Do you find the BitShares PLAY allocation just?

[santaclause102]

I read all comments! Thank you all for sharing your perspectives.

I always think that exchanging arguments is never bad and that is how this should be seen. A divide in perspectives / positions does not mean a divide in the community. Ideas and systems (and allocation models) thrive when they are challenged.

I hope Denny (hackfisher) can take into account many of the good arguments that were made here.

[clayop]

I see there is 15% for marketing and development, 20% for crowdfunding, 10% reserved. Basically you are alloting 45% for development and marketing under various heads. Thats a huge percentage, most of which can be used to increase the stakes to keep everyone happy. In fact, as you are being funded by AGS funds, one can claim that the 20% crowdfunding should go straight to AGS, and you still will have 25% left for more funding.

At this point the only solution that would work is the one which doesn't decrease anybody's stake. You can increase AGS and PTS allocation, but not decrease BTS, as that will lead to another round of arguments. Good thing you have kept 45% reserved for development and marketing.

 
20% Crowdfunding and 45% in total reserved fund seem absurd. Is crowd funding useful? Does it have any legal issues? Why don't you removing crowdfunding and increase percentage of pts/AGS to 20%? (If bts is decreased by 10% we can acheivr 25% of bts/AGS/pts)

[sumantso]

No, I don't like dilution, that would be a bad marketing for PLAY.

But games assets in PLAY is free to have their own dilution model as soon as they follow the exchange model.

I see there is 15% for marketing and development, 20% for crowdfunding, 10% reserved. Basically you are alloting 45% for development and marketing under various heads. Thats a huge percentage, most of which can be used to increase the stakes to keep everyone happy. In fact, as you are being funded by AGS funds, one can claim that the 20% crowdfunding should go straight to AGS, and you still will have 25% left for more funding.

At this point the only solution that would work is the one which doesn't decrease anybody's stake. You can increase AGS and PTS allocation, but not decrease BTS, as that will lead to another round of arguments. Good thing you have kept 45% reserved for development and marketing.

Why not just fork PLAY, and give the allocation as you like, that's better.

Sure, return the money I invested then. Thanks

(see? I can be confrontational too. I am fine with the allocation - look back at my posts, was just trying to aid you in getting you out of the hole you are digging. I am done here, good luck with a divided community.)

[HackFisher]

No, I don't like dilution, that would be a bad marketing for PLAY.

But games assets in PLAY is free to have their own dilution model as soon as they follow the exchange model.

I see there is 15% for marketing and development, 20% for crowdfunding, 10% reserved. Basically you are alloting 45% for development and marketing under various heads. Thats a huge percentage, most of which can be used to increase the stakes to keep everyone happy. In fact, as you are being funded by AGS funds, one can claim that the 20% crowdfunding should go straight to AGS, and you still will have 25% left for more funding.

At this point the only solution that would work is the one which doesn't decrease anybody's stake. You can increase AGS and PTS allocation, but not decrease BTS, as that will lead to another round of arguments. Good thing you have kept 45% reserved for development and marketing.

Why not just fork PLAY, and give the allocation as you like, that's better.

[kuwaitee]

I think AGS created the toolkit and AGS holder can expect higher allocation than BTS holder.

[sumantso]

No, I don't like dilution, that would be a bad marketing for PLAY.

But games assets in PLAY is free to have their own dilution model as soon as they follow the exchange model.

I see there is 15% for marketing and development, 20% for crowdfunding, 10% reserved. Basically you are alloting 45% for development and marketing under various heads. Thats a huge percentage, most of which can be used to increase the stakes to keep everyone happy. In fact, as you are being funded by AGS funds, one can claim that the 20% crowdfunding should go straight to AGS, and you still will have 25% left for more funding.

At this point the only solution that would work is the one which doesn't decrease anybody's stake. You can increase AGS and PTS allocation, but not decrease BTS, as that will lead to another round of arguments. Good thing you have kept 45% reserved for development and marketing.

