please don't dilution for any reason at this low price

[clayop]

Alt's point maybe "not at this low price".

[Ander]

I agree, we shouldnt dilute for any reason at this price.  It doesnt matter if the dilution is delayed or not.

[ripplexiaoshan]

I think what we really need,  is to differentiate the necessary worker, who we will support and vote for,  and unnecessary worker, who could be valuable but we can't afford  to pay them at this stage.  Obviously, xeroc is the former.

@alt: Have you ran the numbers?

The fee pool currently has 1,060,212,383 BTS
and the network has a cap of spending 15,107 BTS per hour (witnesses and workers together)

with those numbers we could maximally pay
1060212383 / (15107*24*30) = 97 MONTHS(!!!) of work until the reserves are gone.

I hope you recall that I have not been searching for a regular job to be able to work on BitShares full-time (even though you only pay me PART TIME(!!)).
If you continue to reject my worker, this will have the consequence, that I will not be able to continue my work for BitShares.
That means:
* no further documentation
* no further python development
* no further technical support in the forums
* no further technical support for exchanges
* no further business development behind the scenes
* no further support for the committee members

Just make sure you and your supporters know the consequences.

[Moon]

@alt: Have you ran the numbers?

The fee pool currently has 1,060,212,383 BTS
and the network has a cap of spending 15,107 BTS per hour (witnesses and workers together)

with those numbers we could maximally pay
1060212383 / (15107*24*30) = 97 MONTHS(!!!) of work until the reserves are gone.

I hope you recall that I have not been searching for a regular job to be able to work on BitShares full-time (even though you only pay me PART TIME(!!)).
If you continue to reject my worker, this will have the consequence, that I will not be able to continue my work for BitShares.
That means:
* no further documentation
* no further python development
* no further technical support in the forums
* no further technical support for exchanges
* no further business development behind the scenes
* no further support for the committee members

Just make sure you and your supporters know the consequences.

hope you are well
you should persuade those persons who set this account as proxy.
Thinking what happened，why

[xeroc]

@alt: Have you ran the numbers?

The fee pool currently has 1,060,212,383 BTS
and the network has a cap of spending 15,107 BTS per hour (witnesses and workers together)

with those numbers we could maximally pay
1060212383 / (15107*24*30) = 97 MONTHS(!!!) of work until the reserves are gone.

I hope you recall that I have not been searching for a regular job to be able to work on BitShares full-time (even though you only pay me PART TIME(!!)).
If you continue to reject my worker, this will have the consequence, that I will not be able to continue my work for BitShares.
That means:
* no further documentation
* no further python development
* no further technical support in the forums
* no further technical support for exchanges
* no further business development behind the scenes
* no further support for the committee members

Just make sure you and your supporters know the consequences.

[roadscape]

There's no magic solution to make BTS succeed.. just hard work.. I'm glad some of our basic needs are transparent & publicly-funded (@svk, @xeroc, @cass). They could find outside funding but they would not be obliged to do anything with or on BitShares.. and anyone can sit on their stake without contributing.

I'm glad members like @onceuponatime have stepped forward to provide alternate means of funding.. FBAs are promising too.. but not everything fits that model.

As you add bureaucracy & demands, work becomes more expensive (we saw this in the transition from 0.9 to 2.0). The current balance is adequate, IMO.

[Musewhale]

 

[helloworld]

I believe when we dilution 1 USD value BTS, the share holders will lose more than 10 USD.

How so?

Do you think the committee would use their accumulated fee income to pay for workers instead?
I welcome your approach and am willing to be payed by other means as long as can fill my fridge

from the experience of a  common stock trade market, there are about 5%  shares active in the trade,
so if there are 1m USD available in the market trade for BTS, there are about 20m USD market cap for BTS.

for most workers, they sold  all BTS got from the payment at current price, and take away these money from market.
if they sold 10k USD, the market cap reduce 10k*20 = 200K USD
and these will caused more desperate money leave BTS at such a low price.

If I am the owner of a componey which stock is very low,
I should try to buy back as more stock as I can, not sold out, not dilution
If I don't have any money to buy back, at least I don't dilution
If I really need dilution some stock to pay for development, I only pay for the development I have to do.
If I  dilution any stock to pay for any development as I like, I guess other share holders want to killing me, more and more people will leave.

 

[alt]

I support development,
I support pay the USD from account committee to BM
I support pay future income USD to developer
please consider how much money do we left, have a plan, give an authority to each task from the big picture.
give a budget plan for this year
please try to find other way to earn more money
try to buy back BTS at this price.

[bytemaster]

Lack of dilution does not support a price and in fact can collapse it all the way to liquidation price.

