DACIndex.com now live

[38PTSWarrior]

Hey, even little jokes can hurt someone. Let's make Pam proud and be good to each other. Adam you have to control your temper a little and not hijack celebration threads, even it is most important for you. Also people are going through difficult times sometimes and we should stop bullying once we see it.

I like the movie cloud atlas. I am starting my delorian now.

[cass]

indeed, really outdated! any feedback on this?  Adam?

He changed his name to Eagleeye. Didn't you know?

Just kidding.

LOL

[donkeypong]

indeed, really outdated! any feedback on this?  Adam?

He changed his name to Eagleeye. Didn't you know?

Just kidding.

[CLains]

Fuznuts, you made a good post.   

Some things to realize about Brian Page.... he has a flair for things that grab attention and may not be practical.  His job is to get attention and he thinks outside the box.   Whether or not having actual sharks makes sense as something that would attract people I do not know.  Brian is still learning his target audience and is pulling from experience he has in other fields where 'stunts' generate attention and thus sales.  Gregory Wexler and his wife Amanda are working in the background with Brian to keep things in perspective with a focus on return on investment.   Brian is doing a great job overall.         

Also note that Brian has been told that the conference should earn a profit, I have given him financial incentives to minimize the use of AGS funds and maximize the revenue from ticket sales.   If everything works as planned the conference will cost the AGS holders nothing, generate a lot of publicity, and Brian will have earned a small profit for a job well done.

Since we know a member of the real shark thank. Why not hold a bitshares Shark tank. On the board: Dan, Kevin, else. Maybe also Vitalik if you want to do it in cooperation with Ethereum. It wount bring Kevin the high tv ratings but he can sharpen his profile and reputation and show ppl that he has (investment) skills outside of the product line of a normal shark tank show which is not what serious investors look for really.

 

Now is the excellent time to resurrect this idea!

[cass]

it seems this page is close to 'unmaintained' :-(

indeed, really outdated! any feedback on this?  Adam?

[santaclause102]

Fuznuts, you made a good post.   

Some things to realize about Brian Page.... he has a flair for things that grab attention and may not be practical.  His job is to get attention and he thinks outside the box.   Whether or not having actual sharks makes sense as something that would attract people I do not know.  Brian is still learning his target audience and is pulling from experience he has in other fields where 'stunts' generate attention and thus sales.  Gregory Wexler and his wife Amanda are working in the background with Brian to keep things in perspective with a focus on return on investment.   Brian is doing a great job overall.         

Also note that Brian has been told that the conference should earn a profit, I have given him financial incentives to minimize the use of AGS funds and maximize the revenue from ticket sales.   If everything works as planned the conference will cost the AGS holders nothing, generate a lot of publicity, and Brian will have earned a small profit for a job well done.

Since we know a member of the real shark thank. Why not hold a bitshares Shark tank. On the board: Dan, Kevin, else. Maybe also Vitalik if you want to do it in cooperation with Ethereum. It wount bring Kevin the high tv ratings but he can sharpen his profile and reputation and show ppl that he has (investment) skills outside of the product line of a normal shark tank show which is not what serious investors look for really.

[xeroc]

it seems this page is close to 'unmaintained' :-(

[xeroc]

Lol .. well said

[liondani]

Can you add bitsharesX? Pls

it belong to a crypto 3.0 list not here!

[xeroc]

Can you add bitsharesX? Pls

[bytemaster]

Fuznuts, you made a good post.   

Some things to realize about Brian Page.... he has a flair for things that grab attention and may not be practical.  His job is to get attention and he thinks outside the box.   Whether or not having actual sharks makes sense as something that would attract people I do not know.  Brian is still learning his target audience and is pulling from experience he has in other fields where 'stunts' generate attention and thus sales.  Gregory Wexler and his wife Amanda are working in the background with Brian to keep things in perspective with a focus on return on investment.   Brian is doing a great job overall.         

Also note that Brian has been told that the conference should earn a profit, I have given him financial incentives to minimize the use of AGS funds and maximize the revenue from ticket sales.   If everything works as planned the conference will cost the AGS holders nothing, generate a lot of publicity, and Brian will have earned a small profit for a job well done.   

[fuzzy]

I hope you guys dont mind, but I'd like to help iron things out a bit.  Of course, if I am incorrect in any place please let me know.  Adam is the host of the first of a growing media network called "Let's Talk Bitcoin".  He literally did what most people are not willing to do and put his ass on the line to establish his network from the ground up.  This takes balls.  He gets the highest of regard from me. 

However we are in a place that is no longer as cut and dry as "hey we can store data on a decentralized blockchain instead of using centralized servers".  I know you guys wouldn't believe it, but the things he has said on here actually are pretty solid.  He gives very good advice and has the ears (which I am sure he uses) of other very brilliant engineers in the field.  He is also trying to incorporate new tech into his network everywhere he can...so some of the criticisms are legit in my opinion. 

Where I think we run into a problem is that with Adam, it seems like he has a healthy dose of idealism (why I personally love his show) that still can sometimes make less tech-centered minds smash heads with those who are on the engineering side of things.  I trust Adams intentions just like I trust Bytemasters.  They obviously consider two slightly different paths as being necessary with respect to the roll-out of this. 

However, I think most of the "disruptive" "FUD" he puts on this forum is with regard to outreach and teaching the community--which is not FUD at all.  THIS IS IMPORTANT and is why I am trying to build something behind the scenes (and learn everything needed to appropriately help others understand). 

When I heard Brian say in his latest interview that they would be getting real shark tanks and filling them with actual sharks I couldn't help but think..."why the hell would they prioritize this ahead of teaching people about the very basics of their technology?".  I think it is precisely decisions like this that make one question the focus of investment of AGS funds given by the community.

With that said, I want to take the opportunity to thank you Adam for all you have done for the crypto community.  It does not go unnoticed by many of us here on the forums and for those who do not understand, I hope they will realize your intention is to HELP the community and not spread "FUD". 

On another note, I have to say that consensus technology...from what I have learned, does not necessarily need to rely solely on mining to remain decentralized.  We are still in the nose-bleeding edge of this tech and the entire community of devs will eventually come to a consensus on what way is best to move forward.  Big changes will be necessary for ALL of the teams working in this area if they are to continue to exist as huge leaps in tech will be unavoidable. 

With that said, holding Invictus to a particular avenue is unnecessary as they will be forced to change.  I do, however, and always will have concerns for centralization of this power (precisely why I fear the "one-blockchain to rule them all of ethereum). Thanks for DACIndex.com, and please keep throwing "FUD" because it all keeps us honest with ourselves and reminds us we didn't get into crypto to make a more sophisticated version of the Debt and Death Paradigm we currently have today, but to fundamentally change the reward systems upon which we base all human interaction. 

This is important...

As for Bytemaster...thanks for doing your best to help the initial investors as you move forward with changes that need to be made.  This will NOT ALWAYS BE POSSIBLE, but the fact that you do it when you can makes me realize where your intentions are and that makes me continue to be a long-term holder.  It also makes me realize you listen to the community.  I distinctly remember positing the very idea of making sure all changes benefit PTS holders as opposed to hurting their bottom line very early on in the forums--you said you would take it into consideration, and obviously did). 

Now lets stop bickering, realize we will all have our differences and come to a consensus on one thing--How Crypto-Equities can lift the world out of poverty and debt-slavery!

*Amen*

[jae208]

The only problem is that Darth Vadar altered it for the worse... which means that from Adam's perspective changes that benefit AGS and PTS holders is seen as for the worse.  This implies that he is in favor of us taking actions that would harm existing AGS and PTS holders and instead benefit some other group of people.  His comments and angry posts on this forum have demonstrated a complete lack of consideration for the best interest of the community.

 

This right here is exactly why I have said that I personally trust Bytemaster. Sure, the deal may have changed a bit but I am actually happier about the change and as PTS/AGS holders we have benefited more because of it, this community is better off because of it. Plus, for funds can be used in making meaningful progress rather than mining. I think the people that were more interested in mining Bitshares and dumping them as soon as they were mined are the ones that are upset about this change.

[barwizi]

it's more about long term PTS holders + promises and less about AGS

[rysgc]

I don't know him but he sure is gifted with the ability to shake things up and cause small mutinies in this peaceful community. It's not about what he's telling but in the way he's telling it.

[bytemaster]

Thank you, bitbro! Half the freaking postings around here are from this Adam guy, who clearly does not feel like it's a good fit for him. He complains that his time is 150% committed and he doesn't have time for anything, yet he comes back here again and again to waste the time of these developers, who keep patiently responding to his crud. Move on already. How many times do you keep calling a girl who clearly isn't into you?

Adam has clearly shown to be deeply committed and invested to making this whole DAC idea work.  He has written, conversed, and added a ton of value to this space.  What have you done besides shit on his work and say that he is wasting his time.  Honestly if he isn't involved or has walked away, then that is a strong indication that we should leave as well.

Adam has been involved with Invictus since the beginning.  He was the first person I sought out to pitch the BitShares X idea too.  He has contributed a lot to making this happen and for that I am grateful.   Unfortunately, there was a rift in the space time continuum when "mine and anti-mine" collided with the decision to remove mining from BTS and the launch of AGS.   

I believe that making BTS 100% premined is a negative

I think the only way to repair this rift is to take the forum into the anomaly and create a static warp shell...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr-8F0PWyLY

Since "mine and anti-mine" first collided the anomaly has grown with every decision that we have made that favors existing PTS and AGS holders over those who have not yet gotten involved in the community.    I have been accused of being Darth Vadar...



The only problem is that Darth Vadar altered it for the worse... which means that from Adam's perspective changes that benefit AGS and PTS holders is seen as for the worse.  This implies that he is in favor of us taking actions that would harm existing AGS and PTS holders and instead benefit some other group of people.  His comments and angry posts on this forum have demonstrated a complete lack of consideration for the best interest of the community.   

Even if you disagree with us there are civil ways to help us improve and correct mistakes that don't involve stirring up an angry mob.  As Adam has a direct line to communicate with me by phone, skype, etc and I always carefully consider and value his opinion, it seems entirely unprofessional, inconsiderate and counter-productive to approach us on the forum the way that he has.

I am all for free and open discussion and expressing of concerns in public, but there is also an aspect of being a team player and considering the fact that his actions help no one and only hurt the project that he is heavily invested in I must ask where is the logic?

   

[Stan]

Seriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner.  If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year.   

Don't predict outcomes, reward them.  The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.

Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really.   This is different.

Out of this entire thread, I have to say this is the most lucid idea out there.  It is SO simple to attain too...

