Author Topic: Why inflation?  (Read 8198 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bytemaster

I think it needs to be explained with absolute numbers, even though the actual equation used to generate those numbers is 45% of remaining shares.   We will just pre-calculate them for people.
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
Thought - What do people think of using clear monthly release numbers vs. the current style of delegate subsidy equations?

I think the those type of equations are probably better & '45% of remaining pool per year' is understandable & maybe it's just me  being dumb here, but I prefer clear monthly release amounts -

Example: 5 Billion initial tokens with another 5 billion tokens allocated via delegates over 5 years

Year 1:    200 million tokens  a month
Year 2:   100 million tokens a month
Year 3-5:  40 million tokens a month

= 5.04 billion total tokens

(Obviously shareholders can burn as many of those tokens they feel is correct as they are released that month.)

-Describing something like that makes it easier to understand that it is an equity release and comes across less inflationary imo.
-It also seems easier to market & plan for each month.

Maybe this is a non issue though and it's just me being weak at maths and liking things real clear?



Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
Other thoughts -

At the moment you've given the market an allocation model you think is optimal in terms of sharedrops and equity release.

I think the optimal model is actually the one that the market supports the most (as that is the one that will get bootstrapped) & that falls within the minimum/maximum requirements that you feel as developers this DAC will need.

Step 1: Ask the market what allocation model they think is best. (85% weighted to the Chinese poll) 

Give them a range of sharedrop options starting with the minimum to maximum you think is viable.
Give them a range of equity release models, starting with the minimum to maximum you think is viable.

Step 2: Give it to them

Step 3: Profit (& move on to people being more interested in and promoting the DAC)


If you trust shareholders to elect good delegates why not trust them to have some say in the allocation?

(Edit: They can answer in their reply and need more than X posts, to avoid the poll being gamed...)
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 02:02:30 am by Empirical1 »

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Do you really think btsx could pay for development and growth from trx fees?    We just pre-diluted.   

Companies cannot always grow from revenue alone.  Especially when capital is required to create a revenue stream.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be honest I think it depends on how competitive the market place is. If everyone else were going with the transaction fee model then I think it could work but if everyone were to shift toward pre-allocation then we'd have to go with that.

In either case we shouldn't call it inflation. Mastercoin has pre-allocation but they never call the developer fund inflation or dilution because they know it would psychologically confuse investors. So if Bitshares goes with some form of pre-allocation we should stay away from "dilution" and "inflation" to describe it. All along it was known that developers could take up to 80% of the shares to distribute however they like which includes a development fund so why is this talk of "dilution" and "inflation" necessary?

I think if it's done in a democratic way it could work at least as well as what Mastercoin and Ethereum will be doing.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 12:34:02 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline bytemaster

Do you really think btsx could pay for development and growth from trx fees?    We just pre-diluted.   

Companies cannot always grow from revenue alone.  Especially when capital is required to create a revenue stream.


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 luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Given that a DAC is a sort of organism..

Deflation-centric views center on conserving energy and trying to avoid spending. This refers to the internal dynamic of the DAC as an idealized, perfect balance sheet.

However DACs also have external conditions that determine its growth and death, such as competing DACs and core development. These are radically outside the scope of the idealized balance sheet.

Unless the DAC can dynamically spend resources to address such issues, it will not last in the marketplace.

/Progress on Metaphor 3.0


I don't know if it's what you're saying or the way you're saying it but I disagree with it.

An organism must eat to survive. It can eat itself when it cannot find anything to eat (when there isn't any profit) but that isn't how the organism experiences growth. In my opinion revenues should pay for expenses. Net income should pay for dividends to shareholders.

So why not raise the transaction fees to pay for developers? I don't see why it should come from investors when it can come from the users.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
It seems like a lot of people missed the fact that there's a hard cap on this, possibly because some of those arguing for the gradual release of stake through delegates were also arguing against a cap.  The cap is why I stopped arguing against this, because with the cap it is nothing more than the developers delegating the distribution of their stake to the protocol, rather than true inflation.

The strength is that it allows voting on diverse delegates to receive funds for growth without relying on any bottlenecks, and could allow replacing developers.  The weakness is that delegates offering payment for votes or other "pork" spending for some stakeholders could loot the development fund if they get enough support.  I think a significant amount will still go to the intended purposes, so with the amount at risk capped I can accept that.

It's this sort of confusion which is the problem. Why not call it pre-allocation then? Calling it inflation, dilution, and so on, it doesn't help.

Why not just call it a developer fund?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
Empirical1, are you factoring delegate pay rate into your calculations? If pay rate is below 100, part of the subsidy is burned (NOT saved).

Hi Toast, yeah I was factoring it in, in the sense that I knew shareholders could burn some of that first year equity release if they didn't find a profitable use for it.

I think shareholders would be more comfortable with a much lower equity release model especially for the first DAC and when you look at how much $ the business may need, having a max potential 100% inflation may be unnecessary too... 

Edit: Maybe my example isn't that great with the percentages, but yeah it's just the idea that a bigger chunk of the total equity is awarded up front and the maximum potential 'inflation' per year is less. In my example it was max 50% in the first year, but I have a feeling even lower, max 33% would be received better, with a  30-60 delay till it kicked in. It would be interesting to do a poll.


« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 11:44:19 pm by Empirical1 »

Offline 天籁

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 744
    • View Profile
You see? These are asymmetrical scenarios. We must TEST and EXPERIMENT.

