0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on October 26, 2014, 07:06:15 pmQuote from: Stan on October 26, 2014, 06:13:49 pmQuote from: Empirical1.1 on October 26, 2014, 03:57:05 pmI had similar panic concerns fluxer https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9539.msg124040#msg124040To be the winner right now though is all about getting the best talent & marketing. Good devs are clearly worth their weight in gold. I think dilution is the best solution for BitShares. There has also been some limits placed on the dilution.I do worry that if the market views BitShares as partly centralised already, then I think our valuation is going to be significantly handicapped as a result even in the short term so it's also something I've been keen to address by encouraging more voting as well as not keeping too much BTSX on the big exchanges.Setting aside the fact that BitShares is far more effectively decentralized than most of its true competitors, that is of little concern. We are also more decentralized than most companies people routinely do business with. The demographic we will market to first does not generally care about this any more than they stop to consider the share distribution of Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, or Benny's Car Parts Outlet. Yeah I can see you guys are envisioning people using a variety of front end applications and the fact that it's BitShares on the back end & how it works may be largely irrelevant to them. Personally I think the main market will be BitAssets. I think the brand image of BitShares, particularly the level of perceived decentralisation could be important. On the shareholder side, if you're perceived to have centralised weaknesses and/or are ever operating in grey areas then they may value BitShares on a very short earnings horizon vs. a competitor that was perceived to be more decentralised, who could therefore achieve a higher valuation and raise more funds via dilution as a result.BitShares is pretty decentralised though, and I'm really about encouraging more active voting stake and less on big exchanges than anything else.If one goes out and approaches 20 random people on the street today and asks them if they are worried about the negative impact of centralization. I bet you the answer would be no.....they many have never even considered the implications. And for the few that answer in the affirmative, they would generally believe that there are no practical alternatives to the current status quo anyway. So the mass market is not clamoring for an alternate. In fact most have not identified the issue. In this case we in the crypto community are the advance guard.....the riders at the leading edge of the wave, if you will. The market we are going after is not the crypomarket.........if all we do is capture the current crypto market this project would be a failure IMO. There is far more unrecognized demand out there, it is just a matter of the packaging and presentation of the product and getting our value proposition and story in focus . Since in the wider market the issues we here see as pressing - centralization of control and undue influence in the economic system- are not yet pressing concerns with clear alternatives (thought they are ever so slowly becoming so), we have time to get our decentralization framework right. I feel we are moving in this direction. However, we do not need to rush this transition due to fear of alienating the markets. The mass markets don't care about decentralization (as we here do). When WILL they care? It is really unknown and surely out of our control, but my opinion is that they will not start to really pay attention to the issue of centralization until this whole monetary system begins to swerve into the ditch (ala Cypress).
Quote from: Stan on October 26, 2014, 06:13:49 pmQuote from: Empirical1.1 on October 26, 2014, 03:57:05 pmI had similar panic concerns fluxer https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9539.msg124040#msg124040To be the winner right now though is all about getting the best talent & marketing. Good devs are clearly worth their weight in gold. I think dilution is the best solution for BitShares. There has also been some limits placed on the dilution.I do worry that if the market views BitShares as partly centralised already, then I think our valuation is going to be significantly handicapped as a result even in the short term so it's also something I've been keen to address by encouraging more voting as well as not keeping too much BTSX on the big exchanges.Setting aside the fact that BitShares is far more effectively decentralized than most of its true competitors, that is of little concern. We are also more decentralized than most companies people routinely do business with. The demographic we will market to first does not generally care about this any more than they stop to consider the share distribution of Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, or Benny's Car Parts Outlet. Yeah I can see you guys are envisioning people using a variety of front end applications and the fact that it's BitShares on the back end & how it works may be largely irrelevant to them. Personally I think the main market will be BitAssets. I think the brand image of BitShares, particularly the level of perceived decentralisation could be important. On the shareholder side, if you're perceived to have centralised weaknesses and/or are ever operating in grey areas then they may value BitShares on a very short earnings horizon vs. a competitor that was perceived to be more decentralised, who could therefore achieve a higher valuation and raise more funds via dilution as a result.BitShares is pretty decentralised though, and I'm really about encouraging more active voting stake and less on big exchanges than anything else.
