Poll

What avg. % do you think PTS & AGS will get of Bitshares 'Lotto, Music & .P2P'

10%  For PTS & AGS Each
15% For PTS & AGS Each
20% For PTS & AGS Each
25% For PTS & AGS Each
30% For PTS & AGS Each
35% For PTS & AGS Each
40% For PTS & AGS Each
50% For PTS & AGS Each

Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Poll: PTS & AGS allocation expectations for main upcoming DAC's  (Read 980 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile

The BitShares position is not to commit to a minimum of more than 10%, which is fine, so I'm just trying to guage where the community is at with regards to what they see being the average PTS & AGS allocation for the three DAC's listed in title that will be allocated in the coming months.   

I'm also interested in your reason for what you think is an optimal distribution and why (brief)

Offline bytemaster

Re: Poll: PTS & AGS allocation expectations for main upcoming DAC's
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2014, 09:05:03 PM »
10/10 with 80% allocated via delegates over 10 years.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
Re: Poll: PTS & AGS allocation expectations for main upcoming DAC's
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2014, 09:25:36 PM »
10/10 with 80% allocated via delegates over 10 years.

Interesting. I had to think about that one. Hadn't even thought of an option like that. It seems like it could be quite brilliant. 

Offline sfinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1205
  • 4 Cores CPU+100GB SSD+anti-DDoS Pro
    • View Profile
Re: Poll: PTS & AGS allocation expectations for main upcoming DAC's
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2014, 09:50:56 PM »
10/10 with 80% allocated via delegates over 10 years.


Bm, i am kind of understand your allocation strategy. You are  such a wisdom and far sight ppl  +5%
« Last Edit: July 06, 2014, 09:55:06 PM by sfinder »
微博:星在飘我在找|BTS X 受托人delegate ID:baidu
中国教育书店合作将20%收入捐献给贫困山区学生。
Cooperating with China Education Bookstore and will donate 20% of delegate income to the poor students

Offline BldSwtTrs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Re: Poll: PTS & AGS allocation expectations for main upcoming DAC's
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2014, 10:21:10 PM »
What "80% allocated via delegates over ten years" means?

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
Re: Poll: PTS & AGS allocation expectations for main upcoming DAC's
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2014, 10:59:58 PM »
What "80% allocated via delegates over ten years" means?

I 'think' it means that 80% of equity will slowly be released to the 101 delegates in some model over 10 years. (But as we (Shareholders) elect the delegates that equity will be distributed essentially according to the will of the shareholders.)

So if the company seems like it needs more marketing/development/charity/airdrop funding, shareholders will start voting for delegates who will direct the funds best to those activities. Most of the time though, as long the company is going smoothly, I suspect  they will probably be voting for most of the equity that is released to be given back to shareholders to avoid too much dilution of their stake.

For example: In the first year, assuming 10% of the equity was released to delegates for simplicity.
It would mean AGS & PTS would have 33% each of the total tradeable equity in the first year. (10% AGS + 10% PTS + 10% released to delegates)
But shareholders would elect to give some of the 10% (33% of first year total equity) to themsleves, (shareholders) and the remainder would go on other activities they felt were in the best interest of the DAC.

I kind of think that's the idea.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2014, 11:03:58 PM by Empirical1 »

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2734
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BTS: Stan
Re: Poll: PTS & AGS allocation expectations for main upcoming DAC's
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2014, 11:52:03 PM »
The BitShares position is not to commit to a minimum of more than 10%, which is fine, so I'm just trying to guage where the community is at with regards to what they see being the average PTS & AGS allocation for the three DAC's listed in title that will be allocated in the coming months.   

I'm also interested in your reason for what you think is an optimal distribution and why (brief)

In The Ten Natural Laws of the Crypto Equity Universe, (http://bitshares.org/10-natural-laws-of-the-crypto-asset-universe/) I once opined that maneuvering to leave your competitors no room to one-up your DAC would force developers to choose 50/50 PTS/AGS.  End of Story.

But that was before BitShares ShareDrop Theory (http://bitshares.org/bitshares-airdrop-theory/) identified that what a developer needs to do is target all the demographics that matter to her DAC.  PTS and AGS are merely the best demographics, but they are not the only demographics that make sense.  Targeting users of your predecessors, or competitors makes a lot of sense.  I now view all 200+ altcoins as nothing but demographic constituencies that I might want to consider when launching a DAC.  Which is the best mailing list?