Suppose a startup company spent $3 million dollars and three years of development and had so little revenue that it couldn't even fund one developer, but still had some of the best technology and lots of potential value.

Suppose this startup company had bylaws that prevented it from diluting without 100% approval.

Suppose there was a single shareholder that refused to allow dilution.

All work would stop, offices closed, servers shut down until that single shareholder sold to someone who would approve dilution to raise funds.

The longer that shareholder held out the lower the liquidation price would go until finally the price is 0 because the assets of the company were not maintained and all the talent left.

So the question of dilution is really about a game of musical chairs where current speculators want to minimize "sell pressure" so they can exit at a higher price and leave everyone else holding the bag.

My conclusion is that dilution hurts speculators who didn't factor it into their purchase decision. Dilution does push the price down if it is sold, this is identical to selling shares for dollars to hire labor. The more you dilute the larger the "funding round".

But just because dilution, by definition, lowers the price it does not prove that not-diluting will raise the price or prevent it from falling.  Instead, the price will fall because the market knows that dilution is needed to keep the company alive and adapting long enough to find the product / market fit.

In other words, whether you want dilution or not, the price will ultimately reflect the need for investment (aka the need for dilution). In some sense, the longer you delay the more you must dilute to make up for lost time and lower valuations.     

So if the premise is that diluting by $6 million per year when BTS is at $100M is ok, but diluting by $300 thousand per year when BTS is at $5M is not ok then you are essentially saying that once BTS falls below a certain threshold all work should stop and everyone who is left should be powerless to revive their investment by attracting new capital?

So what happens next is that a clone of BTS is created with a new allocation that then attempts to fix all of the problems and realize the value potential of the basic technology. At this point the BTS holders will be lucky if the new investors allocate them a cut at all when they have little financial incentive to do so.

Ultimately, dilution is the means of bringing in new investors to BTS and discouraging them from starting a clone that grants them sufficient ownership to make it worth their time and money.

I think all you're saying is that :
1. You need dilution .
2. You think after all these magical amazing development result that you're so proud of , BitShares will go to zero after stop continue working on it , even BitShares is already significantly lower than Dogecoin(a coin with zero function) or Dash's market cap already . So the translation is , the value of BitShares is contingent on the continue work , and if one day there is no more work , BitShares dies  .

So your future worker proposal's value proposition becomes , "this work will cost BitShares xxx dilution , but keep in mind , its effect won't be sustained if you reject our future proposal" .

I'm not really following .  When you built good DAC software , it doesn't suppose to work that way .
And I don't think a system that runs this way can really be used for major user cases . After all , what if one day the developers go on a trip and don't have time to manually keep it running ? 1 week ? 2 week ? What time do you expect this trip could kill BitShares ?

Can one of your future proposal do something "that even if we left , the valuable work that we've done will provide good strength for BTS , and BTS wouldn't die because of my amazing work ? " ?

I think that's the kind of proposal that people would be gladly vote it in ,  not these "you have to keep paying , or the previous work will be for nothing " .

In fact , let's make it two kinds of worker proposals . The ones that truely strenghthens BitShares and will keep BitShares grow  , and the other ones will contribute nothing just empty promise of adding value to it but even the writer of the proposal doesn't believe it .  People should file their proposal properly in order for a true vote .

I am not saying that dilution is necessary to pay developers to support and maintain the network.  Witnesses are already paid plenty and the network will be fine.  Bug fixes for critical issues will always be funded if they are discovered because otherwise everyone loses everything.

Does the blockchain need us, no it doesn't.   I could be hit by a bus and BTS would continue on.   What the blockchain needs is people working and building on it.  New features alone will not magically solve things.

So please do not conclude that I am saying BTS needs to dilute, instead understand that calling for a blanket end to dilution is not sound thinking. 

If the claim is that the protocol is "done" and all future work on BTS should be for private business models like is done in BTC then I would agree that we shouldn't fund more work. 

I have been actively looking for ways to minimize worker proposals and dilution and be efficient with spending.

[Stan]

...long enough to find the product / market fit.

I think all you're saying is that :
1. You need dilution .
2. You think after all these magical amazing development result that you're so proud of , BitShares will go to zero after stop continue working on it , even BitShares is already significantly lower than Dogecoin(a coin with zero function) or Dash's market cap already . So the translation is , the value of BitShares is contingent on the continue work , and if one day there is no more work , BitShares dies  .

So your future worker proposal's value proposition becomes , "this work will cost BitShares xxx dilution , but keep in mind , its effect won't be sustained if you reject our future proposal" .

I'm not really following .  When you built good DAC software , it doesn't suppose to work that way .
And I don't think a system that runs this way can really be used for major user cases . After all , what if one day the developers go on a trip and don't have time to manually keep it running ? 1 week ? 2 week ? What time do you expect this trip could kill BitShares ?