However, I can also say that in the grand scheme of things, Invictus has, after only 4 months they have a working beta in this BLEEDING edge of technology.  In my humble opinion there is NO good reason to try to release numerous DACs all at once and this would put Invictus in a place where they are having to rush things that honestly do not need to be rushed.  I don't care who comes out with the first banking DAC...I care about who comes out with the first FUNCTIONAL AND SECURE one.  These things take time.  How long did it take for Bitcoin to catch on again?  Some might even say it STILL hasn't caught on. 

With that said, instead of putting your relatively large amount of capital to work posting bounties (like everyone else), POST A CHALLENGE for ANY team who breaks Bitshares.  If they win, they receive an ample reward in the next, UPGRADED Bitshares chain and a temporary job with Invictus (maybe 1 year?).  At that point, they are given the opportunity to fight it out yet again in ANOTHER competition.  Developers who break and help strengthen BitShares will become FAMOUS among the Crypto Community and this will, in turn, bring more Devs who want to get that kind of recognition AND will enrich the entire crypto world.  What better way to bring value to PTS/AGS than actually contributing something amazing to the world? 

I have seen some of those shitty places and I would give my PTS/AGS just to see it happen.  Don't get profit and our real reason on this planet confused.  Profit is not the master of Purpose.

All kinds of great points here!  Especially the one about setting the right pace.

One of the best ways to increase the value of PTS is to succeed at XTS.
Doubling the value of PTS doubles the power of the AGS fund.
Doubling the value of XTS increases the power of the AGS by ~six!
Doubling the power of AGS doubles the number of DACs that can be developed.
Increasing the number of DACs increases the value of PTS.
Rinse and repeat!

There is a natural rhythm we need to get used to.  A harmonic frequency that causes amplification, not cancellation of available energy.  DACs need to arrive at the right natural frequency to build energy, not interfere with it.

Let the energy peak before you tap it.  Get your Delorean up to at least 88 miles per hour and your'e gonna see some serious, er, fertilizer!

So timing is everything. 

Now, somebody please give me a nice linear fourth-order differential equation that sets the right pace!   

[G1ng3rBr34dM4n]

Who is this "we" that you speak of? I have read every one of Adam's posts, and although they contain some very interesting, informed and provocative ideas, I could not feel any less like leaving this community. In fact, the opposite, the complaining and fighting over the past few days has put a few areas and issues into better perspective for me personally, and now I want to contribute more actually as I have appreciated the responses from Invictus and their stance on these important matters.

This.

[oco101]

Thank you, bitbro! Half the freaking postings around here are from this Adam guy, who clearly does not feel like it's a good fit for him. He complains that his time is 150% committed and he doesn't have time for anything, yet he comes back here again and again to waste the time of these developers, who keep patiently responding to his crud. Move on already. How many times do you keep calling a girl who clearly isn't into you?

Adam has clearly shown to be deeply committed and invested to making this whole DAC idea work.  He has written, conversed, and added a ton of value to this space.  What have you done besides shit on his work and say that he is wasting his time.  Honestly if he isn't involved or has walked away, then that is a strong indication that we should leave as well.

Yes it is true he shown to be deeply committed and invested to making this whole DAC work true. He had many very good ideas too.
Unfortunately  lately he no longer wanted to be constructive. He was very aggressive and simply stopped having a conversation with the rest of the community it was he's way or the highway. You know respect goes both way too.
The rest of your post are just empty accusations nobody "shit on his work", on the contrary many supported he's ideas. Look for yourself you'll see ..

[bitbro]

Thank you, bitbro! Half the freaking postings around here are from this Adam guy, who clearly does not feel like it's a good fit for him. He complains that his time is 150% committed and he doesn't have time for anything, yet he comes back here again and again to waste the time of these developers, who keep patiently responding to his crud. Move on already. How many times do you keep calling a girl who clearly isn't into you?

Adam has clearly shown to be deeply committed and invested to making this whole DAC idea work.  He has written, conversed, and added a ton of value to this space.  What have you done besides shit on his work and say that he is wasting his time.  Honestly if he isn't involved or has walked away, then that is a strong indication that we should leave as well.

Who is this "we" that you speak of? I have read every one of Adam's posts, and although they contain some very interesting, informed and provocative ideas, I could not feel any less like leaving this community. In fact, the opposite, the complaining and fighting over the past few days has put a few areas and issues into better perspective for me personally, and now I want to contribute more actually as I have appreciated the responses from Invictus and their stance on these important matters.

People come and people go, it is the natural ebb and flow of life, especially in a new community surrounding a new experiment in a completely new industry.

Also, I really can not see the big value in third party DACs today. This shark tank concept and all of this fuss of AGS and PTS contribution from third parties and its potential value or non-value, just seems about as coherent as squabbling over property rights on the planet Mars. We can not even get there yet.

Is there a big risk in just focusing 100% on Invictus DACs for a given time? (like Fuznuts is also suggesting) Am I missing something?

Hallelujah (for all those going on faith with Invictus)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bitcoinba]

Thank you, bitbro! Half the freaking postings around here are from this Adam guy, who clearly does not feel like it's a good fit for him. He complains that his time is 150% committed and he doesn't have time for anything, yet he comes back here again and again to waste the time of these developers, who keep patiently responding to his crud. Move on already. How many times do you keep calling a girl who clearly isn't into you?

Adam has clearly shown to be deeply committed and invested to making this whole DAC idea work.  He has written, conversed, and added a ton of value to this space.  What have you done besides shit on his work and say that he is wasting his time.  Honestly if he isn't involved or has walked away, then that is a strong indication that we should leave as well.

Who is this "we" that you speak of? I have read every one of Adam's posts, and although they contain some very interesting, informed and provocative ideas, I could not feel any less like leaving this community. In fact, the opposite, the complaining and fighting over the past few days has put a few areas and issues into better perspective for me personally, and now I want to contribute more actually as I have appreciated the responses from Invictus and their stance on these important matters.

People come and people go, it is the natural ebb and flow of life, especially in a new community surrounding a new experiment in a completely new industry.

Also, I really can not see the big value in third party DACs today. This shark tank concept and all of this fuss of AGS and PTS contribution from third parties and its potential value or non-value, just seems about as coherent as squabbling over property rights on the planet Mars. We can not even get there yet.

Is there a big risk in just focusing 100% on Invictus DACs for a given time? (like Fuznuts is also suggesting) Am I missing something?

[bitbro]

Thank you, bitbro! Half the freaking postings around here are from this Adam guy, who clearly does not feel like it's a good fit for him. He complains that his time is 150% committed and he doesn't have time for anything, yet he comes back here again and again to waste the time of these developers, who keep patiently responding to his crud. Move on already. How many times do you keep calling a girl who clearly isn't into you?

Adam has clearly shown to be deeply committed and invested to making this whole DAC idea work.  He has written, conversed, and added a ton of value to this space.  What have you done besides shit on his work and say that he is wasting his time.  Honestly if he isn't involved or has walked away, then that is a strong indication that we should leave as well.

As far as I care to see it, this could probably be Adam under a new account


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ah, exactly what would be the point of that? He has nothing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[barwizi]

Thank you, bitbro! Half the freaking postings around here are from this Adam guy, who clearly does not feel like it's a good fit for him. He complains that his time is 150% committed and he doesn't have time for anything, yet he comes back here again and again to waste the time of these developers, who keep patiently responding to his crud. Move on already. How many times do you keep calling a girl who clearly isn't into you?

Adam has clearly shown to be deeply committed and invested to making this whole DAC idea work.  He has written, conversed, and added a ton of value to this space.  What have you done besides shit on his work and say that he is wasting his time.  Honestly if he isn't involved or has walked away, then that is a strong indication that we should leave as well.

As far as I care to see it, this could probably be Adam under a new account


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ah, exactly what would be the point of that? He has nothing to hide.

[bitbro]

Thank you, bitbro! Half the freaking postings around here are from this Adam guy, who clearly does not feel like it's a good fit for him. He complains that his time is 150% committed and he doesn't have time for anything, yet he comes back here again and again to waste the time of these developers, who keep patiently responding to his crud. Move on already. How many times do you keep calling a girl who clearly isn't into you?

Adam has clearly shown to be deeply committed and invested to making this whole DAC idea work.  He has written, conversed, and added a ton of value to this space.  What have you done besides shit on his work and say that he is wasting his time.  Honestly if he isn't involved or has walked away, then that is a strong indication that we should leave as well.

As far as I care to see it, this could probably be Adam under a new account


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ohpinot]

Thank you, bitbro! Half the freaking postings around here are from this Adam guy, who clearly does not feel like it's a good fit for him. He complains that his time is 150% committed and he doesn't have time for anything, yet he comes back here again and again to waste the time of these developers, who keep patiently responding to his crud. Move on already. How many times do you keep calling a girl who clearly isn't into you?

Adam has clearly shown to be deeply committed and invested to making this whole DAC idea work.  He has written, conversed, and added a ton of value to this space.  What have you done besides shit on his work and say that he is wasting his time.  Honestly if he isn't involved or has walked away, then that is a strong indication that we should leave as well.

[fuzzy]

Seriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner.  If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year.   

Don't predict outcomes, reward them.  The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.

Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really.   This is different.

Out of this entire thread, I have to say this is the most lucid idea out there.  It is SO simple to attain too...

However, I can also say that in the grand scheme of things, Invictus has, after only 4 months has a working beta in this BLEEDING edge of technology.  In my humble opinion there is NO good reason to try to release numerous DACs all at once and this would put Invictus in a place where they are having to rush things that honestly do not need to be rushed.  I don't care who comes out with the first banking DAC...I care about who comes out with the first FUNCTIONAL AND SECURE one.  These things take time.  How long did it take for Bitcoin to catch on again?  Some might even say it STILL hasn't caught on. 

With that said, instead of putting your relatively large amount of capital to work posting bounties (like everyone else), POST A CHALLENGE for ANY team who breaks Bitshares.  If they win, they receive an ample reward in the next, UPGRADED Bitshares chain and a temporary job with Invictus (maybe 1 year?).  At that point, they are given the opportunity to fight it out yet again in ANOTHER competition.  Developers who break and help strengthen BitShares will become FAMOUS among the Crypto Community and this will, in turn, bring more Devs who want to get that kind of recognition AND will enrich the entire crypto world.  What better way to bring value to PTS/AGS than actually contributing something amazing to the world? 

I have seen some of those shitty places and I would give my PTS/AGS just to see it happen.  Don't get profit and our real reason on this planet confused.  Profit is not the master of Purpose. 

[CLains]

Thanks for the reply Stan.

I will help trying to push forward everything that I think the community should be involved in. The general section will quickly self-organize with the format [suggestion], [bounty proposal], [social], [marketing], [Invictus proposal], etc.