But that was before BitShares Delegate Theory  (http://bitshares.org/intro-to-delegated-proof-of-stake/) advocated putting some of the shares into the hands of elected delegates who would be responsive to the shareholders.  This gives a DAC the invaluable ability to adapt over time to changing conditions while decentralizing the decision making - but only to vetted people who are considered trustworthy and responsible by most owners.

But that was before...  who knows?  This field is developing rapidly and Darwinian Market Forces will determine the ultimate winners. 
« Last Edit: July 06, 2014, 11:53:58 PM by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
Re: Poll: PTS & AGS allocation expectations for main upcoming DAC's
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2014, 12:43:23 AM »
Shareholder controlled distribution (SCD?) is needed.  Doing this through delegates is a big mistake.  There will be a LOT of wasted money and value that goes into delegate profit for the simple reason that people don't have time to keep track of how 101 people spend money.  Right now the process of approving a delegate is rather simple; you ask yourself the question:  Is this a trustworthy member of the community who will keep a server running reliably?

You have now turned what should be a simple process into an excruciatingly complex process by mixing 2 naturally separate roles and combining them.  I now must analyze the spending habits of tons of delegates and combine that info with my various levels of trust and faith in their abilities to perform a simple task of running delegates to write blocks.  It will cause voters (shareholders) to disengage, tune out, and only approve a couple delegates at a time, and ultimately lose faith in the institution.

Offline bytemaster

Simply vote for all the delegates takin g 0 or 1% pay.  Nice and easy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
Re: Poll: PTS & AGS allocation expectations for main upcoming DAC's
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2014, 02:19:45 AM »
You have now turned what should be a simple process into an excruciatingly complex process by mixing 2 naturally separate roles and combining them.  I now must analyze the spending habits of tons of delegates and combine that info with my various levels of trust and faith in their abilities to perform a simple task of running delegates to write blocks.  It will cause voters (shareholders) to disengage, tune out, and only approve a couple delegates at a time, and ultimately lose faith in the institution.

I think it engages shareholders MUCH more.

As long as the system drip feeds the equity, the risk is low.

DAC's are businesses selling products & services, so they will need centralised advertising campaigns etc. imo. So I can see DAC's having a marketing delegate which may even end up being a full service agency that gets their budget released via the blockchain and if the shareholders don't like the job they're doing, they will be fired. I can see them having a Charity delegate. A couple of Developers as delegates Etc. (Though most of the delegates elected will probably be the ones giving the equity back to shareholders most of the time.)

I think it's potentially great, like personally I think airdropping equity is generally a bad idea, if I'm right and that when you have a competitive product/service the money is better spent on traditional advertising to let customers know about it and make it accessible and convenient for them, then that should quickly be realised by self interested shareholders & they should move towards voting to direct equity in the best interest of the company when one or another approach is shown not to work. (For example if I saw oh wow airdropping to Y did generate a lot of free advertising, new support & the share price wasn't effected then I would even change my mind and vote for airdropping more of the equity.)

So basically whatever is the best model, this kind of approach gives the DAC the best opportunity to find it imo. 
« Last Edit: July 07, 2014, 02:24:43 AM by Empirical1 »

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
Re: Poll: PTS & AGS allocation expectations for main upcoming DAC's
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2014, 03:51:07 AM »
You have now turned what should be a simple process into an excruciatingly complex process by mixing 2 naturally separate roles and combining them.  I now must analyze the spending habits of tons of delegates and combine that info with my various levels of trust and faith in their abilities to perform a simple task of running delegates to write blocks.  It will cause voters (shareholders) to disengage, tune out, and only approve a couple delegates at a time, and ultimately lose faith in the institution.

I think it engages shareholders MUCH more.

As long as the system drip feeds the equity, the risk is low.

DAC's are businesses selling products & services, so they will need centralised advertising campaigns etc. imo. So I can see DAC's having a marketing delegate which may even end up being a full service agency that gets their budget released via the blockchain and if the shareholders don't like the job they're doing, they will be fired. I can see them having a Charity delegate. A couple of Developers as delegates Etc. (Though most of the delegates elected will probably be the ones giving the equity back to shareholders most of the time.)

I think it's potentially great, like personally I think airdropping equity is generally a bad idea, if I'm right and that when you have a competitive product/service the money is better spent on traditional advertising to let customers know about it and make it accessible and convenient for them, then that should quickly be realised by self interested shareholders & they should move towards voting to direct equity in the best interest of the company when one or another approach is shown not to work. (For example if I saw oh wow airdropping to Y did generate a lot of free advertising, new support & the share price wasn't effected then I would even change my mind and vote for airdropping more of the equity.)

