Example of DAC(s) using PTS/AGS and BTS (BM's proposal)

[amencon]

I think BTSX, PTS, AGS, and DNS should be smart assets within BTS which are tied to the profitability of their particular subsystems.

If we are stuck with a  single DAC regardless, then I like this approach.  That way if your more interested in a single feature of the mega-DAC you can weight your investments accordingly rather than be forced into an all or nothing situation.

Any idea how feasible this is from a technical standpoint?  Any plans on how to track the profitibility of the super-DAC's subsystems?

[NewMine]

I think BTSX, PTS, AGS, and DNS should be smart assets within BTS which are tied to the profitability of their particular subsystems.

Yes. I agree with this. Would an AGS asset be legal though?

[emski]

"Merged" how? Pick some conversation rates and make everything "BTS"?

If they are assets within BTS, you can still honor AGS/PTS directly. BTSX is still burned from market functionality / used as collateral. Just like you would expect user DAs to work.

Merge is BM's controversial proposal.
I thought about incorporating AGS and PTS as bitAsset named GENESIS. However the BM's purpose is to unify everything and future DACS to honor only one chain 100% and developers to get funds from dilution. I think it sounds good but I don't think current proposal is fair.

[toast]

I think BTSX, PTS, AGS, and DNS should be smart assets within BTS which are tied to the profitability of their particular subsystems.

Could you explain how it should work?
I think that BTSX/PTS/AGS should be merged into BTS (not sure about DNS). However current numbers is what bothers me.

"Merged" how? Pick some conversation rates and make everything "BTS"?

If they are assets within BTS, you can still honor AGS/PTS directly. BTSX is still burned from market functionality / used as collateral. Just like you would expect user DAs to work.

[gamey]

The idea here is that the equity gained in BTSX is equivalent to what the markets decided PTS is worth.  THe price of AGS is extrapolated from PTS. 

Like Dan said this assumes markets are efficient.  There was a user the first night of the proposal who kept arguing how it was unfair to BTSX owners.  I'd argue that PTS is undervalued.

In the end, the DAC developer can do whatever he wishes and that includes dropping to the old AGS/PTS snapshots.  If they have a uhh robust intelligence they'll compare the 2 demographics.  Old AGS/PTS or BTS and figure out what they wish to do.

[emski]

I think BTSX, PTS, AGS, and DNS should be smart assets within BTS which are tied to the profitability of their particular subsystems.

Could you explain how it should work?
I think that BTSX/PTS/AGS should be merged into BTS (not sure about DNS). However current numbers is what bothers me.

[toast]

I think BTSX, PTS, AGS, and DNS should be smart assets within BTS which are tied to the profitability of their particular subsystems.

[Xeldal]

No one gets robbed of value...

Pre-Feb28 holders are also due a stake in everything else... only those who bought BTSX after launch were buying without expectation of any stake in future systems.

I disagree!
Those who bought BTSX after launch expected stake in any descendant of BTSX DAC.
Any post feb28 PTS/AGS buyer has much lower value than originally promised. AGS/PTS holders were promised 20% combined stake in future DACs while 80% goes to developers. In the current situation they get 20% but developers have none and dilution is inevitable.

Thats true.  If you acquired 1% of AGS post Feb28. With a new DAC honoring 10% to AGS, you'd receive .1% of the new DAC.

With the new proposal AGS is absorbed at 10% dilution to BTS(x).  Now you have .1% BTS.  Any new DAC that honors 20% to BTS you'd only receive .02% of the new DAC instead of .1% .

Though you would now also hold .1% BTS that you would not of had in the old system.  In addition you benefit from the rise of BTS that you would not have with just AGS and shares of the new DAC.  I'm not sure how to value all of these parts to say whether they're equivalent or not.  But i would say this is not in keeping with any 'promise' to AGS.  Understanding of course that AGS is a donation and no REAL promise is there.

[emski]

I disagree with diluting the btsx shares to merge pts/ags into btsx, both already were given 50% of the btsx at the first snapshot, so the value of pts has already been cashed in for btsx. I think a bitasset makes far more sense, as people would be able to keep trading the pts/ags.

That said, pts offers nothing to the community aside from being a blockchain that is snapshotted for the intial sharedrop of a new DAC. But any blockchain can be snapshotted for this purpose, not just pts. If we moved it to DPOS, then we would see dac creators becoming delegates and being funded directly through fees.

Hell, we should be snapshotting far more than just PTS/AGS, as every blockchain we include is introducing far more users to DACs than just PTS/AGS - both of which are barriers of entry to get into DACS.

What PTS provides is irrelevant. What matters is the promise and expectations, integrity, consistency, trust etc. Indeed AGS/PTS holders took a stake in BTSX. However they expected 20% combined in future DACs as this was reiterated many times. There are people who bought PTS, donated to AGS post feb28 with this in mind. They are not rewarded as promised.

[cryptillionaire]

I disagree with diluting the btsx shares to merge pts/ags into btsx, both already were given 50% of the btsx at the first snapshot, so the value of pts has already been cashed in for btsx. I think a bitasset makes far more sense, as people would be able to keep trading the pts/ags.

That said, pts offers nothing to the community aside from being a blockchain that is snapshotted for the intial sharedrop of a new DAC. But any blockchain can be snapshotted for this purpose, not just pts. If we moved it to DPOS, then we would see dac creators becoming delegates and being funded directly through fees.

Hell, we should be snapshotting far more than just PTS/AGS, as every blockchain we include is introducing far more users to DACs than just PTS/AGS - both of which are barriers of entry to get into DACS.

[emski]

No one gets robbed of value...

Pre-Feb28 holders are also due a stake in everything else... only those who bought BTSX after launch were buying without expectation of any stake in future systems.

I disagree!
Those who bought BTSX after launch expected stake in any descendant of BTSX DAC.
Any post feb28 PTS/AGS buyer has much lower value than originally promised. AGS/PTS holders were promised 20% combined stake in future DACs while 80% goes to developers. In the current situation they get 20% but developers have none and dilution is inevitable.

[bytemaster]

No one gets robbed of value...

Pre-Feb28 holders are also due a stake in everything else... only those who bought BTSX after launch were buying without expectation of any stake in future systems.

[sumantso]

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?

[sumantso]

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.

[Stan]

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.

 

[svk]

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.

[emski]

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.

[sumantso]

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.

[zerosum]

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.

[emski]

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.

[emski]

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).

[emski]

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.

[emski]

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?

[svk]

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.

[zerosum]

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.

[onceuponatime]

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.?

[emski]

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.