Explanation for PTS/AGS Holders goes here!

[Helikopterben]

As I have said before, the lifetime allocation assumed separate chains for each new DAC.  That model did not work because chains were competing against one another, resulting in chains being consolidated and effectively rendering future allocations of PTS and AGS uncertain at best.

You were investing in an experiment and part of that experiment failed.  Take what you can get, which is generous, and decide whether or not to invest in the newly restructured model.

[tonyk]

You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.

Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.

what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.

according  BM's reply, for example  3rd DACs  honor new BTSX 20%  instead of  AGS&PTS
then  AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88%  much less than 10%

Code Select Expand

new BTSX     btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%

AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%

Yes, that is my opinion also... the party that got the short side of the deal are the After 28th AGS donors [and people that donated more after than before 28th].
I am not complaining, I also understand why it was done [long form explanation in previous post of mine], but in short to make as much as possible # of people happy BM cut the stakes for himself and I3...If you have similar position as his, you get a slightly 'unfair' distribution, but unfair only compared to other positions, not unfair in general.

0.02BTSX

[toast]

You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.

Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.

what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.

according  BM's reply, for example  3rd DACs  honor new BTSX 20%  instead of  AGS&PTS
then  AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88%  much less than 10%

Code Select Expand

new BTSX     btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%

AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%

ok, so I think future DACs should honor ags/pts, not BTS

[sudo]

You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.

Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.

what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.

according  BM's reply, for example  3rd DACs  honor new BTSX 20%  instead of  AGS&PTS
then  AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88%  much less than 10%

Code Select Expand

new BTSX     btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%

AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%

[toast]

You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.

Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.

[sudo]

https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md
after i post  it
someone  delete the "BitShares" item on github

[sudo]

PTS at least 10% of DACs shares
then AGS at least 10%  not harm  PTS's 10%

now  new BTS rob the 20% shares of AGS&PTS

[Pheonike]

If a new DACs chooses to honor PTS/AGS then 10% to each is right. If they choose to honor BTS (the new DAC) then 20% of BTS is amount. Choosing BTS gives you full support of community. It must be noted that (AGS/PTS) and BTS communities are no longer the same people(there is a large overlap) so honoring (PTS/AGS) does not automatically include support BTS aka BM.

[yoo]

I was and I'm still mostly concerned about the bolded text:

4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.

I was trying to explain this in so many posts that you might think I'm a spammer. I'm not that concerned about BTS ownership of PTS/AGS. I'm concerned about the failure to fulfill that non-binding promise-like thingy. I think post feb28 AGS/PTS holders have the right to feel lied to and whine about that.

Actually I've said too much already given the fact my stake is really tiny. I'll not make this specific topic any harder for you.

agree with you, pts/ags is just a joke? no 10% promise, my god, i just a blind investor.

[donkeypong]

Actually I've said too much already given the fact my stake is really tiny. I'll not make this specific topic any harder for you.

Your opinion matters. How much you own does not.

[emski]

I was and I'm still mostly concerned about the bolded text:

4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.

I was trying to explain this in so many posts that you might think I'm a spammer. I'm not that concerned about BTS ownership of PTS/AGS. I'm concerned about the failure to fulfill that non-binding promise-like thingy. I think post feb28 AGS/PTS holders have the right to feel lied to and whine about that.

Actually I've said too much already given the fact my stake is really tiny. I'll not make this specific topic any harder for you.

[Stan]

I don't think the social consensus applies to absorption/mergers.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10214.msg135831#msg135831

However, any future DAC's who wish to, it will be difficult because pre/post feb28 AGS/PTS now have different percentage stakes in its replacement.

Honoring 20% to BTS holders would honor the contract for pre 2/28 holders but not post 2/28 holders.

I think its established at this point that there is no way to make it perfect. This may be most fair though.  I don't have any better suggestions that don't tip the scale in some other unfair way.

for future DAC, I suggest we should keep the social consensus - at least 10% to AGSer and at least 10% to PTSer.

That makes perfect sense and is completely possible.

If you want to get storefront property in the BTS DAC-OS Shopping Mall, you negotiate a deal with the BTS shareholders (mall owners).

If you want to standoff and be independent, you choose the mailing list(s) for the demographics you think will best help your DAC succeed.

[wallace]

I don't think the social consensus applies to absorption/mergers.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10214.msg135831#msg135831

However, any future DAC's who wish to, it will be difficult because pre/post feb28 AGS/PTS now have different percentage stakes in its replacement.

Honoring 20% to BTS holders would honor the contract for pre 2/28 holders but not post 2/28 holders.

I think its established at this point that there is no way to make it perfect. This may be most fair though.  I don't have any better suggestions that don't tip the scale in some other unfair way.

for future DAC, I suggest we should keep the social consensus - at least 10% to AGSer and at least 10% to PTSer.

[Xeldal]

I don't think the social consensus applies to absorption/mergers.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10214.msg135831#msg135831

However, any future DAC's who wish to, it will be difficult because pre/post feb28 AGS/PTS now have different percentage stakes in its replacement.

Honoring 20% to BTS holders would honor the contract for pre 2/28 holders but not post 2/28 holders.

I think its established at this point that there is no way to make it perfect. This may be most fair though.  I don't have any better suggestions that don't tip the scale in some other unfair way.

[wallace]

Stan, what we're talking about is not about this merger, it's about the future 3rd Party DAC