[HackFisher]

Regarding poll, do you have any better solutions to represent the community consensus?
No, I don't like dilution, that would be a bad marketing for PLAY.

But games assets in PLAY is free to have their own dilution model as soon as they follow the exchange model.

See my edit in the above post, the poll is worthless. The solution? Ask the mods to remove all votes from members who signed up in the last 24 hours and make it so that only older users can vote. If that is not possible ask everybody to post their votes rather than vote.

As sumantso request, Moderate, please remove all votes from members who signed up in the last 24 hours and make it so that only older users can vote.
Thank you.
Hope that this forum have this feature...

[sumantso]

Regarding poll, do you have any better solutions to represent the community consensus?
No, I don't like dilution, that would be a bad marketing for PLAY.

But games assets in PLAY is free to have their own dilution model as soon as they follow the exchange model.

See my edit in the above post, the poll is worthless. The solution? Ask the mods to remove all votes from members who signed up in the last 24 hours and make it so that only older users can vote. If that is not possible ask everybody to post their votes rather than vote.

[HackFisher]

This is alway the situation that can not please everyone, let's the community decide it through poll.

You're still relying on the poll? Look at the new user signups, just registering to vote. I am baffled that you don't get the simple fact that anybody with economic interests will register a lot of shills and vote.

Besides, the poll is not exhaustive, there should be other options.

Also, have you thought of allotting more and then paying through dilution? I3 was basically following your model earlier and then changed to the current one, why repeat the same?

Regarding poll, do you have any better solutions to represent the community consensus?
No, I don't like dilution, that would be a bad marketing for PLAY.

But games assets in PLAY is free to have their own dilution model as soon as they follow the exchange model.

[sumantso]

This is alway the situation that can not please everyone, let's the community decide it through poll.

You're still relying on the poll? Look at the new user signups, just registering to vote. I am baffled that you don't get the simple fact that anybody with economic interests will register a lot of shills and vote.

Besides, the poll is not exhaustive, there should be other options.

Also, have you thought of allotting more and then paying through dilution? I3 was basically following your model earlier and then changed to the current one, why repeat the same?

EDIT: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=mlist;sort=registered;desc;start=0
Lets pick out the first member on the third page https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=26638
The stats? 0 posts, 1 vote

[HackFisher]

AGS created the toolkit. AGS gave Hackfisher his grant.

Why did not AGS get higher allocation? 1. Hackfisher did not know that his whole grant came from AGS. 2. Hackfisher thought that one were supposed to drop on BTS. 3. People have an inbred idea that PTS and AGS always should get the same allocation.

Conclusion: AGS should get a higher allocation than both PTS and BTS.

If there will be a new proposal, agree that AGS should get a higher allocation than PTS, but I think BTS holders will not agree giving AGS higher allocation than BTS.

This is alway the situation that can not please everyone, let's the community decide it through poll.

And another thing I thought is AGS is a social contact between 3I and AGS holders (honoring 10% to them), not me. 10% is the expected return for all the AGS funds managed by 3I, not including other extra allocation ask to PLAY. Asking return of one thing for twice, right? People really like double spending.... Anyway, I respect community consensus and PLAY team members opinions, I would be glad to give AGS more allocation if they agree.

[CLains]

AGS created the toolkit. AGS gave Hackfisher his grant.

Why did not AGS get higher allocation? 1. Hackfisher did not know that his whole grant came from AGS. 2. Hackfisher thought that one were supposed to drop on BTS. 3. People have an inbred idea that PTS and AGS always should get the same allocation.

Conclusion: AGS should get a higher allocation than both PTS and BTS.

[Riverhead]

I think people have a hard time grasping what it means to be autonomous. BM and 3I didn't kill PTS. The community is what makes PTS live or die. Not sure about AGS, that's not a trading token. Different ball of worms.

