Author Topic: Future: DApps, SuperDAC, Third Party DACS, bitshares toolkit and Social Contract  (Read 10514 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline clayop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Korea
  • BitShares: clayop
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 03:29:20 pm by clayop »
Bitshares Korea - http://www.bitshares.kr
Vote for me and see Korean Bitshares community grows
delegate-clayop

Offline Bitty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
    • 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?
Here is how I see it https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406

I guess you are right
Some of us, like myself, invested a substantial amount of money in PTS (and/or AGS) missing out on the BTSX snapshot, strongly having faith in the whole Bitshares platform and the power of the upcoming DACs.
The amount of shares in the new merger we will receive is painfully low, leading to some big losses in value...
The least the devs can do or try doing, is coming up with a solution to honour their early believers and supporters.
There must be some way to do this, right?

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • 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?
Here is how I see it https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
This is confusing territory, as large shareholders are in a get-consensus-quick mode where other considerations pale, so we need to be overly explicit: Presumably you are talking about what happens *after* the merge, in terms of honoring PTS&AGS holders in new DACs? Most people have not yet thought that far, at least I had not.. So here goes, thinking ahead:

Even after AGS/PTS is liquidated into BTS, they can be honored independently from their "final" snapshots (AGS is at end of donations, PTS at november 5th). We as a community of AGS/PTS investors can negotiate the snapshot terms for AGS/PTS relative to the enhanced BTS for new DACs developed by I3. Third party DACs will have to weigh their own considerations relative to the value of PTS/AGS holders versus the new BTS holders.

Aren't these considerations sufficient for now? What am I missing?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 10:04:33 am by CLains »

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 »

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • 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 Bitty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
    • 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 emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • 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 santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • 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: 1282
    • 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: 2486
    • 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 Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BitShares: 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 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 emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • 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 Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BitShares: 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 »