Cryptonomex? WTF is this?

[bubble789]

Its after midnight and we've already established that I'm at least as dumb as Toast, but I couldn't spot the tweaks and mods to be considered...

:O)

so you are saying *by nature* these are analogous ?
if so, i believe you may have failed again in presenting it in such a way that people will like it..

[Riverhead]

I'm at least as dumb as Toast

If only I could be so lucky.

[Stan]

BitShares is first and foremost a protocol based upon a public ledger. Anyone may provide and distribute an alternative implementation of the protocol and use the protocol for any other blockchain. The Graphene Toolkit produced by Cryptonomex, Inc is only one possible implementation of the protocol.

The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions. Cryptonomex, Inc retains all rights to the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof for any other use. The BitShares blockchain is defined as exactly one global ledger. In the event of a hard-fork only one branch may be considered the official BitShares ledger which will be unambiguously decided as the fork with the highest market capitalization.

This means that from the perspective of BitShares, the Graphene Toolkit is fully open source and its use, distribution, and future cannot be dictated by Cryptonomex or any other entity.

After further contemplation, I think that the business model you guys are building is good for everyone.
However, I believe certain tweaks and mods could be done to make it a better presentation for people. Remember one of the things we learnt from 0.9.x system where we did not "phrase/present" out "inflation system" well enough compared to Nushares?

I understand that the devs meant good for everyone with the conception of Cryptonomex, but I believe this time we can learn from Ripple for the business model. Cryptonomex and Bitshares can be analogous to RippleLabs and Ripple, with the difference that Cryptonomex controlling everything else it can but not Bitshares (hence no liabilities or whatsoever). RippleLabs has value because of all the ripple they still control, Cryptonomex will have value because of the license and talents it possess. Cryptonomex can receive fundings in a traditional way (seed, round ABC..), and everything else you guys have planned still basically can work as intended.

I may have missed something and not considered as many angles as you guys did but hope this option is considered.

Its after midnight and we've already established that I'm at least as dumb as Toast, but I couldn't spot the tweaks and mods to be considered...

:O)

[bubble789]

BitShares is first and foremost a protocol based upon a public ledger. Anyone may provide and distribute an alternative implementation of the protocol and use the protocol for any other blockchain. The Graphene Toolkit produced by Cryptonomex, Inc is only one possible implementation of the protocol.

The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions. Cryptonomex, Inc retains all rights to the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof for any other use. The BitShares blockchain is defined as exactly one global ledger. In the event of a hard-fork only one branch may be considered the official BitShares ledger which will be unambiguously decided as the fork with the highest market capitalization.

This means that from the perspective of BitShares, the Graphene Toolkit is fully open source and its use, distribution, and future cannot be dictated by Cryptonomex or any other entity.

After further contemplation, I think that the business model you guys are building is good for everyone.
However, I believe certain tweaks and mods could be done to make it a better presentation for people. Remember one of the things we learnt from 0.9.x system where we did not "phrase/present" out "inflation system" well enough compared to Nushares?

I understand that the devs meant good for everyone with the conception of Cryptonomex, but I believe this time we can learn from Ripple for the business model. Cryptonomex and Bitshares can be analogous to RippleLabs and Ripple, with the difference that Cryptonomex controlling everything else it can but not Bitshares (hence no liabilities or whatsoever). RippleLabs has value because of all the ripple they still control, Cryptonomex will have value because of the license and talents it possess. Cryptonomex can receive fundings in a traditional way (seed, round ABC..), and everything else you guys have planned still basically can work as intended.

I may have missed something and not considered as many angles as you guys did but hope this option is considered.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

The devs have taken nothing from us.  They have created something new, and given us exclusive rights to use it.  Being upset because they reserve the right to license it to others in the future is a bit petty.  Believing that you deserve a portion of their new company a bit pretentious. 

In regards to IP.  I am pretty sure I understand and share BM's opinion on IP.  While I find its use a little distasteful, I think I understand the reasoning.  I am not of the opinion that it is motivated by personal greed, but rather by the honest wish to protect the toolkit, and promote bitshares.