If the community moves first, then allocation of resources and dedicated sections etc. can come later. Overall, we're already moving in this direction. This is partly because of the heated series of discussions recently and partly because everyone at Invictus has been busy.

The community is starting to act on its own on behalf of the AGS/PTS holders. I think everyone will agree this is a good thing.

[bytemaster]

Why not have a simple way for developers to start an AGS 2.0 fund for any qualified DAC team that wants to develop - let them do more fund raising on our forum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is exactly the point of the other 80%.   Ags funds will be used to build the best available dacs.  We have many on our roadmap and will gladly fund a team that wants to build one of them. 

Everyone sees the big ags pool of funds as if they are unlimited.   The can fund a dev team for a few dacs for one year.  We want to be very careful about what dacs and what order. 

Every good dac has its own fund raising system and should not require ags funds from us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stan]

Thoughts?   

You need to use the Wisdom and Creativity of the Crowd as SANITY CHECK.

This is impossible if you don't do detailed proposals before the allocation of resources. If you do so, you get to map potential flaws, suggested improvements and creative alternatives. If you don't, you'll be stuck with an idea born only of the faith the team or even one person has in it.

Bytemaster has been doing this type of sanity check since 2010, and that why everyone trusts him; because he doesn't simply have faith in his own judgement.

In addition to this critique of specific ideas, I would also argue that you need to involve the community in a) the very positing of ideas, and b) in the bigger picture.

a) Involve the community in the positing of ideas by asking them to suggest alternative ideas. For instance, in the obi-wan meme thread the question remains, why only obi-wan memes?.

b) Involve the community in the bigger picture by presenting it in detail. The big picture plan you have mapped out for the next year is just an idea like any other, it needs the same type of sanity check as all other ideas.

It is a radical way to run a company and the legitimate objections I find is first, that openness about plans will allow others to sue, exploit or steal the ideas, and second, that it might lag the implementation process.

Agreed.  You can see the good and bad features of this process on display here every day.  Even giving "competing" teams free insights about potential flaws in their approach before they waste any of their money going down a dead end. 

That's why the proposed Shark Tank competition was presented as a list of ideas for comment and why it explicitly suggested that draft and detailed proposals be posted in the forum for community review.  Also, the mini-AGS donation phase let people express in the strongest possible terms which one they like best.  And the ability to question the finalists before a group of qualified industry leading judges make the final down-selection and award.  (While allowing other venture capitalists to participate in the whole open process and maybe fund one or more others.)

But this can't be the only way.  Some people want their privacy respected.  Some don't want to give away their great idea prematurely.  Some want to do a more traditional teaming process and negotiate in private.  We have to respect that too.

If we don't get a big enough batch of willing contestants to run a public competition, we may have to find a way to fund them one by one. 

We can't keep a great idea waiting very long!   

 

[CLains]

Thoughts?   

You need to use the Wisdom and Creativity of the Crowd as SANITY CHECK.

This is impossible if you don't do detailed proposals before the allocation of resources. If you do so, you get to map potential flaws, suggested improvements and creative alternatives. If you don't, you'll be stuck with an idea born only of the faith the team or even one person has in it.

Bytemaster has been doing this type of sanity check since 2010, and that why everyone trusts him; because he doesn't simply have faith in his own judgement.

In addition to this critique of specific ideas, I would also argue that you need to involve the community in a) the very positing of ideas, and b) in the bigger picture.

a) Involve the community in the positing of ideas by asking them to suggest alternative ideas. For instance, in the obi-wan meme thread the question remains, why only obi-wan memes?.

b) Involve the community in the bigger picture by presenting it in detail. The big picture plan you have mapped out for the next year is just an idea like any other, it needs the same type of sanity check as all other ideas.

It is a radical way to run a company and the legitimate objections I find is first, that openness about plans will allow others to sue, exploit or steal the ideas, and second, that it might lag the implementation process.

[donkeypong]

Thank you, bitbro! Half the freaking postings around here are from this Adam guy, who clearly does not feel like it's a good fit for him. He complains that his time is 150% committed and he doesn't have time for anything, yet he comes back here again and again to waste the time of these developers, who keep patiently responding to his crud. Move on already. How many times do you keep calling a girl who clearly isn't into you?

[bitbro]

You seem to think I mean "there shouldn't be a team developing"

That's not what I mean.  I mean if you put all your eggs in one basket, lets say all you invest in is Bitcoin.   Then when Bitshares comes along and it starts going up in price, well you don't have any of that and it's getting all this attention instead of Bitcoin.  What a dick that bitshares is, why can't they just get out of the way when Bitshares is really just a modification on the idea you already invested in Bitcoin. 

You don't want to get your head in a space where "Myself" = "The Investment" because that means if the investment has something going wrong with it, you'll miss it.  You're too close to it. 

And to the guy who is all in Angelshares, that's exactly my point.

Yeah, I'm all in with I3 so quit fudding up the forum with your fud.  Like Stan says be a good sport and become your own industry developer instead of trying to hijack this one. You're not management here and I for certain would not be all in with AGS if you were


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AdamBLevine]

You seem to think I mean "there shouldn't be a team developing"

That's not what I mean.  I mean if you put all your eggs in one basket, lets say all you invest in is Bitcoin.   Then when Bitshares comes along and it starts going up in price, well you don't have any of that and it's getting all this attention instead of Bitcoin.  What a dick that bitshares is, why can't they just get out of the way when Bitshares is really just a modification on the idea you already invested in Bitcoin. 

You don't want to get your head in a space where "Myself" = "The Investment" because that means if the investment has something going wrong with it, you'll miss it.  You're too close to it. 

And to the guy who is all in Angelshares, that's exactly my point. 

[bitcoinba]

Then I am a man of faith.  Interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Faith is easy when you pick a team and become blind to anything but what the association can bring you.   As an investor the last thing you want to do is pick a team. 

If you're joining a religion, go for it.

As an investor one of the first things I want to do is pick a team.

The easiest example, though not entirely appropriate to this instance, is "franchises". One team in a very good location can have miserable results with a proven franchise concept. Let it be sold and another team take over, and the same location, same concept, can be wildly successful.

A bad team can run ANYTHING into the ground.


But Bitshares is not a franchise. It is original (the original vision which, if successful, can produce something akin to (NOT "equivalent to") franchise opportunities.

It seems to me that the very purpose of this bitshares forum is to further the interests of PTS and AGS (BTS) holders. In what way has Invictus ever transgressed that purpose? Some other prominent posters however, have, to my thinking, clearly posted at cross purposes. They are, to put it succinctly, placing ads for their own projects rather than contributing to the purpose of this forum. This can be subtle (Charles Hoskinson, Barwizi, etc) or outright blatant (see the scam ads in OFF TOPIC).

I agree with this. As an investor, I want Invictus making the overall decisions for now on where investment funds go, at least until the proper tools are in place that enable community participation in a fair, transparent and representative way.  I have read every thread recently with great interest, and have yet to see a compelling argument as to support accusations of Invictus' supposed incompetence. It is glaringly obvious that certain individuals in this forum have ulterior and varying motives that seem to change from day to day and from thread to thread. Some people are speaking with accusation as if they have already gone from concept, development and successful exit of ten different DACs, when in reality they nor anyone else has even gotten past concept at this stage.

I believe that the Larimers have been pretty clear on their intentions and that their actions have been consistent with those intentions. We are in uncharted territory here, and it is obvious that they are moving slower and more carefully as they try and figure out the myriad of potential legal
 risks and implications of what they are doing. I just can not see the value in dissecting every minute detail on an hour to hour basis and bashing the same people on a open forum that you expect to help deliver value to those shares in which you are invested.

[barwizi]

Then I am a man of faith.  Interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Faith is easy when you pick a team and become blind to anything but what the association can bring you.   As an investor the last thing you want to do is pick a team. 

If you're joining a religion, go for it.

As an investor one of the first things I want to do is pick a team.

The easiest example, though not entirely appropriate to this instance, is "franchises". One team in a very good location can have miserable results with a proven franchise concept. Let it be sold and another team take over, and the same location, same concept, can be wildly successful.

A bad team can run ANYTHING into the ground.


But Bitshares is not a franchise. It is original (the original vision which, if successful, can produce something akin to (NOT "equivalent to") franchise opportunities.

It seems to me that the very purpose of this bitshares forum is to further the interests of PTS and AGS (BTS) holders. In what way has Invictus ever transgressed that purpose? Some other prominent posters however, have, to my thinking, clearly posted at cross purposes. They are, to put it succinctly, placing ads for their own projects rather than contributing to the purpose of this forum. This can be subtle (Charles Hoskinson, Barwizi, etc) or outright blatant (see the scam ads in OFF TOPIC).

Not sure i want to even waste my time responding to this affront.

[onceuponatime]

Then I am a man of faith.  Interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Faith is easy when you pick a team and become blind to anything but what the association can bring you.   As an investor the last thing you want to do is pick a team. 

If you're joining a religion, go for it.

As an investor one of the first things I want to do is pick a team.

The easiest example, though not entirely appropriate to this instance, is "franchises". One team in a very good location can have miserable results with a proven franchise concept. Let it be sold and another team take over, and the same location, same concept, can be wildly successful.

A bad team can run ANYTHING into the ground.


But Bitshares is not a franchise. It is original (the original vision which, if successful, can produce something akin to (NOT "equivalent to") franchise opportunities.

It seems to me that the very purpose of this bitshares forum is to further the interests of PTS and AGS (BTS) holders. In what way has Invictus ever transgressed that purpose? Some other prominent posters however, have, to my thinking, clearly posted at cross purposes. They are, to put it succinctly, placing ads for their own projects rather than contributing to the purpose of this forum. This can be subtle (Charles Hoskinson, Barwizi, etc) or outright blatant (see the scam ads in OFF TOPIC).

[mint chocolate chip]

Then I am a man of faith.  Interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Faith is easy when you pick a team and become blind to anything but what the association can bring you.   As an investor the last thing you want to do is pick a team. 

If you're joining a religion, go for it.

From your standpoint Adam you have a much greater knowledge of the situation and access to information than the rest of us.

[bitbro]

I agree.  Faith is easier tho, esp. when you're all in with AGS


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AdamBLevine]

Then I am a man of faith.  Interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Faith is easy when you pick a team and become blind to anything but what the association can bring you.   As an investor the last thing you want to do is pick a team. 

If you're joining a religion, go for it.

[bitbro]

Then I am a man of faith.  Interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AdamBLevine]

I disagree , I have complete trust because i3 continues to make the deal better


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mistake trust for faith, many on this forum do. 

[bitbro]

I disagree , I have complete trust because i3 continues to make the deal better


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AdamBLevine]

Seriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner.  If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year.   

Don't predict outcomes, reward them.  The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.

Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really.   This is different.

Bounties rewarded for specific outcomes do work. Have you heard of Peter Diamandis and his X Prize Foundation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BltRufe5kkI

Yep, it sure does.  What doesn't work is changing the deal whenever you feel you can make it better.   The variables can change but the deal should never change, and the fact that it has so many times here has caused this lack of trust.

[jae208]

Seriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner.  If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year.   

Don't predict outcomes, reward them.  The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.

Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really.   This is different.

Bounties rewarded for specific outcomes do work. Have you heard of Peter Diamandis and his X Prize Foundation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BltRufe5kkI

[barwizi]

To avoid what is already a huge problem, i gave PTS holders who were actually interested in my ideas a huge discount....see Invictus show any interest? Any support? NO...why? see the above quote.

It's not complicated: You didn't follow the social contract, so you were deliberately marginalized. How do you know it wouldn't have looked different if you hadn't?

If you are so convinced by your "NETWORK EFFECT", please lets modify the PTS code and make an extra 2 million and push them out in a single block, the lets give them away, and watch how the price will react. Don't go asking devs to do something you clearly cannot do.

...what? That's *nothing* like asking you to honor 10/10 when you launch...

for it to be a contract, i need to consent to it. 

[toast]

To avoid what is already a huge problem, i gave PTS holders who were actually interested in my ideas a huge discount....see Invictus show any interest? Any support? NO...why? see the above quote.

It's not complicated: You didn't follow the social contract, so you were deliberately marginalized. How do you know it wouldn't have looked different if you hadn't?

If you are so convinced by your "NETWORK EFFECT", please lets modify the PTS code and make an extra 2 million and push them out in a single block, the lets give them away, and watch how the price will react. Don't go asking devs to do something you clearly cannot do.

...what? That's *nothing* like asking you to honor 10/10 when you launch...

[barwizi]

What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated.  That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you.

 

Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you!

To avoid what is already a huge problem, i gave PTS holders who were actually interested in my ideas a huge discount....see Invictus show any interest? Any support? NO...why? see the above quote.

Let's wait and see how well they do compared to those that honor this community.  Of course, if the community doesn't favor DACs that honor them and shun those who don't, we will be proven wrong.  We don't exactly have a scientifically large sample yet.

Actual PTS holders with an interest are helping me honour their 1%, no force no demands, they believe, a free 1% in my venture is well worth it.

If you were serious about letting the community decide you would not have moved me OFF TOPIC. You are holding everyone hostage by demanding that they follow YOUR consensus, which incidentally you cancelled the bounty for. For it to be a real consensus, you need to get influential people to endorse it and have a signing list because that is when it becomes clear that it has advantages to devs. Right now, that consensus is just what Invictus agreed to do for it's followers. "CONSENSUS" get people to "consent". Ramming it down developers throats is one of the reasons there is a dev shortage on this forum.

To prove a point i made available some free NRS from my own mining (yes, i mine just like everyone else), this ended up affecting the price rapport built by those who had expended resources to earn their NRS and those who wished to buy in. Those who get free shares will never accord them any real value, they'll just settle for whatever they get. If you are so convinced by your "NETWORK EFFECT", please lets modify the PTS code and make an extra 2 million and push them out in a single block, the lets give them away, and watch how the price will react. Don't go asking devs to do something you clearly cannot do.

[luckybit]

Seriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner.  If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year.   

Don't predict outcomes, reward them.  The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.

Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really.   This is different.

It's an intriguing concept worthy of consideration.  Perhaps we can do both.

Our view was that deploying a successful DAC was its own reward.  Plenty of motivation at that end of the rainbow already.

We figured what got in the way for people was lack of support funding when they really need it - before the DAC is developed.  Our shark tank variant lets the little guy invest just enough to write a convincing proposal.  If the angels and judges (not just Dan) like that proposal best, then the little guy gets all kinds of help while he is doing the development. 

One point I will make, if you reward the winning DAC with Angelshares then it increases the chances that they'll honor the social contract at least in theory.

My opinion is we should have Awardshares and fill the jackpot with all sorts of shares in different stuff so that the winners win an equity slice in the whole ecosystem and not just Invictus products. Maybe early DACs could get awarded a larger slice?

It also would mean the community should get a vote. Perhaps based upon criteria like how many shares you own in the businesses or DACs offering the reward. So if I don't own any shares in Adam's DAC then I shouldn't get to vote alongside his DAC but since I would own Angelshares I should get to vote there. Contributing DACs could have voting rights, that is what I propose.

[AdamBLevine]

Seriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner.  If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year.   

Don't predict outcomes, reward them.  The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.

Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really.   This is different.

It's an intriguing concept worthy of consideration.  Perhaps we can do both.

Our view was that deploying a successful DAC was its own reward.  Plenty of motivation at that end of the rainbow already.

We figured what got in the way for people was lack of support funding when they really need it - before the DAC is developed.  Our shark tank variant lets the little guy invest just enough to write a convincing proposal.  If the angels and judges (not just Dan) like that proposal best, then the little guy gets all kinds of help while he is doing the development. 

In the end, I guess it comes down to a choice of which end of the rainbow we should put the pot of gold.

 

And then there's the buzz and excitement of a contest that pays off in July, right in front of a studio audience that has just been trained in how to evaluate and create good DACs.  A chance to apply what they have learned and see how others have approached the problem the day after they take the class.

We are looking to kill many birds with each stone.  Its all part of an integrated push by every member of our team in every department and has built in community involvement at every stage. 

Not only that, but even the "losers" win, because they will become well known in the process and may get help from other attending investors.  Those who watch talent search shows know that most of the finalists get a big career boost from a public competition with judges and instant gratification.

Of course all of this hinges on whether there are enough simultaneously-appearing quality contestants to make the concept work. 

Also, if there's an obviously qualified developer ready to go with a great DAC idea, do we really want to make her wait until July?  That's a lifetime in this industry.  So the competition idea is really a wild-card second-chance opportunity for candidates that don't get funded on the spot.

There is much to ponder and as we said in the newsletter, we welcome civil comments and want to hear if there are actually any interested contestants for either of the approaches on the table.

If you want to compete for a post-development demonstrated-success prize, let us know.
If you want to compete for a pre-development demonstrated-potential stipend, let us know.

When I get time over the next few days I'll lay out how I feel 25-50% of AGS funds received so far should be committed to long term bounties.   I also feel the keys need to not be reliant on Invictus to manage for the full amount of funds, it's too much trust centered on a company that has unproven and provocative legal footing.  I would suggest a large community M of N, and I would be happy to serve as a key holder.

I have no problem with you doing the shark tank thing, spectacle is fine.   We have a problem if it is shark tank to the exclusion of long term, large, and predictable bounties as I've been describing.  I look forward to your feedback on the proposal, I intend to make it very general with the intention of incentivizing as much innovation and experimentation as possible to center of the Invictus platform rather than choosing another.   People who want up front development funds can go through the Invictus shark tank process.

Also, with regards to your "send us comments", you realize you're publishing that on page 3 or 4 of a unrelated thread on the invictus development forum?   The people you want to incentivize aren't here.

[Stan]

Seriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner.  If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year.   

Don't predict outcomes, reward them.  The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.

Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really.   This is different.

It's an intriguing concept worthy of consideration.  Perhaps we can do both.

Our view was that deploying a successful DAC was its own reward.  Plenty of motivation at that end of the rainbow already.

We figured what got in the way for people was lack of support funding when they really need it - before the DAC is developed.  Our shark tank variant lets the little guy invest just enough to write a convincing proposal.  If the angels and judges (not just Dan) like that proposal best, then the little guy gets all kinds of help while he is doing the development. 

In the end, I guess it comes down to a choice of which end of the rainbow we should put the pot of gold.

 

And then there's the buzz and excitement of a contest that pays off in July, right in front of a studio audience that has just been trained in how to evaluate and create good DACs.  A chance to apply what they have learned and see how others have approached the problem the day after they take the class.

We are looking to kill many birds with each stone.  Its all part of an integrated push by every member of our team in every department and has built in community involvement at every stage. 

Not only that, but even the "losers" win, because they will become well known in the process and may get help from other attending investors.  Those who watch talent search shows know that most of the finalists get a big career boost from a public competition with judges and instant gratification.

Of course all of this hinges on whether there are enough simultaneously-appearing quality contestants to make the concept work. 

Also, if there's an obviously qualified developer ready to go with a great DAC idea, do we really want to make her wait until July?  That's a lifetime in this industry.  So the competition idea is really a wild-card second-chance opportunity for candidates that don't get funded on the spot.

There is much to ponder and as we said in the newsletter, we welcome civil comments and want to hear if there are actually any interested contestants for either of the approaches on the table.

If you want to compete for a post-development demonstrated-success prize, let us know.
If you want to compete for a pre-development demonstrated-potential stipend, let us know.

[AdamBLevine]

Seriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner.  If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year.   

Don't predict outcomes, reward them.  The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.

Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really.   This is different.

[AdamBLevine]

Most AGS members became that way for one reason:  they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded.  How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?

I did it for the 2.5x Bitshares, and I did it despite my growing concerns about Daniels judgement.  I did not realize donating funds to Angelshares meant that Daniel would be king, I thought this was the most transparent and collaborative community built company but I may have misunderstood the material.

The only reason there is a dip in the price of PTS is because Invictus has failed to explain their plan for incentivizing other DAC creating companies to follow their model.   What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated.  That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you.   You say it's the community, seems to me you're holding it hostage.   Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you!   So Protoshares truly are the gift that keeps on giving for invictus, and yet we're getting close to the part where I get that queasy ripple feeling in  my stomach where the private company holds most of the tokens because they set up perverse incentives and have no accountability within the system...................

Ignoring the problem has just made the wound fester, I approached you guys quietly about these basic basic issues for months and months, and nothing ever changed.   

insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result

I'm crazy, but I'm not insane.  Please address the 10,000 PTS for 3rd party DAC that meets criteria set by Invictus and the community, please do it in the thread responding to my proposal.  I've devoted quite a bit of time and attention to the things I feel are important to rectify about the project we're all invested in, and I would appreciate a small amount of your very valuable time.

You will find the requested response here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3363.msg43039#msg43039

We think about this stuff 24x7.  We are balancing many Global Optimization Factors.  This means that every single factor will be sub-optimum so that the Global Whole will be the best we can make it. You specialize in pointing out how individual factors are sub-optimum.  I'm a system's engineer and program manager with 38 years of experience who has published a detailed summary of our optimization criteria and strategy for achieving a globally optimum solution here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988

I begin to despair when I see quotes like the following.  Each statement is obviously unfair and blatantly false.  How can I say anything more that we haven't already explained?  But I'll try once again...