So basically whatever is the best model, this kind of approach gives the DAC the best opportunity to find it imo.
Empirical, I think if you looked at my post history you would see I've been a big proponent of letting shareholders direct equity for a long time; I'm well aware of the merits.  My problem is that tying this function to being a delegate is a very inefficient way for shareholders to have their will done.  If shareholders want to fund a core dev, let them simply make a decision about that.  Don't make them try to find which delegates are currently giving some percentage of funds to core development along with deciding if these delegates have reliable network statistics and are trusted community members, and now maybe they need to somehow set alerts to find out if any of their delegates has changed their priorities/fund allocation.  The shareholders might think we should be aggressively reinvesting in development above all else but that doesn't mean they want to let a developer control over 50% of delegates.  The two things are separate.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12057
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Poll: PTS & AGS allocation expectations for main upcoming DAC's
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2014, 06:04:50 AM »
In The Ten Natural Laws of the Crypto Equity Universe, (http://bitshares.org/10-natural-laws-of-the-crypto-asset-universe/) I once opined that maneuvering to leave your competitors no room to one-up your DAC would force developers to choose 50/50 PTS/AGS.  End of Story.

But that was before BitShares ShareDrop Theory (http://bitshares.org/bitshares-airdrop-theory/) identified that what a developer needs to do is target all the demographics that matter to her DAC.  PTS and AGS are merely the best demographics, but they are not the only demographics that make sense.  Targeting users of your predecessors, or competitors makes a lot of sense.  I now view all 200+ altcoins as nothing but demographic constituencies that I might want to consider when launching a DAC.  Which is the best mailing list?

But that was before BitShares Delegate Theory  (http://bitshares.org/intro-to-delegated-proof-of-stake/) advocated putting some of the shares into the hands of elected delegates who would be responsive to the shareholders.  This gives a DAC the invaluable ability to adapt over time to changing conditions while decentralizing the decision making - but only to vetted people who are considered trustworthy and responsible by most owners.

But that was before...  who knows?  This field is developing rapidly and Darwinian Market Forces will determine the ultimate winners.
Very nice history lesson :)

However, I am not so sure if users really search through the delegate candidates (which might be up to several thousands) and decide for their favorit. However, they don't need to .. thx to approval voting ... hmm .. I really can't decide ..
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
Re: Poll: PTS & AGS allocation expectations for main upcoming DAC's
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2014, 01:23:15 PM »
You have now turned what should be a simple process into an excruciatingly complex process by mixing 2 naturally separate roles and combining them.  I now must analyze the spending habits of tons of delegates and combine that info with my various levels of trust and faith in their abilities to perform a simple task of running delegates to write blocks.  It will cause voters (shareholders) to disengage, tune out, and only approve a couple delegates at a time, and ultimately lose faith in the institution.

I think it engages shareholders MUCH more.

As long as the system drip feeds the equity, the risk is low.

DAC's are businesses selling products & services, so they will need centralised advertising campaigns etc. imo. So I can see DAC's having a marketing delegate which may even end up being a full service agency that gets their budget released via the blockchain and if the shareholders don't like the job they're doing, they will be fired. I can see them having a Charity delegate. A couple of Developers as delegates Etc. (Though most of the delegates elected will probably be the ones giving the equity back to shareholders most of the time.)

I think it's potentially great, like personally I think airdropping equity is generally a bad idea, if I'm right and that when you have a competitive product/service the money is better spent on traditional advertising to let customers know about it and make it accessible and convenient for them, then that should quickly be realised by self interested shareholders & they should move towards voting to direct equity in the best interest of the company when one or another approach is shown not to work. (For example if I saw oh wow airdropping to Y did generate a lot of free advertising, new support & the share price wasn't effected then I would even change my mind and vote for airdropping more of the equity.)

So basically whatever is the best model, this kind of approach gives the DAC the best opportunity to find it imo.
Empirical, I think if you looked at my post history you would see I've been a big proponent of letting shareholders direct equity for a long time; I'm well aware of the merits.  My problem is that tying this function to being a delegate is a very inefficient way for shareholders to have their will done.  If shareholders want to fund a core dev, let them simply make a decision about that.  Don't make them try to find which delegates are currently giving some percentage of funds to core development along with deciding if these delegates have reliable network statistics and are trusted community members, and now maybe they need to somehow set alerts to find out if any of their delegates has changed their priorities/fund allocation.  The shareholders might think we should be aggressively reinvesting in development above all else but that doesn't mean they want to let a developer control over 50% of delegates.  The two things are separate.

