Long live the social consensus, long live PTS! (Stay tuned)

[lastagile]

What a shit idea, makes BTS price down!!!

[ticklebiscuit]

Ethereum will probably clone bts and showed interest in honoring AGS/PTS with new versions...

SuperDACs can be cloned too...

[Ben Mason]

So here's a question I'm curious about because I think it strikes at the core of this issue.

Let's say Dan et al (toast, Vikram, Nathan, etc.) decide that Bitshares DAC is good enough to grow on its own so they find some new devs for it and move on to, say, Lending DAC.

1) What would your allocation expectation be for Lending DAC?
2) Once Lending DAC is done and they move on to Insurance DAC should Lending DAC get an allocation?

I guess my question really is: did you like the concept of a ProtoShare or just want a piece of whatever Dan and team is currently working on? There is no wrong answer to this. I've always tried to invest in people and not products.

That's a good question.....  But why would there be a Lending DAC?  Surely Dan et al would simply develop and integrate the code directly into the super DAC.  There would be no need to snapshot.  The same for Insurance DAC.

The interesting point is a third party developer may wish to take the barest implementation of the Bitshares Toolkit and take the technology in a totally new direction.  The Protoshares community may harbor a different kind of support more conducive to supporting more experimental, riskier tech.....i'm not saying that is the case but could be.

Some successful innovations may be incorporated into the super DAC but maybe not if it's niche or specialized enough.....who knows?

I love the ideology, competency and depth of this growing community.....i'm already happy with my piece so my arguments are more for the health and development of the ecosystem which is evolving so some calls are difficult....  I'd rather support Alphabar in his efforts than shoot it down, whatever happens.

Could Protoshares be like Junior miners?

[ticklebiscuit]

The holders and buyers of Protoshares still perceive that they have value.  What is wrong with them attempting to regrow some value?  There are some compelling reasons to do so....

Other DAC's may be built using the barest version of the Bitshares Toolkit like DPOS Protoshares
Holders of Protoshares represent an interesting demographic for future Bitshares Toolkit snapshot consideration to engage their support
The Bitshares super DAC may well incorporate innovations that come from the barest of Bitshares Toolkit versions that test experimental niche functionality

The market can decide.

Disclosure - i have a couple of thousand PTS, am very happy with merger and all snapshots to date

Anti competition makes us less money in the long run and makes the system more prone to corruption in the distant future.  Let the market decide is correct imho.  If people dont like it they should provide positive press for bts and ignore pts exists.

[Riverhead]

So here's a question I'm curious about because I think it strikes at the core of this issue.

Let's say Dan et al (toast, Vikram, Nathan, etc.) decide that Bitshares DAC is good enough to grow on its own so they find some new devs for it and move on to, say, Lending DAC.

1) What would your allocation expectation be for Lending DAC?
2) Once Lending DAC is done and they move on to Insurance DAC should Lending DAC get an allocation?

I guess my question really is: did you like the concept of a ProtoShare or just want a piece of whatever Dan and team is currently working on? There is no wrong answer to this. I've always tried to invest in people and not products.

[Ben Mason]

The holders and buyers of Protoshares still perceive that they have value.  What is wrong with them attempting to regrow some value?  There are some compelling reasons to do so....

Other DAC's may be built using the barest version of the Bitshares Toolkit like DPOS Protoshares
Holders of Protoshares represent an interesting demographic for future Bitshares Toolkit snapshot consideration to engage their support
The Bitshares super DAC may well incorporate innovations that come from the barest of Bitshares Toolkit versions that test experimental niche functionality

The market can decide.

Disclosure - i have a couple of thousand PTS, am very happy with merger and all snapshots to date

[freebit]

A note regarding our work on the transition of PTS to a standalone DPOS chain:

PTS is alive and well and so is the social consensus. PTS will be the preferred sharedrop instrument of future 3rd party DACs. We have yet to decide whether to use the Nov. 5th snapshot (since a future snapshot may not be possible if mining stops completely), but rest assured that we have a functional testnet, new website and marketing in the works, and an active group of dedicated developers and marketers.

Stay tuned for more information...

Nothing to say ,just Support.  Well done !
+10%
+10%
+10%
+10%

[zerosum]

This thread reminds me a lot of the beating BM took when proposing his early ideas on BitcoinTalk. It's useless. It's a scam. It's just a pump and dump.

What are you all so afraid of?

Me personally of nothing. Just giving some advise to those that have not spent so much time thinking about stuff, and/or still emotionally attached to PTS.

... asides from me trying to give Stan one more reason, why his pitching the future of PTS is one of the most waistful   , ways to spend his time.

[donkeypong]

This thread reminds me a lot of the beating BM took when proposing his early ideas on BitcoinTalk. It's useless. It's a scam. It's just a pump and dump.

What are you all so afraid of?

The ONLY thing I'm afraid of, R., is that this P & D will tarnish the BitShares image. It's still there on coinmarketcap and on the exchanges, "Bitshares PTS". Major problem? No. Poor publicity and a few more headwinds as we gear up to promote BTS? Yup.

[Riverhead]

This thread reminds me a lot of the beating BM took when proposing his early ideas on BitcoinTalk. It's useless. It's a scam. It's just a pump and dump.