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on October 26, 2014, 03:57:05 pmI had similar panic concerns fluxer https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9539.msg124040#msg124040To be the winner right now though is all about getting the best talent & marketing. Good devs are clearly worth their weight in gold. I think dilution is the best solution for BitShares. There has also been some limits placed on the dilution.I do worry that if the market views BitShares as partly centralised already, then I think our valuation is going to be significantly handicapped as a result even in the short term so it's also something I've been keen to address by encouraging more voting as well as not keeping too much BTSX on the big exchanges.Setting aside the fact that BitShares is far more effectively decentralized than most of its true competitors, that is of little concern. We are also more decentralized than most companies people routinely do business with. The demographic we will market to first does not generally care about this any more than they stop to consider the share distribution of Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, or Benny's Car Parts Outlet.
I had similar panic concerns fluxer https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9539.msg124040#msg124040To be the winner right now though is all about getting the best talent & marketing. Good devs are clearly worth their weight in gold. I think dilution is the best solution for BitShares. There has also been some limits placed on the dilution.I do worry that if the market views BitShares as partly centralised already, then I think our valuation is going to be significantly handicapped as a result even in the short term so it's also something I've been keen to address by encouraging more voting as well as not keeping too much BTSX on the big exchanges.
I don't think its a problem, considering that they are actually creating Bitshares, and we need them to develop it. Without the devs, a coin is nothing.
Good devs are clearly worth their weight in gold.
- There is no distinction between 'I3 funds' and 'personal funds of I3 members' as far as voting is concerned.
When delegates get paid with new share reciepts, that is exactly what is happening. They are getting credit for their added contributions.So, if you are tempted to use the word "inflation" with respect to BitShares, stop. Go back to first principles and be happy.
jsidhu, I know you were an excited supporter of the idea, but I have come to realize that the burning mechanism is economically flawed. There are ideas in that proposal worth salvaging, and I will get around to it, but I think this is more important. I'm actually almost done...
bitUSD, bitCNY, et. al, are the currencies. They are the stable units of account pegged to other currencies.
Quoteauthor=fluxer555 link=topic=10583.msg139218#msg139218 date=1414332467]QuoteFirstly, inflation is not "capital infusion". It's a redistribution of wealth. No new money is entering the system, and the market cap does not increase as a result.The "inflation" is not just given away. It is traded for performance of the devs which adds value to the DAC, which ,yes, should/will result in increase market cap.
author=fluxer555 link=topic=10583.msg139218#msg139218 date=1414332467]
Firstly, inflation is not "capital infusion". It's a redistribution of wealth. No new money is entering the system, and the market cap does not increase as a result.
AGS fund belongs to who?& who have the rights to use?
Quote from: bytemaster on October 26, 2014, 03:19:18 pmThe bts owned by i3 is less than 100m. Thank you. If this is genuine, this makes me feel much better about all this. I can more easily stand behind funding your development team knowing you collectively have less than 5%.This conversation has derailed, however. The main purpose of this thread was about VOTING POWER. It does not make sense for I3 to use AGS stake, or any stake deriving from AGS stake, to vote. This stake should not even be included in the voting total (denominator). We donated for shares in future DACs and developments, not for centralizing voting toward I3.This has given me an idea... I will be posting a new proposal soon.
The bts owned by i3 is less than 100m.
Quote from: trader on October 26, 2014, 04:42:16 pmI keep thinking to myself that I should just code up a localbitcoins site that acts as the escrow 3rd party. I could do it in about a month in my spare time. But then I question whether this is needed given that i3 has secret plans for a fiat on-ramp anyway.That sounds very useful!
I keep thinking to myself that I should just code up a localbitcoins site that acts as the escrow 3rd party. I could do it in about a month in my spare time. But then I question whether this is needed given that i3 has secret plans for a fiat on-ramp anyway.
