Author Topic: [POLL] DISCUSSION: Should 3rd-party DACs honor AGS/PTS?  (Read 7885 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
I vote simplicity: 20% to BTS is complicated enough.

Personally I would gain more from 3, but this would be tremendously myopic. We need to think big! AGS is already in stone, and PTS will be soon, anyone can honor those lists - making these liquid again would just confuse everyone.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 05:26:13 pm by CLains »

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
One of the pressing questions we face in the long-term is the issue of 3rd-party DAC developers and who they should airdrop to. Here are the options that I've seen discussed (my favorite option is #3 or #4, btw):

1. We could leave AGS as-is, and port only PTS into GENESIS (user-issued asset on BTS). That way, GENESIS is essentially PTS 2.0, and we preserve the idea that AGS is the illiquid share class, PTS is the liquid one.

2. There have been at least two proposals (by Shentist and emski, I believe) to create a user-issued asset on the new BTS called GENESIS and snapshot it 50/50 AGS/PTS. Then new DACs would honor GENESIS with a 20% snapshot. I'm not crazy about combining AGS with anything like that. IMO, AGS should be left alone (disclosure: I own only 12 AGS; I'm not speaking from dishonest bias here).

3. Let PTS end, but preserve AGS. Now, 3rd-party devs would be recommended to honor 10% AGS and 10% BTS. It does still give a slight preference to pre-Feb28 donators, but only a slight one, and preserves the original intentions of AGS. It ends PTS, which simplifies the marketing message (PTS was always a weird idea, don't you think?).

4. Invictus has floated the idea that they should honor the new BTS with 20%. The rationale is that the new BTS snapshotted AGS/PTS and thus honoring BTS is like honoring AGS/PTS. The dramatic flaw in this proposal is that it gives a huge preference to pre-Feb28 AGS donators. For that reason, I strongly oppose this option because it's severely unfair to those who donated after the original BTSX snapshot.


Discuss.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Let's not forget that pre-Feb28 AGS Donators paid a huge premium.
Also destroying AGS might be a good idea, with the SEC knocking on "crypto IPO" doors

yup and we should even keep it as simple as possible to understand ... when we start with PTS/AGS/BTS etc... then first users are gone due their lack of knowledge about AGS/PTS … maybe … just thinking loud …
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline graffenwalder

One of the pressing questions we face in the long-term is the issue of 3rd-party DAC developers and who they should airdrop to. Here are the options that I've seen discussed (my favorite option is #3 or #4, btw):

1. We could leave AGS as-is, and port only PTS into GENESIS (user-issued asset on BTS). That way, GENESIS is essentially PTS 2.0, and we preserve the idea that AGS is the illiquid share class, PTS is the liquid one.

2. There have been at least two proposals (by Shentist and emski, I believe) to create a user-issued asset on the new BTS called GENESIS and snapshot it 50/50 AGS/PTS. Then new DACs would honor GENESIS with a 20% snapshot. I'm not crazy about combining AGS with anything like that. IMO, AGS should be left alone (disclosure: I own only 12 AGS; I'm not speaking from dishonest bias here).

3. Let PTS end, but preserve AGS. Now, 3rd-party devs would be recommended to honor 10% AGS and 10% BTS. It does still give a slight preference to pre-Feb28 donators, but only a slight one, and preserves the original intentions of AGS. It ends PTS, which simplifies the marketing message (PTS was always a weird idea, don't you think?).

4. Invictus has floated the idea that they should honor the new BTS with 20%. The rationale is that the new BTS snapshotted AGS/PTS and thus honoring BTS is like honoring AGS/PTS. The dramatic flaw in this proposal is that it gives a huge preference to pre-Feb28 AGS donators. For that reason, I strongly oppose this option because it's severely unfair to those who donated after the original BTSX snapshot.


