Poll

Do you find the BitShares PLAY allocation just?

Yes. BTS with 35% makes sense since to the added network effect.
87 (54.7%)
No. AGS/PTS which made PLAY possible in the first place are not honored sufficiently.
72 (45.3%)

Total Members Voted: 154

Voting closed: November 29, 2014, 05:29:35 pm

Author Topic: Do you find the BitShares PLAY allocation just?  (Read 22534 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HackFisher

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
    • View Profile
Well thanks for at least listening to me gripe.

Really where does this 35% BTS allocation come from? And who are the people who feel like that's anywhere near a reasonable amount? I haven't heard a single reason why it should be so outsized? Other than personal gain I suppose. I have quite a bit of BTS as well, I just find this allocation to be completely ridiculous. I'm not trying to offend anyone, especially not Hackfisher, but if anything it should be weighted more to where you got your initial funding from. That point cannot be stressed enough.

Hackfisher please reward those people who invested in your project! BTS holders are not going to change much of anything based on you changing the allocation. It is completely unexpected that you would allocate so much to BTS.

It based on the merger proposal, I thought the AGS/PTS (including the AGS after 2.28) has already being merged to BTS, and I remember there is a post mentioning that 3rd DACs should honoring BTS instead of AGS/PTS now, but I can not find it anymore. :'( (someone has the link, please pm it to me)

At last, we decide to honor all of three, but if most people (> 50%) involved in this poll util Wednesday 12:00PM(UTC)  think that we need a new proposal for AGS, I will definitely give a new proposal (a promise to delulo on yesterday's mumble).

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg135971#msg135971

&

...................

My Proposal:

1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS...  BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals.    This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition. 
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there. 

..............
« Last Edit: November 16, 2014, 09:59:09 am by HackFisher »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline HackFisher

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
    • View Profile
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.

I received a monthly grant from bytemaster, so far, there are about 5000 * 6 dollars to fund PLAY, including 3+ months I was working for BTSX or toolkit. I do not want give any comment on this, just want to clarify things might miss-leading others(the ledger are public and can be queried on google docs).
« Last Edit: November 16, 2014, 08:17:57 am by HackFisher »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline kuwaitee

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
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.

 +5%

Offline godzirra

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile

Lastly is it the community's opinion that you won't support any DAC that hasn't gifted the proper respectful amount?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

That's the thing AGS donors have already funded PLAY. I think it's deincentivizing the kind of support that is needed the most. I've been very understanding of the changes made by I3 in the past. They always seemed to be as fair and thoughful as possible, and seemingly for the right reasons. This decision seems to be completely arbitrary. It's a departure from what I'm used to from Bitshares. So yes I do not really envision myself supporting PLAY with future funding. I'd rather just passively hold my BTS.

Offline godzirra

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Well thanks for at least listening to me gripe.

Really where does this 35% BTS allocation come from? And who are the people who feel like that's anywhere near a reasonable amount? I haven't heard a single reason why it should be so outsized? Other than personal gain I suppose. I have quite a bit of BTS as well, I just find this allocation to be completely ridiculous. I'm not trying to offend anyone, especially not Hackfisher, but if anything it should be weighted more to where you got your initial funding from. That point cannot be stressed enough.

Hackfisher please reward those people who invested in your project! BTS holders are not going to change much of anything based on you changing the allocation. It is completely unexpected that you would allocate so much to BTS.

Offline Riverhead

I hear what you're saying. So drop pts/ags like the plan was from the start.

To me share dropping to BTS came out of nowhere. Developers are welcome to do it of course but it's painful.

If yet another promising DAC comes along will they be expected to drop to AGS, PTS, BTS, and PLAY?

Gonna get really confusing.

Lastly is it the community's opinion that you won't support any DAC that hasn't gifted the proper respectful amount?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: November 16, 2014, 05:31:12 am by Riverhead »

Offline godzirra

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
The idea that those who benefited from the 50/50 BTS distribution are the ones who should continually be rewarded with greater allocation of future DACs, is going to do much more harm than is currently realized.

Offline godzirra

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2014, 04:48:48 am by godzirra »

Offline Riverhead

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


Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani


We seem to have taken the 'reimagine everything' motto a bit too literally.

lol



Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D


Offline hpenvy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
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.

 +5% +5%
=============
btsx address: hpenvy
Tips appreciated for good work

Offline godzirra

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
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.

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
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.
+5%

Offline jamesc

I'm happy. I donated most of my stuff after February 28, I just see it as incentive to be more timely in my adoption of new technology.

Offline Riverhead

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.
Agreed. It can change a thousand times and not everyone will be happy. If it were up to me it'd just be pts/ags. Thankfully it's not :P

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk