Let's discuss what word to use instead of share dilution

[vegolino]

The mere  presence of this thread is proof that you know exactly that this share dilution proposal is a bad thing, and you just want to cover up that fact.

It is share dilution, so just call it what it is.

Once it is implemented and coinmarketcap doubles soon after it will not matter what we call it as all names will be good ones .
We will be calling it that thing that made us rich including pc who nearly sold his shares  :)

[mf-tzo]

merger and aquisition

[matt608]

Not true.  There's a stigma in the crypto community against share dilution due to the lack of understanding of the company analogy i.e. lack of understanding of DACs.  Random bitcoiners see share more shares and think it must be untargeted inflation like like with POW cryptos (complete waste of money) whereas this is something quite different.  We're actually getting something of value.

When the word dilution is brought up people's minds just shut down and think "bad, bad, bad". No argument will convince them otherwise. If you change it to something new like "delegated capital infusion" then people are curious to find out what it is and are willing to listen instead of shut their brains off and think "bad, bad, bad".

True but that's probably just due to the history of crypto where dilution has always been spent on pointless stuff.  I don't know that people holding 'real' shares in formal companies mind at all when there is a stock split or share dilution or whatever it's called, because they know it means the company is growing.  Any time VC money or angel investment funds are raised for a startup there will be dilution of the shares, these are things the original share holders want to see happen.

It does need to be explained clearly though, and more than one term can be used in any explanation.  Imo there's nothing wrong about saying 'share dilution' so long as its accompanying explanation is well done.  If people prefer 'capital infusion' that's fine by me but one way or another the explanation will need to include the creation or issuance of more shares.

[Mysto]

Not true.  There's a stigma in the crypto community against share dilution due to the lack of understanding of the company analogy i.e. lack of understanding of DACs.  Random bitcoiners see share more shares and think it must be untargeted inflation like like with POW cryptos (complete waste of money) whereas this is something quite different.  We're actually getting something of value.

When the word dilution is brought up people's minds just shut down and think "bad, bad, bad". No argument will convince them otherwise. If you change it to something new like "delegated capital infusion" then people are curious to find out what it is and are willing to listen instead of shut their brains off and think "bad, bad, bad".

[matt608]

The mere  presence of this thread is proof that you know exactly that this share dilution proposal is a bad thing, and you just want to cover up that fact.

It is share dilution, so just call it what it is.

Not true.  There's a stigma in the crypto community against share dilution due to the lack of understanding of the company analogy i.e. lack of understanding of DACs.  Random bitcoiners see share more shares and think it must be untargeted inflation like like with POW cryptos (complete waste of money) whereas this is something quite different.  We're actually getting something of value. 

I'm happy calling it share dilution, that's what it is.  Better call it share dilution than 'inflation' which is a term applied to currencies, not shares, as far as I know.  Share dilution, capital infusion, whatever.  The more people understand the company analogy the less this matters.

Though of course technically these are not "shares", but thinking of them as shares helps clarify what's going on.

[pc]

The mere  presence of this thread is proof that you know exactly that this share dilution proposal is a bad thing, and you just want to cover up that fact.

It is share dilution, so just call it what it is.

[Method-X]

Democratic/Delegated/Decentralized
Share/Stake/Capital
Issuance/Infusion/Allocation

I like:

Delegated Capital Infusion

[donkeypong]

"Delegated Capital Infusion" or DCI

I like it.

[Thom]

The new BTS will now be rewarded with 20% dividends of all newly created DACs.

That's the ticket! I wanna see this in writing in the official proposal we'll vote on.

What form will that 20% come in, shares, existing share value, deflationary burn? There are several options and I would like the proposal to be explicit.

[Mysto]

I like "Delegated Capital Infusion" or DCI

[Method-X]

Weren't we also talking about issuing new shares in the future to fund growth? In my mind, the AGS/PTS/BTSX/VOTE merger is separate from the added ability to issue new shares in the future. Both are proposals being discussed.

I think issuing new shares should NOT be controlled by I3. I want to see a fair open market for projects, where shareholders can vote whether those should be funded. And other teams can compete side by side with I3 to implement changes.

+5% +5% +5% Absolutely. I don't think that's what was being discussed. Shareholders would vote on proposals.

[roadscape]

How I understand it:
- Dilution buys out AGS/PTS
- Dilution buys out VOTE
- Dilution buys out DNS

My impression is that there is only one proposal: Add dilution and buy out the competitors.

The capability for Dilution/ capital infusion based on shareholder vote will also be part of the model for the future BTS.  This capability will lie dormant unless there comes an opportunity to accuire additional assets or benefits for the company.  A pressing issue right now is marketing/business development funding for a project that is projected to return an ROI of 150% (if I remember correctly, it was the debit card offer)

Yes, I forgot to mention the debit card. Might have been a thought experiment but a clear use case.

[James212]

Weren't we also talking about issuing new shares in the future to fund growth? In my mind, the AGS/PTS/BTSX/VOTE merger is separate from the added ability to issue new shares in the future. Both are proposals being discussed.

How I understand it:
- Dilution buys out AGS/PTS
- Dilution buys out VOTE
- Dilution buys out DNS

My impression is that there is only one proposal: Add dilution and buy out the competitors.

The capability for Dilution/ capital infusion based on shareholder vote will also be part of the model for the future BTS.  This capability will lie dormant unless there comes an opportunity to accuire additional assets or benefits for the company.  A pressing issue right now is marketing/business development funding for a project that is projected to return an ROI of 150% (if I remember correctly, it was the debit card offer)

[roadscape]

Weren't we also talking about issuing new shares in the future to fund growth? In my mind, the AGS/PTS/BTSX/VOTE merger is separate from the added ability to issue new shares in the future. Both are proposals being discussed.

How I understand it:
- Dilution buys out AGS/PTS
- Dilution buys out VOTE
- Dilution buys out DNS

My impression is that there is only one proposal: Add dilution and buy out the competitors.

[bitmeat]

Weren't we also talking about issuing new shares in the future to fund growth? In my mind, the AGS/PTS/BTSX/VOTE merger is separate from the added ability to issue new shares in the future. Both are proposals being discussed.

I think issuing new shares should NOT be controlled by I3. I want to see a fair open market for projects, where shareholders can vote whether those should be funded. And other teams can compete side by side with I3 to implement changes.