Quote from: bytemaster on October 26, 2014, 02:58:24 pmYou seem to struggle putting yourself in the devs shoes. You own a stake but sit back and do nothing, a dev likely owns a smaller stake than you that they bought with their own money just like you. The smart think for a dev to do is work somewhere else, earn money and buy more stake. You are asking devs to give up $100,000 per year they could be earning at google to grow their $25,000 stake in BTS that they bought with their own money. Then you realize that they have to sell their stake to put food on the table while you get to keep your stake and do nothing. I think Amir Taaki is the best example of what a massive injustice the "expectations of free work" that bitcoin stakeholders have to their developers, is. He's a guy who has refused to give up on his core principles and work for what he considers the betterment of bitcoin users ONLY, with no special interests. And in return he is given nothing.He has to beg for scraps, squat on random peoples couches and be known as a fringey lunatic by the community. This is the guy who was behind libbitcoin, the first independent implementation of the bitcoin client that is now used at the core of dark wallet, openbazaar and some other big wallet projects. No wonder he's being weird, he's had to eat shit while idiots (like me) were able to buy in before the big bubbles and just sit back and rake in tonnes of money for doing nothing.Man I'm so looking forward to when we can hire Amir and pay him a rock star salary, because he really deserves that.
You seem to struggle putting yourself in the devs shoes. You own a stake but sit back and do nothing, a dev likely owns a smaller stake than you that they bought with their own money just like you. The smart think for a dev to do is work somewhere else, earn money and buy more stake. You are asking devs to give up $100,000 per year they could be earning at google to grow their $25,000 stake in BTS that they bought with their own money. Then you realize that they have to sell their stake to put food on the table while you get to keep your stake and do nothing.
You seem to struggle putting yourself in the devs shoes. You own a stake but sit back and do nothing, a dev likely owns a smaller stake than you that they bought with their own money just like you. The smart think for a dev to do is work somewhere else, earn money and buy more stake. You are asking devs to give up $100,000 per year they could be earning at google to grow their $25,000 stake in BTS that they bought with their own money. Then you realize that they have to sell their stake to put food on the table while you get to keep your stake and do nothing.End result you get a share in the growth they produced, but they pay 100% of the cost. Wealth transfer from dev to you.
Quote from: gamey on October 26, 2014, 04:04:52 pmWith inflation and our voter turnout levels, it is likely good to have a benevolent large stake-holder. I suppose one could say their faith in Dan has been lost after changing of social consensus etc. If you do not take this view, and think it was all ultimately for the better then one should be happy that they have such a large stake. The fact is that the pot of money that has been created via share creation will need to be defended.Yip I do not take that view, I'm happy there are large benevolent voting stakes but I'd still like limits & I'm also concerned with how the market may view things. On a personal level I actually get more concerned seeing BTC38 etc. having a 10%+ stake, even though I'm sure they're lovely people.I think the threat of the Vote DAC made BTSX realise the need for compromise, merging & dilution. However PTS & AGS weren't put in that situation. I think if BTSX had added dilution and started merging and competing, PTS & AGS may have realised like BTSX did, their models were not competitive & that the deal to bring them in and give them nearly 10% in BTS(X) again, was actually very generous and a way for BM to include all supporting parties in his vision. Having said that PTS & AGS don't have tools for consensus so any significant change was going to be tough. I'm looking forward to moving on with some certainty myself.
With inflation and our voter turnout levels, it is likely good to have a benevolent large stake-holder. I suppose one could say their faith in Dan has been lost after changing of social consensus etc. If you do not take this view, and think it was all ultimately for the better then one should be happy that they have such a large stake. The fact is that the pot of money that has been created via share creation will need to be defended.