 

[merivercap]

Thanks.  We will be looking at it from a number of angles.

Cool.  Yeah it would be fitting to eventually have your share mgmt on the BitShares blockchain.  For practical purposes it might be easier to use a company like Eshares at: https://esharesinc.com/

That company really makes managing restricted stock, options, warrants, convertibles, tender offers much easier.. as well as cap table mgmt.  The CEO had a couple of interesting blog posts:

Broken cap tables
https://medium.com/@henrysward/broken-cap-tables-bbf84574a76a

Scalable Employee Liquidity
https://medium.com/@henrysward/part-2-scalable-employee-liquidity-cc32ca4a8086

[puppies]

The devs have taken nothing from us.  They have created something new, and given us exclusive rights to use it.  Being upset because they reserve the right to license it to others in the future is a bit petty.  Believing that you deserve a portion of their new company a bit pretentious. 

In regards to IP.  I am pretty sure I understand and share BM's opinion on IP.  While I find its use a little distasteful, I think I understand the reasoning.  I am not of the opinion that it is motivated by personal greed, but rather by the honest wish to protect the toolkit, and promote bitshares.

[Stan]

bytemaster, will the community be able to invest in Cryptonomex directly through a BTS UIA?

It would be great to see Cryptonomex eat the BTS dogfood with something this important.

Additionally, would a sharedrop on the table for BTS, PTS or AGS holders?

We would love that, but there are strict rules in the US about who can invest in a private firm before it goes public.
We are working to find ways to bring fresh money into the ecosystem to help grow the value of the stake you are now HODLing!

In that sense, you already own a part of the combined meatspace/cryptospace enterprise in the only way it is legally possible to do so.

Meanwhile, we are working with our legal partners to make Cryptonomex into a test case for how to legally maximize how a flesh and blood company can project itself into cryptospace.  As we learn with ourselves as the guinea pigs, we will be better positioned to consult with other start-ups on how to follow the trail we are blazing.

And we plan to do it all centered on BitShares. 

You guys can do a Reg A+ mini-IPO.  I initially was a bit skeptical about the costs, but you can probably do it on the cheap.  The official requirements should be out in a couple weeks, but it may just require a simplified version of an S-1 and also some regular filings.  Not sure what they are, but maybe instead of quarterly filings they'll just require it twice per year or maybe just annual filings and not require as much detail? 

Anyways the A+ seems more and more viable.  We're heading this route for a Bitshares Wallet startup.

Thanks.  We will be looking at it from a number of angles.

[merivercap]

This was supposed to be published along with the 2.0 announcement... but due to a desire for perfection it was not published.   I think it is good enough to give you all an idea of how we are thinking and what we are attempting to achieve.    I apologize for any confusion.

BitShares is first and foremost a protocol based upon a public ledger. Anyone may provide and distribute an alternative implementation of the protocol and use the protocol for any other blockchain. The Graphene Toolkit produced by Cryptonomex, Inc is only one possible implementation of the protocol.

The Graphene Toolkit will be licensed by Cryptonomex, Inc for use with the BitShares (BTS) blockchain. The terms of the license will allow the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof to be used with the BitShares blockchain without any restrictions. Cryptonomex, Inc retains all rights to the Graphene Toolkit and any derivatives thereof for any other use. The BitShares blockchain is defined as exactly one global ledger. In the event of a hard-fork only one branch may be considered the official BitShares ledger which will be unambiguously decided as the fork with the highest market capitalization.

This means that from the perspective of BitShares, the Graphene Toolkit is fully open source and its use, distribution, and future cannot be dictated by Cryptonomex or any other entity.

All of the devs are committed to making sure that BitShares is free from the control of any company or person.

That's great to hear.  The main goal of the licensing is to protect Bitshares technology from frivolous copycatting right?  BTW what do you mean by protocol?   I think it's good to be conservative early on and protective with the technology and finding a good solution is not easy.   I'm not a fan of using government institutions for protecting IP and I'm against IP in general.    I think using social pressures and norms to discourage copycatting can help.  You might also think of a smart-contract based licensing system in the future.

