Author Topic: are you for or against the LOCKING OF PTS/DNS/VOTE  (Read 8454 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline amatoB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
1) PTS equals all future projects... which is a VERY LONG time horizon and will now be focused on BTSX.   Making the allocation to PTS liquid would be like giving PTS holders an out without having to wait for the respective DACs to be built out over the next 2 years.   
2) PTS was supposed to be for "future DACS"... it is being given credit for past DACs as part of this deal.
3) Anyone who wants to have liquidity can buy from those willing to give it up between now and Nov. 5th.   The result is that as part of the merger many people (including the large Dev fund) are taking a long-term vested interest in things.   Do you really want Toast, Adam, and I to have instant access to a large percentage of all new funds or do you want us vesting with a long time horizon? 

So right now the market for liquidity is taking place and BTS is gaining a large number of people who are committed for the next 2 years to the project while losing those in it for the short run.

Bytemaster, lock-ups certainly do exist for real-world corporations, but they typically only apply to insiders. Why can't Bitshares have a lock-up just for the devs? Wouldn't that foster long-term vested interests without punishing other holders?

Offline davidpbrown

1) PTS equals all future projects... which is a VERY LONG time horizon and will now be focused on BTSX.   Making the allocation to PTS liquid would be like giving PTS holders an out without having to wait for the respective DACs to be built out over the next 2 years.   
2) PTS was supposed to be for "future DACS"... it is being given credit for past DACs as part of this deal.
...

!? Surely that was true of AGS not PTS. PTS pump and dump was an indication of interest in individual snapshots, although less clear where two happened at the same time.
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline bytemaster

There are still snapshots for PTS planned by Play so PTS will go on for its own sake...
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 bytemaster

1) PTS equals all future projects... which is a VERY LONG time horizon and will now be focused on BTSX.   Making the allocation to PTS liquid would be like giving PTS holders an out without having to wait for the respective DACs to be built out over the next 2 years.   
2) PTS was supposed to be for "future DACS"... it is being given credit for past DACs as part of this deal.
3) Anyone who wants to have liquidity can buy from those willing to give it up between now and Nov. 5th.   The result is that as part of the merger many people (including the large Dev fund) are taking a long-term vested interest in things.   Do you really want Toast, Adam, and I to have instant access to a large percentage of all new funds or do you want us vesting with a long time horizon? 

So right now the market for liquidity is taking place and BTS is gaining a large number of people who are committed for the next 2 years to the project while losing those in it for the short run. 
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 Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
So make a clear, rational and compelling argument as others are attempting.  BM will listen.

With the proposal, BM is single-handedly disowning holders of PTS, AGS, DNS and partially BTSX.

He is single-handedly cancelling the social contract regarding PTS and AGS.

I'm calling it single-handedly because 159 forum users can hardly be called a representative majority. (Btw, that majority has just dropped below 75%.)

You cannot do either in a real world situation. And if you try the SEC (or your local equivalent) will give you the kick in the ass that you deserve.

We are big holders in all those things too.
This is much like trying to find a way to leave everything in your will fairly for all your children.
You want to do it fairly but should mary or suzie get great grandma's wedding ring?

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.

Offline wesphily

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
Wrong topic. Why tie PTS, DNS and VOTE all together?

I think only PTS should enjoy the immediate liquidity, while all other types including AGS, DNS, and VOTE, should have a locking period, since DNS and VOTE don't even have primitive products yet. Even though DNS is liquid right now, it is no more than a future promise. But I do think that DNS was undervalued at 3% valuation. 5% sounds more reasonable.

Even though DNS and VOTE don't even have primitive products yet, 2 years is too looooooong~~~. So my proposal is :

DNS start 30%,
VOTE start 30%,
PTS start 100%,
ags start 0%.

Translated

I have a little
I have a little
I have a F$%k ton
I have none


Offline dcchong

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
Wrong topic. Why tie PTS, DNS and VOTE all together?

I think only PTS should enjoy the immediate liquidity, while all other types including AGS, DNS, and VOTE, should have a locking period, since DNS and VOTE don't even have primitive products yet. Even though DNS is liquid right now, it is no more than a future promise. But I do think that DNS was undervalued at 3% valuation. 5% sounds more reasonable.

Even though DNS and VOTE don't even have primitive products yet, 2 years is too looooooong~~~. So my proposal is :

DNS start 30%,
VOTE start 30%,
PTS start 100%,
ags start 0%.
wallet_approve_delegate dc-delegate true
wallet_approve_delegate bitsharesx-delegate true

Offline gulu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
    • View Profile
Wrong topic. Why tie PTS, DNS and VOTE all together?

I think only PTS should enjoy the immediate liquidity, while all other types including AGS, DNS, and VOTE, should have a locking period, since DNS and VOTE don't even have primitive products yet. Even though DNS is liquid right now, it is no more than a future promise. But I do think that DNS was undervalued at 3% valuation. 5% sounds more reasonable.
BTC: 1FRsgcQELHKFY2VMFosBnyBaNxZgS4wj7x
PTS: Pf9yDYUknXShepu6YjwSEpMvm1ewNQLNgE
BTSX: gulu

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Not sure whats happening here .. but WHO in here .. and WHO of those voting against .. do know the EXACT and FINAL numbers? Because .. honestly ... they have not been published yet!

All what has been publishes was a proposal ...

calling BM a thief is the most wrong I can think of ..

He stated he do not expect change and the decision is taken.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Thanks for linking me to that thread again .. I almost missed it .. :-)

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
So make a clear, rational and compelling argument as others are attempting.  BM will listen.

With the proposal, BM is single-handedly disowning holders of PTS, AGS, DNS and partially BTSX.

He is single-handedly cancelling the social contract regarding PTS and AGS.

I'm calling it single-handedly because 159 forum users can hardly be called a representative majority. (Btw, that majority has just dropped below 75%.)

You cannot do either in a real world situation. And if you try the SEC (or your local equivalent) will give you the kick in the ass that you deserve.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
All what has been publishes was a proposal ...

This half-baked and incomplete "proposal"  is much more than that:
This is a semi-final proposal that will be adopted and implemented unless someone has a VERY compelling argument.

So make a clear, rational and compelling argument as others are attempting.  BM will listen.

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
All what has been publishes was a proposal ...

This half-baked and incomplete "proposal"  is much more than that:
This is a semi-final proposal that will be adopted and implemented unless someone has a VERY compelling argument.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Not sure whats happening here .. but WHO in here .. and WHO of those voting against .. do know the EXACT and FINAL numbers? Because .. honestly ... they have not been published yet!

All what has been publishes was a proposal ...

calling BM a thief is the most wrong I can think of ..