I did suggest that the first DAC to implement them should do so in a less extreme way to 'test and experiment' and go from there. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5467.msg74339#msg74339


I do like the idea of 10/10 & 80 via delegates over 10 yrs, some thoughts though - 

- It will come across as inflationary
- It may feel like you're required to trust the delegates even more.
- Given how much funding businesses need in the real world we don't have to set aside that much.

So I think it may be something to aim towards for future DAC's depending on how it works with a smaller delegate allocation.

A) I like 20/20/60   

Year 1  Year 2   Y3     Y4    Y5     Y6     Y7    Y8     Y9    Y10
 
20%     10%      8%    6%   4%   4%    2%   2%   2%  2%



I would also suggest the first year equity release wait 30-60 days of year 1 to kick in, so delegates and shareholders can find their feet in the new DAC and so that shareholders can be properly campaigned to by & vet potential delegates

I like the delegate equity allocation model, I just felt it was too much especially for the first one. I prefer 20/20/60 or even 25/25/50.  It's just my personal opinion though.
+5% good thinking.

Offline toast

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Empirical1, are you factoring delegate pay rate into your calculations? If pay rate is below 100, part of the subsidy is burned (NOT saved).
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
You see? These are asymmetrical scenarios. We must TEST and EXPERIMENT.

I did suggest that the first DAC to implement them should do so in a less extreme way to 'test and experiment' and go from there. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5467.msg74339#msg74339


I do like the idea of 10/10 & 80 via delegates over 10 yrs, some thoughts though - 

- It will come across as inflationary
- It may feel like you're required to trust the delegates even more.
- Given how much funding businesses need in the real world we don't have to set aside that much.

So I think it may be something to aim towards for future DAC's depending on how it works with a smaller delegate allocation.

A) I like 20/20/60   

Year 1  Year 2   Y3     Y4    Y5     Y6     Y7    Y8     Y9    Y10
 
20%     10%      8%    6%   4%   4%    2%   2%   2%  2%



I would also suggest the first year equity release wait 30-60 days of year 1 to kick in, so delegates and shareholders can find their feet in the new DAC and so that shareholders can be properly campaigned to by & vet potential delegates

I like the delegate equity allocation model, I just felt it was too much especially for the first one. I prefer 20/20/60 or even 25/25/50.  It's just my personal opinion though.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
Given that a DAC is a sort of organism..

Deflation-centric views center on conserving energy and trying to avoid spending. This refers to the internal dynamic of the DAC as an idealized, perfect balance sheet.

However DACs also have external conditions that determine its growth and death, such as competing DACs and core development. These are radically outside the scope of the idealized balance sheet.

Unless the DAC can dynamically spend resources to address such issues, it will not last in the marketplace.

/Progress on Metaphor 3.0
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 09:34:06 pm by CLains »

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
If voters are voting intelligently on behalf of the DAC then it will profit immensely from inflation. This is obvious, DAC-staff will get nothing if they launch "fairly" due to the tragedy of the commons problem. A DAC with no one working for it will die a quick death. It will have no developers, no marketers, etc. Inflation with spending authorized by vote IS a solution to the tragedy, if it works in practice or not is impossible to tell yet.

Note that IF it does not work, BitShares will have to compete in the market-place on the same terms as everyone else. IF it works, however, we will be miles ahead of the competition because we have solved a problem they have not (how to solve tragedy of the commons in a decentralized way).

This situation is analogous to our aspirations and hope to establish a decentralized market-peg mechanism. IF it does not work, then BitShares will have to compete in the market-place on the same terms as everyone else, establishing trusted price feeds for bitUSD etc. IF it works, however, we will be miles ahead of the competition because we have solved a problem they have not (how to do trustless, decentralized market-pegging).

These are asymmetrical scenarios. We must TEST and EXPERIMENT.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 09:32:08 pm by CLains »

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
Think of it as an upfront allocation that is slowly paid out over time to the developers so that the developers cannot dump

think of it as an upfront application for the community retains the right to change developers rather than mean committed to oneself developers

There is a hardcoded limit just like bitcoin. 

Think of it as allocated to the developer and the developer decides to give it to a delegate. 

Think of the initial delicates as a development team. 

If investors invest according to the total share supply at the end of the day then there is no dilution for them. 

There is nothing unpredictable other than the fact that there might be less dilution then they expect

Think of it as investors have an opportunity to direct the development team by buying in And making a change this in turn gives the investors an opportunity to increase their ROI. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i like your thinking and it would be much better if it would be communicated like this. More people would understand this. Problem is and was always the same. Before the community has been asked of their opionen of allocation and then it is a total different model. No offense here, but the communication was again poorly and should addressed better in the future. You want a successful chain from the start, then you need the majority of "believers" behind your project.

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
The inflation model of the DotP2P DAC has aroused antipathy in the Chinese community. And I found that many old BTS participants also can't answer to "why inflation".

The main accusation of this inflation model is, Big Mans can always stay to be delegates and win all the new minted coins / shares. And it's a positive feedback loop which can destroy whole economic balance.


Yes I feel this is a concern too. From BTSX we can see that in the early months of the DAC, overall shareholder participation will be low and the developer stake should be able to dictate the delegates. Which is a good thing in BTSX but given the huge year 1 equity release, this does seem like a potential recipe for the model you describe in the Namespaces DAC.

A better model may probably be a much lower year 1 equity release, with a pause for the first few months while average shareholders made their way into the voting pool.