Can one of your future proposal do something "that even if we left , the valuable work that we've done will provide good strength for BTS , and BTS wouldn't die because of my amazing work ? " ?

I think that's the kind of proposal that people would be gladly vote it in ,  not these "you have to keep paying , or the previous work will be for nothing " .

In fact , let's make it two kinds of worker proposals . The ones that truely strenghthens BitShares and will keep BitShares grow  , and the other ones will contribute nothing just empty promise of adding value to it but even the writer of the proposal doesn't believe it .  People should file their proposal properly in order for a true vote .

You omitted the key caveat:

...long enough to find the product / market fit.

Nowhere is it ever claimed that this is needed indefinitely. 

And as for two proposal types, these two categories have always existed:

1.  Those that the majority believe are worth funding.
2.  Those that do not have majority support.

[Erlich Bachman]

my god man, look what you made him do!?

He must have spent 20 minutes saying what he has said a million times here.

Why do people automatically link the word "dilution" to BitShares instead of "smartcoin" ?

Maybe because the community won't stop bugging BM about it...

The bottom line is that the community will have to vote on any further dilution, so unless a committee member is proposing dilution, then why are we wasting BM's time?!

Lack of dilution does not support a price and in fact can collapse it all the way to liquidation price.

Suppose a startup company spent $3 million dollars and three years of development and had so little revenue that it couldn't even fund one developer, but still had some of the best technology and lots of potential value.

Suppose this startup company had bylaws that prevented it from diluting without 100% approval.

Suppose there was a single shareholder that refused to allow dilution.

All work would stop, offices closed, servers shut down until that single shareholder sold to someone who would approve dilution to raise funds.

The longer that shareholder held out the lower the liquidation price would go until finally the price is 0 because the assets of the company were not maintained and all the talent left.

So the question of dilution is really about a game of musical chairs where current speculators want to minimize "sell pressure" so they can exit at a higher price and leave everyone else holding the bag.

My conclusion is that dilution hurts speculators who didn't factor it into their purchase decision. Dilution does push the price down if it is sold, this is identical to selling shares for dollars to hire labor. The more you dilute the larger the "funding round".

But just because dilution, by definition, lowers the price it does not prove that not-diluting will raise the price or prevent it from falling.  Instead, the price will fall because the market knows that dilution is needed to keep the company alive and adapting long enough to find the product / market fit.

In other words, whether you want dilution or not, the price will ultimately reflect the need for investment (aka the need for dilution). In some sense, the longer you delay the more you must dilute to make up for lost time and lower valuations.     

So if the premise is that diluting by $6 million per year when BTS is at $100M is ok, but diluting by $300 thousand per year when BTS is at $5M is not ok then you are essentially saying that once BTS falls below a certain threshold all work should stop and everyone who is left should be powerless to revive their investment by attracting new capital?

So what happens next is that a clone of BTS is created with a new allocation that then attempts to fix all of the problems and realize the value potential of the basic technology. At this point the BTS holders will be lucky if the new investors allocate them a cut at all when they have little financial incentive to do so.

Ultimately, dilution is the means of bringing in new investors to BTS and discouraging them from starting a clone that grants them sufficient ownership to make it worth their time and money.

[Shentist]

i will not vote with the suggested proxy!

So, with your argument the dilution in bitcoin would be bad, but we see the opposite effect.

I think we have a great system now in place and we need just to add more components who will bring more value for different kinds of people.

As an example

Say you are a village in africa and would have a ledger to provide information about the local used currency. You want to use a technical solution, because many people are
using mobiles. Could this people use BitShares right now?

1. create UIA - check!
2. Transfer is to expensive, but will be fixed with the precentage BIP proposal - check!
3. the GUI need to be function on a mobile wallet as it is right now on a computer - not check! so we need here some solutions

I think we need just finish more groundwork to enable all the smart people outside of bitshares. They need to say "Hey, why should i code all this stuff by myself when bitshares
already did all the foundation work for me?".

[btswildpig]

Lack of dilution does not support a price and in fact can collapse it all the way to liquidation price.

Suppose a startup company spent $3 million dollars and three years of development and had so little revenue that it couldn't even fund one developer, but still had some of the best technology and lots of potential value.

Suppose this startup company had bylaws that prevented it from diluting without 100% approval.

Suppose there was a single shareholder that refused to allow dilution.

All work would stop, offices closed, servers shut down until that single shareholder sold to someone who would approve dilution to raise funds.

The longer that shareholder held out the lower the liquidation price would go until finally the price is 0 because the assets of the company were not maintained and all the talent left.