What are you all so afraid of?

[donkeypong]

DO NOT DO THIS!

1. PTS was given shares in BTS. If it still lives we all just lost value in BTS for no reason
2. To reach a wide audience, as many our saying, new projects can still sharedrop on BTS
3. If people want stake in a specific new DAC they can either get it through a sharedrop on BTS or by investing in whatever the earliest mechanism the devs allow (e.g., fundraiser, etherium-style, placeholder coin, etc.) It will still be effectively the same concept because everyone will have the investment opportunity at the same time. If the devs don't allow for "early adopters" it will be because they did not want to. If they want to allow an early adopter mechanism, they still can.
4. This will confuse everyone even further. Just let it go, keep the ecosystem simple. PLEASE. You are going to hurt BTS if you do this.

I hope people either support me on this or give a good reason why I'm wrong.

AlphaBar knows what he is doing, and he knows that this hurts BTS. My guess is that he wants to make money on buying cheap PTS and making people that were unhappy with the merger come back toward his new PTS.
This is clearly hurting the community, but who really believes he has some real developers able to maintain and upgrade PTS... this story will be over soon, we shall just ignore him.

^^^ This is what is happening, imo.
You can chose to believe in his wind mills...Or listen to Stan's proclamations that PTS has a great future, being the greatest airdrop target for any future developer(s).. .yes it is, if you bought your PTS for less then 1/1millionth of a BTC, but you will be better off spending your money else ware, if you paid more than that.

Proceed based on your own judgment.

Agreed. This is the most likely possibility. PTS is basically valueless at this point. Anyone hanging onto it is doing so for the fragment of a chance that there's another profitable DAC coming in the near future and that its developers will honor the former PTS, ignoring its final snapshot in the BTS merger. At the moment, these chances are so low that the only value proposition is to leave it. And if another DAC does come along and PTS is still kicking, then buy some then.

If this is turning into a pump and dump, then it's shameful that BitShares' name is associated with PTS in any way. Just dump it.

BitShares developers, how about informing exchanges that this coin is no longer supported?

[merlin0113]

I vote for ending PTS, unless there is a decent motive behind to continue which I don't see any in the near future.

[zerosum]

DO NOT DO THIS!

1. PTS was given shares in BTS. If it still lives we all just lost value in BTS for no reason
2. To reach a wide audience, as many our saying, new projects can still sharedrop on BTS
3. If people want stake in a specific new DAC they can either get it through a sharedrop on BTS or by investing in whatever the earliest mechanism the devs allow (e.g., fundraiser, etherium-style, placeholder coin, etc.) It will still be effectively the same concept because everyone will have the investment opportunity at the same time. If the devs don't allow for "early adopters" it will be because they did not want to. If they want to allow an early adopter mechanism, they still can.
4. This will confuse everyone even further. Just let it go, keep the ecosystem simple. PLEASE. You are going to hurt BTS if you do this.

I hope people either support me on this or give a good reason why I'm wrong.

AlphaBar knows what he is doing, and he knows that this hurts BTS. My guess is that he wants to make money on buying cheap PTS and making people that were unhappy with the merger come back toward his new PTS.
This is clearly hurting the community, but who really believes he has some real developers able to maintain and upgrade PTS... this story will be over soon, we shall just ignore him.

^^^ This is what is happening, imo.
You can chose to believe in his wind mills...Or listen to Stan's proclamations that PTS has a great future, being the greatest airdrop target for any future developer(s).. .yes it is, if you bought your PTS for less then 1/1millionth of a BTC, but you will be better off spending your money else ware, if you paid more than that.

Proceed based on your own judgment.

[fuzzy]

People who complain about this fail to take into account the developer's interest.  BTS is just not necessarily an enticing entity to sharedrop towards.  There will a be a lot of overlap with PTS, but there will also be a lot of people who are strictly for BTS and therefore detrimental to the DAC.

Ultimately it will be up to the developer to decide what they want to do.  If they want to sharedrop on BTS then nothing is stopping them.  They will take the better option though.

Personally I think a user defined asset on BTS would be best and lets not have I3 divest and keep it all in one address so developers can scale the PTS balance accordingly if desired.  All the talk of wanting I3 to divest proves nothing and I'm not sure we're any better off.  If you can't trust Dan to do the right thing, then you can't trust him to divest either.  It is much better to have the addresses known.

 

[gamey]

People who complain about this fail to take into account the developer's interest.  BTS is just not necessarily an enticing entity to sharedrop towards.  There will a be a lot of overlap with PTS, but there will also be a lot of people who are strictly for BTS and therefore detrimental to the DAC.

Ultimately it will be up to the developer to decide what they want to do.  If they want to sharedrop on BTS then nothing is stopping them.  They will take the better option though.

Personally I think a user defined asset on BTS would be best and lets not have I3 divest and keep it all in one address so developers can scale the PTS balance accordingly if desired.  All the talk of wanting I3 to divest proves nothing and I'm not sure we're any better off.  If you can't trust Dan to do the right thing, then you can't trust him to divest either.  It is much better to have the addresses known.