The optimal system for security may be to have 101 unique delegates all around the world but the optimal investment decision could involve directing a lot of this new equity they receive to development. Thereby in your opinion resulting in potentially security compromising clusters, like in the extreme - A developer controlling over 50% of the delegates.

But if we decided on 101 unique delegates all around the world, but now needed 5 delegates worth of equity to be released to Toast for .p2p development. Would we,

A) Fire 5 delegates originally based in Guatamala, The North Pole, Mt. Everest, The Amazon Jungle  & The Sahara Desert. Instead giving Toast control of five delegates?

Or would we

B) Vote for those 5 delegates that could still be based in Guatamala, The North Pole, Mt. Everest, The Amazon Jungle  & The Sahara Desert who send all of the equity they are released to the Toast development fund, with Toast simply confirming on a regular basis that he's received it? 

Maintaining high security is in the best interests of the company so shareholders will choose options that maximise the best investment decisions with minimal compromise to security imo.

You agree with shareholders directing equity. But how would you do it? I think we'd have to find a decentralised trusted group of people to administer it according to our wishes. But that's pretty much what the 101 delegates system is. So I think introducing any secondary system to do the exact job the delegates can do is sub-optimal. Tweaking the delegate system and maybe putting in some tracking controls, automations and limits etc. will be best.

I'm not saying I agree 10/10/80 will be optimal, I'm still processing my own thoughts on it. But in general the concept is quite brilliant and inspired in my opinion. (Like for example in the first year we obviously trust the developers who released the product so I think we should direct a portion to them in the allocation model for maintenance & development without the need to go through/complicate the delegate system at the start.)
« Last Edit: July 07, 2014, 01:33:04 PM by Empirical1 »

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
Re: Poll: PTS & AGS allocation expectations for main upcoming DAC's
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2014, 02:52:43 PM »
The optimal system for security may be to have 101 unique delegates all around the world but the optimal investment decision could involve directing a lot of this new equity they receive to development. Thereby in your opinion resulting in potentially security compromising clusters, like in the extreme - A developer controlling over 50% of the delegates.

But if we decided on 101 unique delegates all around the world, but now needed 5 delegates worth of equity to be released to Toast for .p2p development. Would we,

A) Fire 5 delegates originally based in Guatamala, The North Pole, Mt. Everest, The Amazon Jungle  & The Sahara Desert. Instead giving Toast control of five delegates?

Or would we

B) Vote for those 5 delegates that could still be based in Guatamala, The North Pole, Mt. Everest, The Amazon Jungle  & The Sahara Desert who send all of the equity they are released to the Toast development fund, with Toast simply confirming on a regular basis that he's received it? 

Maintaining high security is in the best interests of the company so shareholders will choose options that maximise the best investment decisions with minimal compromise to security imo.

You agree with shareholders directing equity. But how would you do it? I think we'd have to find a decentralised trusted group of people to administer it according to our wishes. But that's pretty much what the 101 delegates system is. So I think introducing any secondary system to do the exact job the delegates can do is sub-optimal. Tweaking the delegate system and maybe putting in some tracking controls, automations and limits etc. will be best.

I'm not saying I agree 10/10/80 will be optimal, I'm still processing my own thoughts on it. But in general the concept is quite brilliant and inspired in my opinion. (Like for example in the first year we obviously trust the developers who released the product so I think we should direct a portion to them in the allocation model for maintenance & development without the need to go through/complicate the delegate system at the start.)
My idea is to have a separate class "DAC advocates" or whatever you want to call them.  The simplest way I can think of is anyone can run as a DAC advocate and propose their own salary and what they will do with it.  If they get more than 50% of stake to vote for them they get it.

50% might seem like a high burden but I think it is an achievable and necessary high burden.  It's more achievable when you allow people to "abstain" from voting on advocates, that way their stake doesn't count for or against any advocates.  It shouldn't generally be encouraged to abstain but could be a good option for some people who trust the rest of the stakeholders to make the right choices.

This makes the process of assigning funds soooo much easier for shareholders to understand and make informed decisions and will be much less wasteful imo.

Offline bytemaster

Re: Poll: PTS & AGS allocation expectations for main upcoming DAC's
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2014, 03:34:34 PM »
I think we can set a threshold for delegates to receive "dilution pay"... Anyone with 51% approval gets the pay, while the top 101 regardless of approval level can produce blocks.   This may accomplish what you want.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

 

Google+