So the question of dilution is really about a game of musical chairs where current speculators want to minimize "sell pressure" so they can exit at a higher price and leave everyone else holding the bag.

My conclusion is that dilution hurts speculators who didn't factor it into their purchase decision. Dilution does push the price down if it is sold, this is identical to selling shares for dollars to hire labor. The more you dilute the larger the "funding round".

But just because dilution, by definition, lowers the price it does not prove that not-diluting will raise the price or prevent it from falling.  Instead, the price will fall because the market knows that dilution is needed to keep the company alive and adapting long enough to find the product / market fit.

In other words, whether you want dilution or not, the price will ultimately reflect the need for investment (aka the need for dilution). In some sense, the longer you delay the more you must dilute to make up for lost time and lower valuations.     

So if the premise is that diluting by $6 million per year when BTS is at $100M is ok, but diluting by $300 thousand per year when BTS is at $5M is not ok then you are essentially saying that once BTS falls below a certain threshold all work should stop and everyone who is left should be powerless to revive their investment by attracting new capital?

So what happens next is that a clone of BTS is created with a new allocation that then attempts to fix all of the problems and realize the value potential of the basic technology. At this point the BTS holders will be lucky if the new investors allocate them a cut at all when they have little financial incentive to do so.

Ultimately, dilution is the means of bringing in new investors to BTS and discouraging them from starting a clone that grants them sufficient ownership to make it worth their time and money.

I think all you're saying is that :
1. You need dilution .
2. You think after all these magical amazing development result that you're so proud of , BitShares will go to zero after stop continue working on it , even BitShares is already significantly lower than Dogecoin(a coin with zero function) or Dash's market cap already . So the translation is , the value of BitShares is contingent on the continue work , and if one day there is no more work , BitShares dies  .

So your future worker proposal's value proposition becomes , "this work will cost BitShares xxx dilution , but keep in mind , its effect won't be sustained if you reject our future proposal" .

I'm not really following .  When you built good DAC software , it doesn't suppose to work that way .
And I don't think a system that runs this way can really be used for major user cases . After all , what if one day the developers go on a trip and don't have time to manually keep it running ? 1 week ? 2 week ? What time do you expect this trip could kill BitShares ?

Can one of your future proposal do something "that even if we left , the valuable work that we've done will provide good strength for BTS , and BTS wouldn't die because of my amazing work ? " ?

I think that's the kind of proposal that people would be gladly vote it in ,  not these "you have to keep paying , or the previous work will be for nothing " .

In fact , let's make it two kinds of worker proposals . The ones that truely strenghthens BitShares and will keep BitShares grow  , and the other ones will contribute nothing just empty promise of adding value to it but even the writer of the proposal doesn't believe it .  People should file their proposal properly in order for a true vote . 

[bytemaster]

Lack of dilution does not support a price and in fact can collapse it all the way to liquidation price.

Suppose a startup company spent $3 million dollars and three years of development and had so little revenue that it couldn't even fund one developer, but still had some of the best technology and lots of potential value.

Suppose this startup company had bylaws that prevented it from diluting without 100% approval.

Suppose there was a single shareholder that refused to allow dilution.

All work would stop, offices closed, servers shut down until that single shareholder sold to someone who would approve dilution to raise funds.

The longer that shareholder held out the lower the liquidation price would go until finally the price is 0 because the assets of the company were not maintained and all the talent left.

So the question of dilution is really about a game of musical chairs where current speculators want to minimize "sell pressure" so they can exit at a higher price and leave everyone else holding the bag.

My conclusion is that dilution hurts speculators who didn't factor it into their purchase decision. Dilution does push the price down if it is sold, this is identical to selling shares for dollars to hire labor. The more you dilute the larger the "funding round".

But just because dilution, by definition, lowers the price it does not prove that not-diluting will raise the price or prevent it from falling.  Instead, the price will fall because the market knows that dilution is needed to keep the company alive and adapting long enough to find the product / market fit.

In other words, whether you want dilution or not, the price will ultimately reflect the need for investment (aka the need for dilution). In some sense, the longer you delay the more you must dilute to make up for lost time and lower valuations.     

So if the premise is that diluting by $6 million per year when BTS is at $100M is ok, but diluting by $300 thousand per year when BTS is at $5M is not ok then you are essentially saying that once BTS falls below a certain threshold all work should stop and everyone who is left should be powerless to revive their investment by attracting new capital?

So what happens next is that a clone of BTS is created with a new allocation that then attempts to fix all of the problems and realize the value potential of the basic technology. At this point the BTS holders will be lucky if the new investors allocate them a cut at all when they have little financial incentive to do so.

Ultimately, dilution is the means of bringing in new investors to BTS and discouraging them from starting a clone that grants them sufficient ownership to make it worth their time and money.