[zerosum]

It's sort of like buying bitUSD because of the yield and then delegates asking what you've done lately to deserve it.

That's a good one!

But delegates are right, they have the full support of the community... well at least 6.00% of the community. 

Anyway, that was the idea but things change. Some people are having a hard time letting it go. I won't name names

Well, the sad part is I have hard time finding any PTS/AGS holder.... sorry excuse my language, I meant to say bitUSD holder who was promised interest,  who is not deeply disturbed nowadays, except maybe me and I am a step away from the same state of mind...




PS
This post is for the benefit of I3 mainly.... I do not know if you are aware of this fact and consider the early adopters expected casualties of the growth... but I do not think you realize the extent to which such adopters are now on the brink of becoming indifferent.


Anyway this is my last selfless post also.

[Stan]

Regardless of whether its 'fair' I hope there is no change now. For once I would like to see something NOT change. We seem to have taken the 'reimagine everything' motto a bit too literally.

That's an interesting argument. Let's not concern ourselves with what is fair. I for one will not be participating in another round of "Angel" investing coming from PLAY, if it ever needs one.

How can one unfairly give something away? We aren't entitled to anything.

If this sort of angry haggling is what any dev that wants to share drop to the community faces they likely won't. If I had a good idea for a DAC I'd do the 10% pts, maybe 10% AGS and spend the rest on dev and marketing talent.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Angelshares were used as a grant for funding the PLAY dac. There are millions of dollars that were donated at a very real risk to fund development. That kind of support should be valued just as highly as the network effect of BTS holders. BTS holders should not be getting 3 times the allocation in my opinion. The Pre Feb28 windfall was a huge gift. Why are the same people getting a larger share this time? It makes no sense! Not because of a contracted obligation but because this community should recognize those that gifted thousands of BTC to make PLAY possible. What part of that is so difficult to understand? If fairness doesn't interest you how about the basic principle of reciprocity?

The only argument I hear in opposition is once again to stop nagging and just be quiet. Which is an interesting argument. One that I will weigh when considering future support of this community.

What has the PTS/AGS community done that makes them deserve stake forever?  If they want to get sharedropped more, they need to unite and show why the PTS/AGS model deserves to remain.  Other than, of course, saying they made it possible.  Everyone else made it possible too by buying in. 

If you want sharedrops, work together as PTS/AGS and provide value above and beyond what everyone else does.  Work as a unit.  You have all had plenty of time to utilize each others skills to create something that would be truly EPIC and historically precedent-setting.  Something worthy of being sharedropped on for all eternity.

What have you done bit expect it without really showing you can create this precedent? Invictus has more than honored their end considering they are no longer invictus.  They have given you all more than 10% in every DAC they have made.

Now it is time to work for the respect of 3rd party devs.

Think of pts not as a coin but a simple share drop target people can buy and sell.

If someone thinks BTS is all that and a bag of chips? Great, balance your desire for a piece of future DACs with your belief in an existing one.

I always viewed PTS as a token that pays a dividend in the form of share drops. The devs in return get a community of folks chomping at the bit to test, discuss, host, evangelize, and generally do what everyone is doing now for BTS.

It was never about payback or respect for founders, etc. It is just a unique type of token that served a specific purpose. If a dev thought they had a killer idea they could buy cheap PTS and then promote their idea to build interest in a share drop and increase the price of PTS as people evaluated the DAC.

Or we can keep putting devs through the grinder while they negotiate percentages for weeks rather than working on the DAC.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Im looking for specifics. What do PTS/AGS give developers that other communities (like, say, doge) dont give better? Im not doubting talent or capability. Just asking for examples of what the AGS/PTS community give that is unique.  If it is an understanding of DACs that is fast fading and will not be around long.

Different demographics. 
One likes DACs.  One likes DOGs.

Which is more likely to support a new DAC business?
Which is more likely to support a new DOG meme?

http://bitshares.org/bitshares-airdrop-theory/