IMPORTANT: Vesting

[joele]

I would like to know

If the DACs merged then the BTS market cap will increase by 20%?

Because of vesting BTS 2 Billion supply will gradually increase by 10% a year?

[Method-X]

Vesting AGS stake but leaving PTS entirely liquid would make a certain amount of sense...

+5%

[Troglodactyl]

Vesting AGS stake but leaving PTS entirely liquid would make a certain amount of sense...

[alphaBar]

So, you guys propose a 50/50 distribution between AGS and PTS. Ok sounds good.

* Then you propose that AGS will now become a liquid tradable asset, thus removing the entire advantage of PTS over AGS. Any compensation for this? Nope.

* Then you do the most ass-backward thing imaginable and you actually "lock" PTS into a vesting period.

So what we've done is gifted AGS with liquidity, punished PTS with IL-liquidity, and things are still "equal". Flawless logic!

Edit: And still not a peep from Dan or Stan about this. Very confidence inspiring.

[Stan]

It prevents the liquidity happy PTS folks from dumping crap load of shares at once and tanking the price.

If anyone were to dump, it would be AGS holders

I'm not really worried about either group dumping.  They inherently represent the most loyal and far-sighted members of this community.  Vesting is a way to smooth out the circulating share growth to stay below the issuing rate of 50 BTS per block or whatever.

A lot of people need to get compensated in this deal while staying below the bitcoin rate of inflation so everybody has to play nice and be patient about how fast the new funding model can issue their stake to them.

Nobody wants a big discontinuity in shares circulating.

[roadscape]

It prevents the liquidity happy PTS folks from dumping crap load of shares at once and tanking the price.

If anyone were to dump, it would be AGS holders

[bitmeat]

How about another option?

Starts at 0% and grows by 1% a week.

^^^This...and not depending upon withdrawal.

Most AGS holders, by definition, have a long time horizon.

I3 is the largest PTS holder.

I don't think dumping is a very worrisome issue to begin with.

Million times this! Withdrawal should not eliminate your balance that is not vested. I think it would be a huge fuck up if it did.

[bobmaloney]

How about another option?

Starts at 0% and grows by 1% a week.

^^^This...and not depending upon withdrawal.

Most AGS holders, by definition, have a long time horizon.

I3 is the largest PTS holder.

I don't think dumping is a very worrisome issue to begin with.

[Rune]

It prevents the liquidity happy PTS folks from dumping crap load of shares at once and tanking the price.

The markets will be expecting it, so it won't be such a big deal.

[bitmeat]

It prevents the liquidity happy PTS folks from dumping crap load of shares at once and tanking the price.

But if they start at 50% Unless people really need the money won't sell.

I just find it appalling locking the only liquid instrument there was for 2 years.

Or why not just release the supply gradually instead of penalizing early sellers by 99%.

Just let them sell up to 1% per week.

[Pheonike]

It prevents the liquidity happy PTS folks from dumping crap load of shares at once and tanking the price.

[Method-X]

How about another option?

Starts at 0% and grows by 1% a week.

This is actually a great idea. If it's done gradually, the market never has to be uncertain about large "founder dumps" as specific dates are met.

[Rune]

We shouldn't change any rules now after BM made his announcement and the markets reacted accordingly. Any new allocation would just be a zero sum game of taking from one group and giving to another.

[onceuponatime]

How about another option?

Starts at 0% and grows by 1% a week.

[liondani]

just a reminder, vesting doesn't apply for the 80% btsx allocation  ;)

[bitmeat]

I didn't quite understand why the vesting is necessary. But it seems that the move has shafted PTS holders.

I propose, if vesting is absolutely necessary, to at least start the vesting from amount higher than 0% (current proposal by Bytemaster)