The only reason there is a dip in the price of PTS is because Invictus has failed to explain their plan for incentivizing other DAC creating companies to follow their model.   

No.  As we explained in "Watch for Falling PTS" the price changed because the value was split between two chains that will now grow and divide again and again.  I offered a comprehensive "Shark Tank" plan for incentivizing other DAC developers as the Featured Article in our February newsletter as highlighted and explained here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3363.msg43039#msg43039  Incentivizing and training DAC developers is the whole point of our Beyond Bitcoin Summit in July.

Why is it only possible for one dac to be in development on the chain at a time?  As I've described, you can set up clear incentives to get other companies to participate and build in your ecosystem instead of choosing a competing one or starting their own.  The lack of activity in this sector and the failure to explain the value to Memorycoin (your own contractor) and Barwizi (who wrote much of your social contracts and himself did not see the value) is why there are no other DACs announced in development for Protoshares, and it's the reason why there appears to be no reason for the market to hold.    You're saying it doesn't matter and I agree with you in the long term, but it's also completely unnneccesary AND a demonstration that you have so far failed to attract development talent that has been very interested in working with you.   It's great you have a conference in summer, I hope Let's Talk Bitcoin! will be a part of it, but you are holding development of your ecosystem hostage on these arbitrary future dates.    Do you not agree that setting up outcome based bounties would give non-invictus teams an incentive to start long term projects.  That is not true about some future shark tank panel that happens at a conference that some fraction of the potentially interested people attend.     

What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated.  That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you.

Let's wait and see how well they do compared to those that honor this community.  Of course, if the community doesn't favor DACs that honor them and shun those who don't, we will be proven wrong.  We don't exactly have a scientifically large sample yet.   

You say it's the community, seems to me you're holding it hostage.

We plan to fund the best DACs we can find.  We have announced a half dozen that are at the top of our list.  We will not insert a lesser DAC in front of the line, but a better 3rd Party idea will be placed there immediately.  The only reason they are not executing yet is the lack of a qualified proposal to develop one of them or qualified staff to do it internally.  Again, the whole point of the Shark Tank contest and the Beyond Bitcoin Summit is to recruit developers.

Daniel has said that only Music is even on the table for 2014 and realistically 2015.  Why do you want to pay people for work they haven't done?  A bounty program, properly promoted solves your problems without Invictus needing to be right about everything.  To this point you guys have been wrong about more things than you've been right about so I'm a little unclear why you think there is this aura of trust going on here.  There isn't. 

Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you!

No, we are operating in the role of an honest broker community-building "foundation" until the formal legal structures can be set up to make that role explicit.  The portion you refer to goes to developing the community, not Invictus.  We merely offered to manage those funds for the community.  We encourage other people to make similar offers and compete with us for that position of trust.

I believe the community should represent the community, and invictus should propose non-standard or new expenditures.  You guys break the rules whenever you want, so you shouldn't be in charge of the rules for so much value intended to build this ecosystem. 

So Protoshares truly are the gift that keeps on giving for invictus, and yet we're getting close to the part where I get that queasy ripple feeling in  my stomach where the private company holds most of the tokens because they set up perverse incentives and have no accountability within the system.

We have always said we are bootstrapping a community.  Our books are open to the point where we get asked about individual expenditures every day.  That's the best accountability we know how to do. Those tokens are being recirculated into the community to fund development and marketing.  As to whether the industry thinks the incentives to contribute to building the industry are "perverse" or not, people have been voting for them with real money for 65 days, have they not?

5 year Bounty program.   Seriously.  You can do your shark tank thing too but asking everyone to go through you in some sort of gameshow esque vetting process means you'll only get people who are willing to make a spectacle of themselves and have the possibility of public rejection.  Not everybody wants to open the kimono before they've built the thing, you ask them to bear their soul or receive no reward at all.   Set up the roadmap you think things should go or the community can do this, but really this is where Daniels long term vision would be useful rather than judging individual business models.   You guys have been bad caretakers of investor trust, outcome based bounties preferably with keys controlled by the community would be a good way to restore it.   

Don't give up Stan, you've made like ten posts to me and I've made dozens and dozens to you.  If anyone should give up it's me, but I'm still here.  Why?  Because I like you.  You guys have a good idea, and I hate seeing smart people do things like this.

[Stan]

Most AGS members became that way for one reason:  they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded.  How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?

I did it for the 2.5x Bitshares, and I did it despite my growing concerns about Daniels judgement.  I did not realize donating funds to Angelshares meant that Daniel would be king, I thought this was the most transparent and collaborative community built company but I may have misunderstood the material.

The only reason there is a dip in the price of PTS is because Invictus has failed to explain their plan for incentivizing other DAC creating companies to follow their model.   What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated.  That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you.   You say it's the community, seems to me you're holding it hostage.   Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you!   So Protoshares truly are the gift that keeps on giving for invictus, and yet we're getting close to the part where I get that queasy ripple feeling in  my stomach where the private company holds most of the tokens because they set up perverse incentives and have no accountability within the system...................

Ignoring the problem has just made the wound fester, I approached you guys quietly about these basic basic issues for months and months, and nothing ever changed.   

insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result

I'm crazy, but I'm not insane.  Please address the 10,000 PTS for 3rd party DAC that meets criteria set by Invictus and the community, please do it in the thread responding to my proposal.  I've devoted quite a bit of time and attention to the things I feel are important to rectify about the project we're all invested in, and I would appreciate a small amount of your very valuable time.

You will find the requested response here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3363.msg43039#msg43039

We think about this stuff 24x7.  We are balancing many Global Optimization Factors.  This means that every single factor will be sub-optimum so that the Global Whole will be the best we can make it. You specialize in pointing out how individual factors are sub-optimum.  I'm a system's engineer and program manager with 38 years of experience who has published a detailed summary of our optimization criteria and strategy for achieving a globally optimum solution here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988

I begin to despair when I see quotes like the following.  Each statement is obviously unfair and blatantly false.  How can I say anything more that we haven't already explained?  But I'll try once again...

The only reason there is a dip in the price of PTS is because Invictus has failed to explain their plan for incentivizing other DAC creating companies to follow their model.   

No.  As we explained in "Watch for Falling PTS" the price changed because the value was split between two chains that will now grow and divide again and again.  I offered a comprehensive "Shark Tank" plan for incentivizing other DAC developers as the Featured Article in our February newsletter as highlighted and explained here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3363.msg43039#msg43039  Incentivizing and training DAC developers is the whole point of our Beyond Bitcoin Summit in July.

What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated.  That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you.

Let's wait and see how well they do compared to those that honor this community.  Of course, if the community doesn't favor DACs that honor them and shun those who don't, we will be proven wrong.  We don't exactly have a scientifically large sample yet.   

You say it's the community, seems to me you're holding it hostage.

We plan to fund the best DACs we can find.  We have announced a half dozen that are at the top of our list.  We will not insert a lesser DAC in front of the line, but a better 3rd Party idea will be placed there immediately.  The only reason they are not executing yet is the lack of a qualified proposal to develop one of them or qualified staff to do it internally.  Again, the whole point of the Shark Tank contest and the Beyond Bitcoin Summit is to recruit developers.

Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you!

No, we are operating in the role of an honest-broker community-building "foundation" until the formal legal structures can be set up to make that role explicit.  The portion you refer to goes to developing the community, not Invictus.  We merely offered to manage those funds for the community.  We encourage other people to make similar offers and compete with us for that position of trust.

So Protoshares truly are the gift that keeps on giving for invictus, and yet we're getting close to the part where I get that queasy ripple feeling in  my stomach where the private company holds most of the tokens because they set up perverse incentives and have no accountability within the system.

We have always said we are bootstrapping a community.  Our books are open to the point where we get asked about individual expenditures every day.  That's the best accountability we know how to do. Those tokens are being recirculated into the community to fund development and marketing.  As to whether the industry thinks the incentives to contribute to building the industry are "perverse" or not, people have been voting for them with real money for 65 days, have they not?

[AdamBLevine]

Most AGS members became that way for one reason:  they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded.  How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?

I did it for the 2.5x Bitshares, and I did it despite my growing concerns about Daniels judgement.  I did not realize donating funds to Angelshares meant that Daniel would be king, I thought this was the most transparent and collaborative community built company but I may have misunderstood the material.

The only reason there is a dip in the price of PTS is because Invictus has failed to explain their plan for incentivizing other DAC creating companies to follow their model.   What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated.  That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you.   You say it's the community, seems to me you're holding it hostage.   Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you!   So Protoshares truly are the gift that keeps on giving for invictus, and yet we're getting close to the part where I get that queasy ripple feeling in  my stomach where the private company holds most of the tokens because they set up perverse incentives and have no accountability within the system...................

Ignoring the problem has just made the wound fester, I approached you guys quietly about these basic basic issues for months and months, and nothing ever changed.   

insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result

I'm crazy, but I'm not insane.  Please address the 10,000 PTS for 3rd party DAC that meets criteria set by Invictus and the community, please do it in the thread responding to my proposal.  I've devoted quite a bit of time and attention to the things I feel are important to rectify about the project we're all invested in, and I would appreciate a small amount of your very valuable time.

[luckybit]

Why not have a simple way for developers to start an AGS 2.0 fund for any qualified DAC team that wants to develop - let them do more fund raising on our forum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here are some of my thoughts and ideas taken from another thread. I think an Awardshares should be created as a decentralization of resource allocation. Angelshares could just be another award added to Awardshares.  Apply these ideas where necessary:

Now sure would be a good time to take some of those angelshares funds and create a big bounty that is paid to the first successful dac to pass xx% profitability for its token holders, honor PTS/AGS with 10% each and survive 6 months.  Then it would be *obvious* that PTS will have value in the future, whereas right now honestly who knows.  In the video it said that Bitshares Music was currently in development but when I spoke to the invictus folks it sounded like they were thinking early 2015 as a reasonable guess. 

This seems like an exceptionally good use of AGS funds as it adds value to the ecosystem and provides a very attractive reason for people to develop for invictus based technologies and honor the 'invisible hand' social contract vs. picking one of the literally seven other protocols that are tackling this same broad problem.   Invictus does not exist in a vacuum, but it's developing like it's in one.   Don't define the tech or specifics as has been done with bounties to the point, just define the outcome you want and let the market participants self organize into the winning combination.'

 

How will you distribute this bounty?

Here is an idea. Award the bounty according to the stake proportion shareholders have in the winning DAC. Since none of us would know which DAC would be the winning DAC you'd end up with a lottery effect where we buy shares in the DACs we think will be the winning DAC.

