Here is another concern, during the two years will 20% of new DACs only be given to vested stakes or will unvested stakes also be rewarded?

Why wouldn't new (3rd-party) DACs be awarded to AGS itself? I think the whole idea is that Bytemaster is only ever going to work on one DAC: BTS. There won't be a constellation of Bytemaster DACs to honor the social consensus. But if this all works, there definitely should be a constellation of 3rd-party DACs. Why wouldn't they still honor the social consensus?

Quote from: mf-tzo on October 22, 2014, 03:03:55 pm

I ended up giving my liquidity in AGS for DNS shares and ended up with a loss when the price plunged since I had to sell before it loses completely their value...Not only gave away liquidity for a year but also took a loss within a window of 20 minutes from the announcement. Unbelievable...

For the record, I didn't sell any of my DNS shares to other less-informed buyers. 
I still have every last one of them.  I guess they'll be good souvenirs for the DAC Hall of Fame.

 

This is worth publicizing. There was no insider trading prior to the public announcement.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Quote from: Empirical1.1 on October 22, 2014, 01:03:44 pm

The only people who've lost out in the equity deals are the key talent that drive the underlying development. If this was a centralised venture they'd have much more equity.

I think this point cannot be driven home enough.... FollowMyVote had 30% stake in VOTE and now has 1% stake vesting over 2 years.   I3 had a much larger stake in VOTE than in BTSX and now has a much smaller stake in BTS and Toast had a much larger stake in DNS and now has a small stake in BTS. 

Would the core developers agree to this strategy if they didn't think it would be better for them as a whole?   It was a very hard decision for everyone.

Damn you guys need to learn something about PR. Why wasn't that the very start of the OP?? Why didn't you mention that the dev stakes aren't included in the buyout?? You guys utterly baffle me. You're announcing a huge major buyout of several companies, and you completely botch the announcement, and then you don't even seem to realize how badly you botched it.

There was clearly some miscommunication because I am super angry at the result...

Interesting... do you have a counter-offer? Are you considering going off on your own and maintaining DNS as a stand-alone DAC?

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

I'm all for locking whatever they want to lock. I sold all my PTS/DNS yesterday as soon as I realized what was happening, so I have no personal reason to oppose locking. One benefit of locking is that it would give newcomers a chance to buy in to BTS cheaply, since the relative price of PTS would be so low due to the liquidity premium of BTSX.

This would also let long-term BTS bulls increase their holdings by trading their BTSX for relatively cheap PTS or DNS.

I like the idea of a shorter vesting period for DNS because that token is supposed to be tied to specific features that we're likely to see implemented soon.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Quote from: sudo on October 22, 2014, 10:34:10 am

how dare  to  broke the  social consensus for PTS/AGS 10% each??

When you consider DNS and VOTE as part of the post-Feb 28th package then you do have 10%.
And they get a pre 28th share in BTSX as also.

So this actually exceeds the social consensus in that sense. 
Part of the balancing act needed to bring all parties together.
Not easy.   
 

Look, Stan, I mean this in the best way possible, but your PR is so bad. I mean just unbelievably awful. You're going to shrug my comment off with something weird and vaguely witty like you always do, but when will you guys realize that what is obvious to you isn't immediately obvious to everybody else?

I finally understand why this counts as honoring the social consensus. What I don't understand is why you think people will accept it so easily, especially since when BM proposed the allocation, he didn't even try to explain it until like 10 pages in? In investors' view, they have a stake in the DNS DAC. Now, if you soften them up ahead of time, they would see that the DNS DAC isn't a DAC, it's just a naked featureless DPOS chain derived almost entirely from AGS/PTS. That is, DNS is AGS/PTS. Looked at like that, it's obvious that 240 satoshi was an over-inflated price.

But instead of softening people up, you (and by you, I mean BM) created a PR nightmare shitstorm by announcing an allocation that superficially violates the social consensus, and now before most people have a chance to react, the price of DNS is on the floor and everybody's pissed because they were deluded by an inflated market price. Did you honestly believe that was the best way to do it?

@BM : Merge or change is ok for me. Your proposed allocation is not my favor though but I will follow the majority. But this topic is a "price sensitive news", SO PLEASE NOTIFY any price sensitive news at least 24 hours ahead (a brief summary with no negative/positive effect). Everyone needs to have a fair start. I do not want to wake up and see DNS price dump to nothing...... which I think will be at least about Namecoin market cap in month ....

  to this guy. I was lucky enough to catch this news in time to save my DNS stake from dying, but obviously most people weren't so fortunate.

BM, you carry enough clout around here to have changed the market value of DNS by about 50% today, by fiat. Please carefully consider the effects of your announcements and try to make the smallest number of people mad.

Quote from: biophil on October 21, 2014, 09:19:44 pm

Quote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2014, 09:09:28 pm

Quote from: vlight on October 21, 2014, 09:05:51 pm

DNS gets only 3% unfairly. VOTE didn't had a market cap so it would be hard to argue, but DNS was valued at 200 satoshis minimum and had ~$4M market cap.

But only $10K in liquidity.   We could have easily sold enough vote to push its price down to a value far lower than it is at today... and we would have done that had we chosen to simply compete rather than buy them out.   Buying out DNS was a gesture of good will that was mainly done because it was 90%+ AGS/PTS snapshot once we remove the developer funds from it.

BM, how close are we to this particular allocation being set in stone? My investment strategy is hanging in the balance.

I don't expect to change it, it is already priced in.

The liquidity premium isn't even close to priced-in; also, DNS is trading significantly above parity with BTSX and PTS is trading a bit below. People are still hedging that you're going to change your mind.