screwed when you have no details about the implementation is scaremongering,  and also a bit disrespectful to I3 who I'm sure will do their best to find a fair solution.

Like I said above I think we need to stop thinking in terms of snapshots and allocations for new DACs, you'll simply have new features added to the super DAC BTS..

What needs to be discussed though is the amount of BTS shares issued to buy out PTS/AGS.

What about 3rd party unaffiliated projects, like, say, Lottoshares? Remember why the social contract was mooted in the first place?

 

Google+