Anyways, it's the community that will add the ultimate value to the network and protect the technology.  If you look at Bitcoin there are thousands of frivolous and even non-frivolous copycats, but none of them are a serious threat.  Anyways.  Totally understand the situation you and the developers are in.

[fav]

A plausible set of scenarios.

Another perspective: BTS is in the public domain. Cryptonomex forked it hired all the bts core developers to make massive improvements. To encourage BTS holders to leave bts and adopt Graphene they share drop 100% of tokens 1:1 on bts holders in exchange for the Bitshares name and their support .

BTS 1.0 can live on, without developers, if some of the delegates don't upgrade.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

beter than best option   

So glad to see people focusing on solutions on a thread that was meant to ignite a flame war...

Much ♡ everyone...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%E2%99%A1&ia=about are you fuzzy?

[fuzzy]

A plausible set of scenarios.

Another perspective: BTS is in the public domain. Cryptonomex forked it hired all the bts core developers to make massive improvements. To encourage BTS holders to leave bts and adopt Graphene they share drop 100% of tokens 1:1 on bts holders in exchange for the Bitshares name and their support .

BTS 1.0 can live on, without developers, if some of the delegates don't upgrade.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

beter than best option   

So glad to see people focusing on solutions on a thread that was meant to ignite a flame war...

Much ♡ everyone...

[infovortice2013]

A plausible set of scenarios.

Another perspective: BTS is in the public domain. Cryptonomex forked it hired all the bts core developers to make massive improvements. To encourage BTS holders to leave bts and adopt Graphene they share drop 100% of tokens 1:1 on bts holders in exchange for the Bitshares name and their support .

BTS 1.0 can live on, without developers, if some of the delegates don't upgrade.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

beter than best option   

[Riverhead]

A plausible set of scenarios.

Another perspective: BTS is in the public domain. Cryptonomex forked it hired all the bts core developers to make massive improvements. To encourage BTS holders to leave bts and adopt Graphene they share drop 100% of tokens 1:1 on bts holders in exchange for the Bitshares name and their support .

BTS 1.0 can live on, without developers, if some of the delegates don't upgrade.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

[infovortice2013]

50% sharedrop on CN , 50% sharedrop on BTS

  BTS investors are confident in the technology and that they will profit from other potential chains
  and not eventualy betrayed or sold out by Cryptonomex.
  BTS marketcap surges. Graphene is adopted by other institutions. Everyone profits.

best option

[jtme]

BTS has always been at the mercy of the core devs; especially BM. I don't see how that's changed with them banding together under one company so they make some money. The other alternative would be for them to all get jobs elsewhere and let bts wither on the vine while the community either sells or tries to find new core devs willing to work for next to nothing.

I say when a new chain uses the Graphene toolkit they sharedrop on Cryptonomex. This lifetime entitlement mentality needs to stop.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

It has nothing to do with lifetime entitelment. They were paid from AGS/PTS,
are paid as delegates and will be paid as workers in the future.

If Cryptonomex can claim that every single line of Graphene code was not funded
by AGS or BTS delegate income, then well they have the moral right to
get it all sharedroped on Cryptonomex, but can they ?

If Graphene was partialy developed using BTS delagete funding,
BTS should have a stake in owning the code too or no ?

Lets take this two scenarios:

100% sharedrop on CN  , 0% sharedrop on BTS

 Potential BTS investors are in doubt or scared of Cryptonomex owning all the rights and profits,
 BTS marktetcap stagnates, large institutions will develop or adapt other protocols, BTS dies, Graphene dies
 no one profits

50% sharedrop on CN , 50% sharedrop on BTS

  BTS investors are confident in the technology and that they will profit from other potential chains
  and not eventualy betrayed or sold out by Cryptonomex.
  BTS marketcap surges. Graphene is adopted by other institutions. Everyone profits.