Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Future: DApps, SuperDAC, Third Party DACS, bitshares toolkit and Social Contract  (Read 1341 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline betax

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
    • View Profile

Hi,

I would like to start a discussion on the future, the way I see the merger is that we are just creating a bigger DAC, with possibilities of of creating your own Dapps (application in SuperDAC) but continuing having the possibility of Third Party DACs using the bitshares toolkit which should continue to comply with the Social Contract.

DApps and toolkit
I presume this will be "like" Ethereum or a C++ version of it, it will be great to start thinking / documenting how to create new DApps and how a third party can benefit from the creation of DApps. Making the SuperDAC a decentralised application environment or OS. We could start discussion more detailed areas like UX (User Experience) for example one main OS like core applications with multiple applications, light wallets, light applications? etc.

Third party DACs
There is also the possibility of creating your own Third Party DAC, the only thing that has changed is that BitsharesX - DNS + VOTE and Play will be under the same umbrella (and of course much more in the future). These will have to comply with the Social Contract as before or a new one.

Social Contract
As noted before the Social Contract should be preserved for third party DACs, but here it could be extended to at least BTS (10%), PTS (10%), AGS (10%). Hopefully this way new and old investors will be rewarded in a multiple DAC scenario and the required compliance of Third Party DACs as the toolkit will significantly more advanced with the combined features.

Edit: It will be great that we keep the comments answering the bold headers above, this way we will to avoid silly debates on unrelated subjects, also avoid usage random pictures or metaphors so all international parties understand the thoughts. I hope this way we can all contribute to shape / understand the direction :) Also I hope that Bytemaster is allowed to comment before the PR lockout.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 07:12:50 AM by betax »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Social Contract
One of the main issues here is that it is not fulfilled. It lured a lot of people into trusting III. Even if they had no intention to follow the contract they didn't make enough effort to say it clear. With the proposal even if it is fair under some perspectives it is unfair in the terms of the contract. This is what bothers many people. There were many suggestions attempting to make an alternative proposal abiding the contract AND merging all into one chain. Apparently something else is needed to persuade III.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?
In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 08:33:46 AM by emski »

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BTS: methodx
I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 08:36:14 AM by MeTHoDx »

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.

Offline betax

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
    • View Profile
I understand how you feel, I have AGS (pre and post) and PTS

They have applied it (in a way) 10%: PTS  and 10% AGS. The problem is that parts of these come from DNS and VOTE. DNS is in full for PTS + AGS and extra if you bought / unlock the funds and transfer it to your wallet, more over development fund is not even counted. VOTE on the other part was not claimed, I forgot the ratio but it will then 1.5% for AGS/ PTS holders.

So what happens is that AGS / PTS get the cut on the new Super DAC based on the merging of DNS / VOTE and PTS / AGS.

The locking of funds is to avoid dumping changing of price.

Another thing will be to change the distribution but I don't think BTSX holders will agree and confuse everyone   2,702,702,702.70  (74 BTSX, 3, 3, 10, 10)

Most important

PTS / AGS should continue and the Social Contract should applied for Third Party DACs

PTS  / AGS could be an Asset of BTS if we want easy support.

Edit: Formatting
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 09:20:22 AM by betax »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BTS: methodx
I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.

What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?
In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.
No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?
In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.
No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.
I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares.
Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?
In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.
No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.
I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares.
Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.
I still don't understand your perspective completely. I described how I see it here. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406 Maybe you can describe how your differs based on this

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?
In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.
No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.
I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares.
Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.
I still don't understand your perspective completely. I described how I see it here. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406 Maybe you can describe how your differs based on this
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg136081#msg136081 If you want we can speak privately. I'm not sure I can explain it better.

Offline Bitty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Correct me if I'm wrong:
Post BTSX snapshot PTS/AGS holders are somewhat screwed but still get their shares in the merged DAC BTS?
PTS/AGS holders will still be honoured by third party DACs that might come out in the future?

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?
In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.
No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.
I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares.
Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.
I still don't understand your perspective completely. I described how I see it here. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406 Maybe you can describe how your differs based on this
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg136081#msg136081 If you want we can speak privately. I'm not sure I can explain it better.
I read that. Can you expand on that? "total lifetime shares ever allocated" what does that mean exactly for you?
What I said in response to that was:
"BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month."
Does that make sense?

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
It was 3I who were going to be creating the vast majority of new DACs for PTS + AGS.  Now that 3I are going to be working on only BTS, the work for those future DACs is included in the PTS + AGS allocation.  There aren't tons of developers as far as I gather planning to release lots of DACs so it's almost entirely taken care of by airdropping to PTS + AGS as proposed.  PTS + AGS feel they are missing out on future DACs, when realistically, almost all of those future DACs were going to be made by 3I and now PTS + AGS have a stake in all their future work.  And just in case there are other developers with other DACs, they can snapshot BTS and include everyone.  It's not perfect as everyone knows but people talk as if they were expecting most new DACs to come from third parties when in reality PTS + AGS was another way to invest in 3I, and that's what they are getting.

Edit:  It appears there isn't a 'social consensus' anymore anyway on who 3rd party DACs (in the rare occasion they exist) they should snapshop in the future so it will probably just be up to the devs as it always was.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 09:53:39 AM by matt608 »

 

Google+