Discuss.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Let's not forget that pre-Feb28 AGS Donators paid a huge premium.
Also destroying AGS might be a good idea, with the SEC knocking on "crypto IPO" doors

Offline Riverhead

I'm for option #2 actually.  Reasons

1) BTS can be useful for GENESIS as a host for the asset but BitShares is its own stand alone product. It would be like doing a snapshot of a snapshot. We wouldn't snapshot Music DAC so we shouldn't BTS.

2) If PTS and AGS are rolled into an asset called GENESIS nothing much would change except simplifying things. AGS is static and, IMHO, has already gotten the advantage of non liquidity by the effective multiplier naturally caused by how the auction turned out. Unless we think people will trade PTS/AGS differently as an asset or that a DAC will do 20% PTS and 10% AGS there's no reason to keep them separate other than convention.

3) Converting PTS to DPOS would be a lot of work (maybe,  I have no idea). Someone would have to sign up for that. Having a POW coin to track airdrop distribution of DPOS (which we're pushing as being much better than POW) seems counter message.

While during the call I was advocating that PTS can live on it's not PTS itself that people want to live on; it's the social contract they all bought into. If GENESIS can preserve and prolong (no dependence on miners!!) that social contract the actual manifestation of the token is immaterial.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 05:20:20 pm by Riverhead »

Offline bobmaloney

PTS/AGS must offer something of benefit to future projects. If we attempt to position ourselves as coercive gatekeepers, we will only harm the growth of the ecosystem.

That being said, I believe there are plenty of potential projects that will find ample benefit in voluntarily issue to the PTS/AGS demographic.
"The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
- Jack Handey (SNL)

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BitShares: methodx
20% (or more!) to BTS because it simplifies everything tremendously. Let AGS and PTS die.

Ultimately, 3rd party developers will snapshot whatever they think will get them the most momentum.

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
IMO PTS as a standalone blockchain will die anyway after nov-5, simply because so much of its value is transferred into BTS that mining it will be an economic suicide.

So if PTS is to be honoured in the future, it'll have to be somehow turned into an asset. Your proposal #3 is closest to the original social contract. #2 is equivalent in terms of distribution, with the additional advantage (for AGS owners) that AGS will become liquid. I wouldn't mind that, although I don't hold any AGS.

You proposal #4 is the worst for PTS holders, obviously. I really don't see justification for that. #1 is bad for both AGS and PTS holders. No justification either.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline Pheonike

We should add if airdrop to AGS/pts then can not use bitusd.

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
One of the pressing questions we face in the long-term is the issue of 3rd-party DAC developers and who they should airdrop to. Here are the options that I've seen discussed (my favorite option is #3 or #4, btw):

1. We could leave AGS as-is, and port only PTS into GENESIS (user-issued asset on BTS). That way, GENESIS is essentially PTS 2.0, and we preserve the idea that AGS is the illiquid share class, PTS is the liquid one.

2. There have been at least two proposals (by Shentist and emski, I believe) to create a user-issued asset on the new BTS called GENESIS and snapshot it 50/50 AGS/PTS. Then new DACs would honor GENESIS with a 20% snapshot. I'm not crazy about combining AGS with anything like that. IMO, AGS should be left alone (disclosure: I own only 12 AGS; I'm not speaking from dishonest bias here).

3. Let PTS end, but preserve AGS. Now, 3rd-party devs would be recommended to honor 10% AGS and 10% BTS. It does still give a slight preference to pre-Feb28 donators, but only a slight one, and preserves the original intentions of AGS. It ends PTS, which simplifies the marketing message (PTS was always a weird idea, don't you think?).

4. Invictus has floated the idea that they should honor the new BTS with 20%. The rationale is that the new BTS snapshotted AGS/PTS and thus honoring BTS is like honoring AGS/PTS. The dramatic flaw in this proposal is that it gives a huge preference to pre-Feb28 AGS donators. For that reason, I strongly oppose this option because it's severely unfair to those who donated after the original BTSX snapshot.


Discuss.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 04:13:11 pm by biophil »
Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."