So if for example you make a DAC, now I'll buy shares in your DAC and will work hard to help your DAC be successfully profitable so that we all can have the award distributed in proportion to the amount of shares we own in your DAC. If I own a lot of shares in your DAC then I'd of course deserve most of the credit for the success if your DAC wins the award.

The same way Angelshares were mapped to PTS, Angelshares could be mapped to the shares of your DAC. The shareholders of the winning DAC would wake up one day to find that their shares have inherited an award of bonus Angelshares mapped to their shares in some proportional ratio. In the future the businesses in the ecosystem could sweeten the pot by adding shares of their own to the award pool.

Simply put, I support the idea of having a bounty for this. I just think the bounty shouldn't go to individuals but should be distributed proportionally to the winning shareholders because that is a way to get people to buy shares in hopes of winning the Angelshare bonus (or whatever future reward bonuses that go beyond this), it also would make people work really hard to make the DACs profitable to win the shareholder bonuses.

Nothing would stop us down the road if multiple DACs are successful from pooling the awards in such a way that the pot gets sweeter for DACs that come along later. Maybe instead of just winning Angelshares maybe the DACs of 2015 could win Awardshares in different DACs according to the innovation or technical problems they solve for the ecosystem.

The Awardshares would be used as an incentive to drive innovation and we could have a top 5 list with the top 5 DACs in some category all winning some awards.

Awardshares would function like bonuses or higher salaries for all participants. This would encourage everyone to participate in making DACs a success because eventually the potential for Awardshares would be so huge that everyone would want to get involved.

The social contract says 10% for Angelshares and 10% for Protoshares. That would mean 80% remains. If 10% were to be for Awardshares then the DAC creators could award these shares at their discretion to other DACs provided that criteria is put in place, voted on democratically by the community, and that the shares are held in some sort of escrow so that once the community votes on the winners the shares are automatically distributed without much human involvement. It should be automatic that the winning DAC gets the Awardshares held in the pool, escrow, or whatever.

And

Lots of good ideas being generated in multiple threads right now.. Anyone want to curate?

* move % of angel funds to community multi-sig
* offer bounty for first non-I3 DAC

I think instead of just thinking about "Angelfunds" we should just develop Awardshares as an idea. Let it be a community controlled pool via multi-sig. We vote on the winner to receive the Awardshares. The Awardshares could include any cryptoassets we put into the pool but primarily at this time it should be Angelshares. This way there is flexibility so that in the future should some DACs have shares which a lot of people want or which can be used as an incentive we could put them in the pool.

Awardshares would allow any current or future DAC creator to feed some of their valuable shares into a community controlled pool. Then you would have a list of DACs and a PoS voting system so that the community can vote on the winner. Some criteria should be something which is automatic and which cannot be disputed.

So whether or not a DAC is profitable is not something we should vote on. We should try to find some technical means of measuring the profitability of a DAC and then turn that into a data feed which produces a true or false or a number in the form of a percent. Then the DACs with the highest percent should rise to the top of the list. So the data set could be the top 5 most profitable DACs of 2015, and then let people vote on which DAC is their favorite and speculate by prediction markets which DACs will win the battle of the DACs or the DAC of the year award.

This way you get PoS shareholder feedback, but you also get some data from a data feed which needs no voting. The real question is how to measure profitability? We could make Coinmarketcap and several sites like it a data feed but is that really the right way to go about it?

If consensus can be reached on what is the most profitable, and on what success is, yet there is room for preference to be included, I think it will work great.

[luckybit]

http://dacindex.com

Part one of this two part project is out in minimum-viable-product form.   Tracks all 2.0 metacoins right now using CoinMarketCap data, we're moving towards custom metrics and figuring our the best way to determine an index price.  I'm thinking it might be market cap / 1,000,000 BUT with coins like XRP and NXT in there you can't really do anything by market cap because their volume is soooooooooooo low relative since most of the coins are held in few hands and don't trade.

So Protoshares is doing well because we're doing the primary ranking by 24hr market volume, which is a more real estimation of whats going on.

Comments are welcome but just be aware this is a very early project and a proof of concept launch.

This is excellent! Great job.

[toast]

Great set of discussions guys!   

Let me add some more thoughts for you to chew on...

• Do you really want to exclude our top talent from working on AGS-funded projects?  Should we hire someone lesser-qualified and make them work as a consultant or bounty hunter instead of as an employee?
• To get risk-averse top talent quit their secure day job to sign on as an employee, they always want to know their job is funded for at least a year, sometimes two.  Should we stop raising funds now and spend all the existing funds in the next six months as some have suggested?  What is our recruiting potential then?
• Most AGS members became that way for one reason:  they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded.  How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?
• If you want to offer your services as an industry evangelist, start another incubator and convince people you have a better way to run it.  We might even offer to kickstart you. 
• We are eager to fund any competent developer to develop any viable DAC, but the developer must be truly competent, put his own skin in the game, and have an idea better than the ones that are already queued up for development.
• We will gladly fund a qualified and committed 3rd party to build any of the DACs we have already queued up.  You can get to the top of the list and be funded even without having your own idea.  Convince us you can and will deploy something near the top of our queue.
• Should we fund every DAC that comes along as soon as it is proposed without holding any form of competition?  Do you really want bytemaster not to filter, sort, and rank them?

 

There are no jobless developers who are competent.

[xeroc]

Great set of discussions guys!   

Let me add some more thoughts for you to chew on...

• AGS funding ends in July and those funds must support ecosystem infrastructure for the multi-year life cycles of all sponsored DACS.
• For example, the big advertisement blitz for a DAC must happen after it has passed all testing and is considered robust enough for the general public.  Burning those funds now would be wasteful, even counterproductive
• Those who understand the published and oft-repeated game plan ought to be delighted that PTS is on sale now.
• The function of PTS is to build and track interest in future DACs.  We have seen how that works precisely as planned and as publicly predicted.
• PTS will rise and fall again...and again...and again.  Each peak is an exit point for unbelievers.  Each valley is an entry point for new believers and the old faithful.
• The valleys are very bad places to be arguing for us to burn PTS - its when their buying power is the lowest.  The next natural (announced) peak is the Beyond Bitcoin conference in July.  We build to a creshendo there and deploy reinvigorated PTS to get twice as much done.
  
• Invictus has been operating informally in a neutral honest broker mode since the Fourth of July.
• Setting up a formal neutral honest broker entity takes time and regulator approvals but is well underway.
• We have repeatedly said we are building a decentralized industry, not a big company.
• We do not care who develops each DAC.
• It doesn't matter to us whether a DAC or component is developed by an employee, a contractor, a consultant, a bounty hunter, a start-up, or a third party.
• Some good developers don't want the risk of being their own company.  They want the security of being somebody's employee.  So we hire them to give them that security.  Does that make them suddenly ineligible?
• Do you really want to exclude our top talent from working on AGS-funded projects?  Should we hire someone lesser-qualified and make them work as a consultant or bounty hunter instead of as an employee?
• To get risk-averse top talent quit their secure day job to sign on as an employee, they always want to know their job is funded for at least a year, sometimes two.  Should we stop raising funds now and spend all the existing funds in the next six months as some have suggested?  What is our recruiting potential then?
• Most AGS members became that way for one reason:  they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded.  How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?
• If you want to offer your services as an industry evangelist, start another incubator and convince people you have a better way to run it.  We might even offer to kickstart you. 
• We are eager to fund any competent developer to develop any viable DAC, but the developer must be truly competent, put his own skin in the game, and have an idea better than the ones that are already queued up for development.
• We will gladly fund a qualified and committed 3rd party to build any of the DACs we have already queued up.  You can get to the top of the list and be funded even without having your own idea.  Convince us you can and will deploy something near the top of our queue.
• If we have not sponsored a proposed DAC yet, its because it hasn't crossed that minimum threshold.
• A new developer can get plenty of incentive from the remaining 80% she has to allocate in what she is developing.  Owning PTS and AGS should not be her incentive. Owning shares in her own DAC should be where her heart lies.
• The incentive to honor AGS and PTS holders is independent of actually being an AGS or PTS holder.  The incentive is to attract a community of proven supporters to critique and evangelize what you are doing.  Read the 10 Natural Laws again (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2876.0).  Those are the incentives that matter.
• How would you suggest we improve on Shark Tank article in the February newsletter?  Does it not meet your goals of building public interest by holding a competition and involving the community at every step in evaluating and selecting a winner?
• Should we fund every DAC that comes along as soon as it is proposed without holding any form of competition?  Do you really want bytemaster not to filter, sort, and rank them?
• Can you make us a list of potential Shark Tank Judges who have consistently demonstrated a clear understanding of all the above considerations?
• Is there another list of those who you would absolutely not want to have involved in making these decisions?  Those who consistently offer non sequiturs and fail to consider the Big Picture?
• Which list is longer?  Do you really want to have the combined members of both lists vote on how the industry's precious resources are deployed?

Thoughts?   

Thanks for cleaning thing up .. need to read this a little more often though ..

[Stan]

Great set of discussions guys!   

Let me add some more thoughts for you to chew on...

• AGS funding ends in July and those funds must support ecosystem infrastructure for the multi-year life cycles of all sponsored DACS.
• For example, the big advertisement blitz for a DAC must happen after it has passed all testing and is considered robust enough for the general public.  Burning those funds now would be wasteful, even counterproductive
• Those who understand the published and oft-repeated game plan ought to be delighted that PTS is on sale now.
• The function of PTS is to build and track interest in future DACs.  We have seen how that works precisely as planned and as publicly predicted.
• PTS will rise and fall again...and again...and again.  Each peak is an exit point for unbelievers.  Each valley is an entry point for new believers and the old faithful.
• The valleys are very bad places to be arguing for us to burn PTS - its when their buying power is the lowest.  The next natural (announced) peak is the Beyond Bitcoin conference in July.  We build to a creshendo there and deploy reinvigorated PTS to get twice as much done.
  