Quote from: fluxer555 on October 26, 2014, 02:52:43 pmQuote from: bytemaster on October 26, 2014, 02:35:22 pmI suppose you value developers time a 0 then? Are they supposed to transfer value of their time and opportunity cost to everyone else for free. Suppose developers went on strike you would want to hire new devs right? Who should pay for it? Doesn't the market cap grow as a result of developer effort?It's complex. Do you consider time spent as "capital"? Also, if the developer owns shares already, then he can be compensated through profit/appreciation. If you went on strike it would not be in your benefit, as a shareholder. I'm all for compensating the work, however I think it may be unnecessary to throw loads more cash at the devs, at least at this point in the game. I think I3 has plenty of cash, and if they start spending it as if they had more funds, then all the shareholders could see that they're capable of results, and will give them more.It would make sense for you to stop working only if you sold all your shares, or you felt that the amount of shares you own are not enough, both of which I think are not true.Please correct me if I am misinterpreting what you are suggesting.....Is it your argument that the developers spend their time and effort to improve the bitshares ecosystem simply because it is in their interest as shareholders? That they should work for free because their efforts would result in an increase in price of the shares they already own?
Quote from: bytemaster on October 26, 2014, 02:35:22 pmI suppose you value developers time a 0 then? Are they supposed to transfer value of their time and opportunity cost to everyone else for free. Suppose developers went on strike you would want to hire new devs right? Who should pay for it? Doesn't the market cap grow as a result of developer effort?It's complex. Do you consider time spent as "capital"? Also, if the developer owns shares already, then he can be compensated through profit/appreciation. If you went on strike it would not be in your benefit, as a shareholder. I'm all for compensating the work, however I think it may be unnecessary to throw loads more cash at the devs, at least at this point in the game. I think I3 has plenty of cash, and if they start spending it as if they had more funds, then all the shareholders could see that they're capable of results, and will give them more.It would make sense for you to stop working only if you sold all your shares, or you felt that the amount of shares you own are not enough, both of which I think are not true.
I suppose you value developers time a 0 then? Are they supposed to transfer value of their time and opportunity cost to everyone else for free. Suppose developers went on strike you would want to hire new devs right? Who should pay for it? Doesn't the market cap grow as a result of developer effort?
Quote from: Rune on October 26, 2014, 03:07:50 pmMan I'm so looking forward to when we can hire Amir and pay him a rock star salary, because he really deserves that.BAM!! .. write him a mail so he can prepare for that!
Man I'm so looking forward to when we can hire Amir and pay him a rock star salary, because he really deserves that.
Quote from: fluxer555 on October 26, 2014, 02:52:43 pmQuote from: bytemaster on October 26, 2014, 02:35:22 pmI suppose you value developers time a 0 then? Are they supposed to transfer value of their time and opportunity cost to everyone else for free. Suppose developers went on strike you would want to hire new devs right? Who should pay for it? Doesn't the market cap grow as a result of developer effort?It's complex. Do you consider time spent as "capital"? Also, if the developer owns shares already, then he can be compensated through profit/appreciation. If you went on strike it would not be in your benefit, as a shareholder. I'm all for compensating the work, however I think it may be unnecessary to throw loads more cash at the devs, at least at this point in the game. I think I3 has plenty of cash, and if they start spending it as if they had more funds, then all the shareholders could see that they're capable of results, and will give them more.It would make sense for you to stop working only if you sold all your shares, or you felt that the amount of shares you own are not enough, both of which I think are not true.Please correct me if I am misinterpreting what you are suggesting.....Is it your argument that the developers spend their time and effort to improve the bitshares ecosystem simply because it is in their interest as shareholders? That they should work for free because their efforts would result in an increase in price of the shares they already own? Edit: And of course increase in the price in the shares you own as well.....?
Please correct me if I am misinterpreting what you are suggesting.....Is it your argument that the developers spend their time and effort to improve the bitshares ecosystem simply because it is in their interest as shareholders? That they should work for free because their efforts would result in an increase in price of the shares they already own? Sorry, not accusing, just trying to clarify
You seem to struggle putting yourself in the devs shoes. You own a stake but sit back and do nothing, a dev likely owns a smaller stake than you that they bought with their own money just like you.
Quote from: xeroc on October 26, 2014, 01:39:43 pmOnce, the developers work for the blockchain and get payed by "capital infusion" there will be no more I3 .. and all funds that are owned by I3 will be goneFirstly, inflation is not "capital infusion". It's a redistribution of wealth. No new money is entering the system, and the market cap does not increase as a result.
Once, the developers work for the blockchain and get payed by "capital infusion" there will be no more I3 .. and all funds that are owned by I3 will be gone