• Invictus has been operating informally in honest-broker mode since the Fourth of July.
• Setting up a formal neutral honest broker entity takes time and regulator approvals but is well underway.
• We have repeatedly said we are building a decentralized industry, not a big company.
• We do not care who develops each DAC.
• It doesn't matter to us whether a DAC or component is developed by an employee, a contractor, a consultant, a bounty hunter, a start-up, or a third party.
• Some good developers don't want the risk of being their own company.  They want the security of being somebody's employee.  So we hire them to give them that security.  Does that make them suddenly ineligible?
• Do you really want to exclude our top talent from working on AGS-funded projects?  Should we hire someone lesser-qualified and make them work as a consultant or bounty hunter instead of as an employee?
• To get risk-averse top talent quit their secure day job to sign on as an employee, they always want to know their job is funded for at least a year, sometimes two.  Should we stop raising funds now and spend all the existing funds in the next six months as some have suggested?  What is our recruiting potential then?
• Most AGS members became that way for one reason:  they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded.  How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?
• If you want to offer your services as an industry evangelist, start another incubator and convince people you have a better way to run it.  We might even offer to kickstart you. 
• We are eager to fund any competent developer to develop any viable DAC, but the developer must be truly competent, put his own skin in the game, and have an idea better than the ones that are already queued up for development.
• We will gladly fund a qualified and committed 3rd party to build any of the DACs we have already queued up.  You can get to the top of the list and be funded even without having your own idea.  Convince us you can and will deploy something near the top of our queue.
• If we have not sponsored a proposed DAC yet, its because it hasn't crossed that minimum threshold.
• A new developer can get plenty of incentive from the remaining 80% she has to allocate in what she is developing.  Owning PTS and AGS should not be her incentive. Owning shares in her own DAC should be where her heart lies.
• The incentive to honor AGS and PTS holders is independent of actually being an AGS or PTS holder.  The incentive is to attract a community of proven supporters to critique and evangelize what you are doing.  Read the 10 Natural Laws again (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2876.0).  Those are the incentives that matter.
• How would you suggest we improve on Shark Tank article in the February newsletter?  Does it not meet your goals of building public interest by holding a competition and involving the community at every step in evaluating and selecting a winner?
• Should we fund every DAC that comes along as soon as it is proposed without holding any form of competition?  Do you really want bytemaster not to filter, sort, and rank them?
• Can you make us a list of potential Shark Tank Judges who have consistently demonstrated a clear understanding of all the above considerations?
• Is there another list of those who you would absolutely not want to have involved in making these decisions?  Those who consistently offer non sequiturs and fail to consider the Big Picture?
• Which list is longer?  Do you really want to have the combined members of both lists vote on how the industry's precious resources are deployed?

Thoughts?   

[AdamBLevine]

Except Protoshares should be *more* valuable now than before the split, because now the model has been "proven" and it's no longer speculative if PTS will deliver you another product without losing your PTS

I wouldn't call it "proven" until BTS X actually launches and works. It would have been trivial to prove the model with any shitty altcoin DAC (MMC is pretty much this), but somehow I think things will look different if people discover PTS through BTS X.

By the way I would highly suggest Counterparty, I'd even help you out for some LTBcoins =]

adam@letstalkbitcoin.com

[toast]

Except Protoshares should be *more* valuable now than before the split, because now the model has been "proven" and it's no longer speculative if PTS will deliver you another product without losing your PTS

I wouldn't call it "proven" until BTS X actually launches and works. It would have been trivial to prove the model with any shitty altcoin DAC (MMC is pretty much this), but somehow I think things will look different if people discover PTS through BTS X.

By the way I would highly suggest Counterparty, I'd even help you out for some LTBcoins =]

[AdamBLevine]

Toast:
You're correct, I looked at Invictus products early for this, and my early documents lay out a scenario where 20% of LTBcoins created (which will be the only way to buy advertising time on the LTB network) were given to PTS/AGS holders, but in my later conversations with Daniel he suggested we use another platform.

The choice is between Mastercoin and Counterparty.   Mastercoin has more resources and I know the team well, but they have lots of baggage.  Counterparty has a bunch of legitimacy and has been much faster/cleaner with development, but they cannot help make LTBcoin happen besides giving me the same tools as are available to everyone else.  That's important because this stuff is still hard, in six months it won't be but right now it still is.

Why not have a simple way for developers to start an AGS 2.0 fund for any qualified DAC team that wants to develop - let them do more fund raising on our forum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There already is a way, there are two independent implementions of the  code for taking genesis block snapshots.

People keep making suggestions like this... I still haven't seen *any* development effort publicly ask for AGS money. I'm not convinced invictus is just hoarding it as much as waiting for anyone who can do anything with it to show up.

There are two bounty proposals up right now waiting for any response from invictus.   And apparently the independent implementations weren't good enough for Barwizi, who is a developer himself and who fulfilled many bounties in the PTS ecosystem but who could not figure out how to honor PTS holders.  Also notice AGS holders were completely ignored.   

Most people aren't advertising the fact that they ask for money, they want to make sure it happens before they talk about it otherwise not getting it looks like you tried and failed, which implies you might not be worth other people funding.

So you're not going to see this happen in public, but look around - How many new development teams have jumped onboard creating DACs with Invictus?  The forums are an echo chamber, I can't even tell you how many conversations I've had with people who want to know if I'm still following invictus because they want to jump.

I wouldn't take it that far - I3 still offers enough internal development to hold PTS at ~$6 after the Bts dividend, which is based mostly on the fact that i3 will produce new DACs on their own - much less because of potential 3rd party initiatives.  Anyone of these potential jumpers must see it differently



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except Protoshares should be *more* valuable now than before the split, because now the model has been "proven" and it's no longer speculative if PTS will deliver you another product without losing your PTS

The price decline has been because people see nothing on the horizon that would do the same, so instead of this being the first in a successful cascade of launches, it's the air being let out of the balloon. 

If this is an ecosystem, it needs multiple development teams working towards the same broad goals, going about it in their unique ways.   If this is a crowdfunded monopoly we're doing great.

[toast]

Just saw this on the Mastercoin forum http://mastercointalk.org/index.php?topic=193.0 about Adam's upcoming big decision between Mastercoin and Protoshares/Bitshares for his new coin.

Like to hear more about the decision-making process Adam (aka Andy by those in the Mastercoin forum).

I'm curious about how he would have used PTS/BTS to launch his asset? Like just make your own altcoin that honors PTS?
You can still honor PTS if your asset is issued via Mastercoin, though honestly I wouldn't expect him to.

[mint chocolate chip]

Just saw this on the Mastercoin forum http://mastercointalk.org/index.php?topic=193.0 about Adam's upcoming big decision between Mastercoin and Protoshares/Bitshares for his new coin.

Like to hear more about the decision-making process Adam (aka Andy by those in the Mastercoin forum).

[bitbro]

Why not have a simple way for developers to start an AGS 2.0 fund for any qualified DAC team that wants to develop - let them do more fund raising on our forum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There already is a way, there are two independent implementions of the  code for taking genesis block snapshots.

People keep making suggestions like this... I still haven't seen *any* development effort publicly ask for AGS money. I'm not convinced invictus is just hoarding it as much as waiting for anyone who can do anything with it to show up.

There are two bounty proposals up right now waiting for any response from invictus.   And apparently the independent implementations weren't good enough for Barwizi, who is a developer himself and who fulfilled many bounties in the PTS ecosystem but who could not figure out how to honor PTS holders.  Also notice AGS holders were completely ignored.   

Most people aren't advertising the fact that they ask for money, they want to make sure it happens before they talk about it otherwise not getting it looks like you tried and failed, which implies you might not be worth other people funding.

So you're not going to see this happen in public, but look around - How many new development teams have jumped onboard creating DACs with Invictus?  The forums are an echo chamber, I can't even tell you how many conversations I've had with people who want to know if I'm still following invictus because they want to jump.

I wouldn't take it that far - I3 still offers enough internal development to hold PTS at ~$6 after the Bts dividend, which is based mostly on the fact that i3 will produce new DACs on their own - much less because of potential 3rd party initiatives.  Anyone of these potential jumpers must see it differently



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[toast]

Let's collect our complaints and suggestions here, as obviously communicating on the forum is not enough:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3420.0

[AdamBLevine]

Adam please introduce me to these underfunded DAC developers, if you think that the problem is Invictus not releasing money I will gladly fund them personally

You're missing the point, they're not underfunded - they are unvested in the ecosystem, and while they have the resources to develop they do not have the resources to make a large capital expenditure on buying PTS up front.   This would not be a problem if there was a roadmap of progressive bounties laid out that set the things Invictus wants people to do, so they can make long term plans and build to reach the bounty.

and I've been offering to fund these teams for the last week or so since people started pitching them to me.   Imagine how many more funds I'd have available for this if I hadn't given 50% of my PTS for AGS, where the funds now sit, useless and vulnerable in the event Invictus gets clobbered by the federal government.    It was the move we were all incentivized to do, and I did it of my own accord because it was in what I perceived to be my financial best interest (more BTS per AGS than PTS) but it is rewarding Invictus for changing the deal and failing to deliver on their promises.   That's really unfortunate.

[AdamBLevine]

Why not have a simple way for developers to start an AGS 2.0 fund for any qualified DAC team that wants to develop - let them do more fund raising on our forum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There already is a way, there are two independent implementions of the  code for taking genesis block snapshots.

People keep making suggestions like this... I still haven't seen *any* development effort publicly ask for AGS money. I'm not convinced invictus is just hoarding it as much as waiting for anyone who can do anything with it to show up.

There are two bounty proposals up right now waiting for any response from invictus.   And apparently the independent implementations weren't good enough for Barwizi, who is a developer himself and who fulfilled many bounties in the PTS ecosystem but who could not figure out how to honor PTS holders.  Also notice AGS holders were completely ignored.   

Most people aren't advertising the fact that they ask for money, they want to make sure it happens before they talk about it otherwise not getting it looks like you tried and failed, which implies you might not be worth other people funding.

So you're not going to see this happen in public, but look around - How many new development teams have jumped onboard creating DACs with Invictus?  The forums are an echo chamber, I can't even tell you how many conversations I've had with people who want to know if I'm still following invictus because they want to jump.

[toast]

Adam please introduce me to these underfunded DAC developers, if you think that the problem is Invictus not releasing money I will gladly fund them personally

[AdamBLevine]

I work for a company that has 30 employees and makes in one year as much as ags funding does in 3 months. I think there is enough money there already.

Exactly

Money WAS the problem, and to fix it we got Angelshares.  Now Money is STILL the problem, but this time it's invictus's fault and the communities problem.

Why not have a simple way for developers to start an AGS 2.0 fund for any qualified DAC team that wants to develop - let them do more fund raising on our forum

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why work in the AGS/PTS ecosystem if you're going to fundraise into a new currency anyhow?   What exactly was the point of giving AGS funds to invictus if everybody has to raise their own funds and they don't care about incentivizing other companies to get involved with meaningful, outcome oriented bounties?    We've already seen multiple new coins launch who wanted to honor the PTS/AGS but did not see the value in it.   Those are just the public ones.

[toast]

Why not have a simple way for developers to start an AGS 2.0 fund for any qualified DAC team that wants to develop - let them do more fund raising on our forum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There already is a way, there are two independent implementions of the  code for taking genesis block snapshots.

People keep making suggestions like this... I still haven't seen *any* development effort publicly ask for AGS money. I'm not convinced invictus is just hoarding it as much as waiting for anyone who can do anything with it to show up.

[CrazyCriple]

I work for a company that has 30 employees and makes in one year as much as ags funding does in 3 months. I think there is enough money there already.

[bitbro]

Why not have a simple way for developers to start an AGS 2.0 fund for any qualified DAC team that wants to develop - let them do more fund raising on our forum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CrazyCriple]

It will fix itself with the buzz and advent of new DACs.  I think that's your point, as well as Daniels


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the last 48hrs I've spoken with a DAC development team lead who apparently approached invictus about developing their ecosystem on the AGS/PTS platform, but Invictus told them if they wanted to have a stake before they announce and develop their first platform they should "buy some while they're cheap"

This was weeks ago when the price was quite a bit higher.   Point is, there is no reason to jump into this ecosystem if you have no stake in it.  Invictus sucked up all the funds intended for investing and incentivizing development of the community and now is the boot standing on the neck of DAC development.

How exactly do you think "Buzz" happens?   Because there is good news and things are in development.     I don't understand why it makes sense to sit on 300,000PTS and over a thousand BTC if the plan is to not spend it incentivizing other people into the space.   Invictus said "AGS Funds will never be taken as profit" but they ARE using them to pay for salaries and general operating costs at invictus, so while it may not be "profit" they are PAYING THEMSELVES using these funds and not using them to incentivize other developers getting into their ecosystem, which was much of the intent of the fund if I recall correctly. 

A bounty literally is saying "IF someone does this thing we want done, to the specifications we require we guarantee to pay whoever does it this fixed amount"  So it's not like they're just throwing money around, they ONLY pay for results in this scenario.

I'm getting tired of saying the same obvious things.  I have been very patient but that is ending.

Adam makes a really good point. AGS Funds need to be invested properly. New developers I3 or 3rd party and marketing/customer education

[bitbro]

I really agree with you on this point.  Under current constraints, it seems creative funding methods will be needed to incentive DAC developers.  Telling developers to buy cheap will not work very well, esp. long run


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AdamBLevine]

It will fix itself with the buzz and advent of new DACs.  I think that's your point, as well as Daniels


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the last 48hrs I've spoken with a DAC development team lead who apparently approached invictus about developing their ecosystem on the AGS/PTS platform, but Invictus told them if they wanted to have a stake before they announce and develop their first platform they should "buy some while they're cheap"

This was weeks ago when the price was quite a bit higher.   Point is, there is no reason to jump into this ecosystem if you have no stake in it.  Invictus sucked up all the funds intended for investing and incentivizing development of the community and now is the boot standing on the neck of DAC development.

How exactly do you think "Buzz" happens?   Because there is good news and things are in development.     I don't understand why it makes sense to sit on 300,000PTS and over a thousand BTC if the plan is to not spend it incentivizing other people into the space.   Invictus said "AGS Funds will never be taken as profit" but they ARE using them to pay for salaries and general operating costs at invictus, so while it may not be "profit" they are PAYING THEMSELVES using these funds and not using them to incentivize other developers getting into their ecosystem, which was much of the intent of the fund if I recall correctly. 

A bounty literally is saying "IF someone does this thing we want done, to the specifications we require we guarantee to pay whoever does it this fixed amount"  So it's not like they're just throwing money around, they ONLY pay for results in this scenario.

I'm getting tired of saying the same obvious things.  I have been very patient but that is ending.

[bitbro]

It will fix itself with the buzz and advent of new DACs.  I think that's your point, as well as Daniels


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AdamBLevine]

The problem with mining is that if the difficulty gets high and the market adjusts the price then it becomes 'unprofitable' to mine and thus people stop doing it.  However, if the shareholders in PTS believe it needs faster confirmations then they will 'mine' without direct profit to protect their existing value.  So I can assure you mining will not stop.

The long term solution to PTS is to convert it to TaPOS chain and then abandon the Bitcoin based chain.   

In the mean time the way we are working to save it is to raise awareness about upcoming DACs by documenting and releasing specs.   When this happens the price will pick up and thus mining interest will resume.

Daniel, the only reason people stopped mining PTS is because they don't understand why they'd want to keep mining PTS for some potential reward at some potential point in the future, right after all the value (BTS) has been sucked out of it.

Any response to the bounty proposal?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3363.0

 I don't understand your priorities, you comment on why PTS isn't worth mining but not on an initiative that could fix the problem.

[CLains]

Looks good Adam!

A high market cap on PTS = Publicity for Invictus. It also increases bounties/salaries and AGS donations.

[Pairmike]

http://dacindex.com

Part one of this two part project is out in minimum-viable-product form.   Tracks all 2.0 metacoins right now using CoinMarketCap data, we're moving towards custom metrics and figuring our the best way to determine an index price.  I'm thinking it might be market cap / 1,000,000 BUT with coins like XRP and NXT in there you can't really do anything by market cap because their volume is soooooooooooo low relative since most of the coins are held in few hands and don't trade.

So Protoshares is doing well because we're doing the primary ranking by 24hr market volume, which is a more real estimation of whats going on.

Comments are welcome but just be aware this is a very early project and a proof of concept launch.

Hey Adam,

You spoke about a part two of this project.  Can you provide additional details?

[xeroc]

Protoshares is like a protodac, and it did just spawn Bitshares so it is definitely not a 1.0 coin.   I view protoshares as a 1.5

Good point :-)

[bytemaster]

The problem with mining is that if the difficulty gets high and the market adjusts the price then it becomes 'unprofitable' to mine and thus people stop doing it.  However, if the shareholders in PTS believe it needs faster confirmations then they will 'mine' without direct profit to protect their existing value.  So I can assure you mining will not stop.

The long term solution to PTS is to convert it to TaPOS chain and then abandon the Bitcoin based chain.   

In the mean time the way we are working to save it is to raise awareness about upcoming DACs by documenting and releasing specs.   When this happens the price will pick up and thus mining interest will resume.

[barwizi]

Why are people trying to "save" protoshares? Low mining interest means NOTHING, mining interest does not generate demand. The only problem is slower blocks because the difficulty is not caught up. PTS was never intended to have advanced features, FFS it uses proof of work when invictus is clearly against mining. Maybe I'm missing the point?

I personally want quick blocks because quick block make quick tx, which means i can make useful arbitrage, does that make sense to you?  because sitting on PTS while it does nothing waiting for "something " is not  what  anyone  has in mind if they  are truly business minded

[toast]

Why are people trying to "save" protoshares? Low mining interest means NOTHING, mining interest does not generate demand. The only problem is slower blocks because the difficulty is not caught up. PTS was never intended to have advanced features, FFS it uses proof of work when invictus is clearly against mining. Maybe I'm missing the point?

[barwizi]

http://dacindex.com

Part one of this two part project is out in minimum-viable-product form.   Tracks all 2.0 metacoins right now using CoinMarketCap data, we're moving towards custom metrics and figuring our the best way to determine an index price.  I'm thinking it might be market cap / 1,000,000 BUT with coins like XRP and NXT in there you can't really do anything by market cap because their volume is soooooooooooo low relative since most of the coins are held in few hands and don't trade.

So Protoshares is doing well because we're doing the primary ranking by 24hr market volume, which is a more real estimation of whats going on.

Comments are welcome but just be aware this is a very early project and a proof of concept launch.

will you be selling banner space?

Probably won't be selling banner space, it's part of a larger play here.

Actually, protoshares are not metacoins .. bitshares will be ..

Besides that .. nice site

Protoshares is like a protodac, and it did just spawn Bitshares so it is definitely not a 1.0 coin.   I view protoshares as a 1.5

when i see how they are being abandoned, they fall back to 1.0, seriously after the flurry of community ideas to try re-vitalize it, no real response yet from invictus.

[AdamBLevine]

http://dacindex.com

Part one of this two part project is out in minimum-viable-product form.   Tracks all 2.0 metacoins right now using CoinMarketCap data, we're moving towards custom metrics and figuring our the best way to determine an index price.  I'm thinking it might be market cap / 1,000,000 BUT with coins like XRP and NXT in there you can't really do anything by market cap because their volume is soooooooooooo low relative since most of the coins are held in few hands and don't trade.

So Protoshares is doing well because we're doing the primary ranking by 24hr market volume, which is a more real estimation of whats going on.

Comments are welcome but just be aware this is a very early project and a proof of concept launch.

will you be selling banner space?

Probably won't be selling banner space, it's part of a larger play here.

Actually, protoshares are not metacoins .. bitshares will be ..

Besides that .. nice site

Protoshares is like a protodac, and it did just spawn Bitshares so it is definitely not a 1.0 coin.   I view protoshares as a 1.5

[santaclause102]

So Protoshares is doing well because we're doing the primary ranking by 24hr market volume, which is a more real estimation of whats going on.

I would find a 24h change against USD more helpful than one against BTC.

[unimercio]

http://dacindex.com

Part one of this two part project is out in minimum-viable-product form.   Tracks all 2.0 metacoins right now using CoinMarketCap data, we're moving towards custom metrics and figuring our the best way to determine an index price.  I'm thinking it might be market cap / 1,000,000 BUT with coins like XRP and NXT in there you can't really do anything by market cap because their volume is soooooooooooo low relative since most of the coins are held in few hands and don't trade.

So Protoshares is doing well because we're doing the primary ranking by 24hr market volume, which is a more real estimation of whats going on.

Comments are welcome but just be aware this is a very early project and a proof of concept launch.

will you be selling banner space?

[xeroc]

Actually, protoshares are not metacoins .. bitshares will be ..

Besides that .. nice site

[oco101]

[unimercio]

http://dacindex.com

Part one of this two part project is out in minimum-viable-product form.   Tracks all 2.0 metacoins right now using CoinMarketCap data, we're moving towards custom metrics and figuring our the best way to determine an index price.  I'm thinking it might be market cap / 1,000,000 BUT with coins like XRP and NXT in there you can't really do anything by market cap because their volume is soooooooooooo low relative since most of the coins are held in few hands and don't trade.

So Protoshares is doing well because we're doing the primary ranking by 24hr market volume, which is a more real estimation of whats going on.

Comments are welcome but just be aware this is a very early project and a proof of concept launch.

  looks great thanks

[AdamBLevine]

http://dacindex.com

Part one of this two part project is out in minimum-viable-product form.   Tracks all 2.0 metacoins right now using CoinMarketCap data, we're moving towards custom metrics and figuring our the best way to determine an index price.  I'm thinking it might be market cap / 1,000,000 BUT with coins like XRP and NXT in there you can't really do anything by market cap because their volume is soooooooooooo low relative since most of the coins are held in few hands and don't trade.

So Protoshares is doing well because we're doing the primary ranking by 24hr market volume, which is a more real estimation of whats going on.

Comments are welcome but just be aware this is a very early project and a proof of concept launch.