Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I don't think it would be a good idea to hard code a share dilution for a fixes amount of time. Would there be a possibility to do a temporary share dilution without hard forking? Would be helpful, especially at the beginning, in case tx fees are not enough and the gains from adoption would be the highest.QuoteWhy not just let all delegates keep as much of the fee from their blocks as they want, and destroy the rest? If they abuse that, they'll be voted out quickly, and the market will naturally regulate the dividend rate and strategies for reinvestment.This is a good idea and would be necessary if delegates also make reinvestment decisions. My concern was that an entity with an interest to harm the network that has a lot of financial backup (like a state) can survive this low compensation better. But there is probably no way to prevent it and a harmful actor could obfuscate its identity anyway. Could it?
I thought about whether it is a problem that the max. amount of votes a delegate can get is 2% of all votes (pro - contra votes). But is should be no problem if it is not possible to vote for a delegate that would have more than 2% if you voted for him. Then the personal or team behind the delegate has to set up a new delegate...
The problem with this is that if you're reinvesting profits funneled through a small number of individuals, it isn't exactly a DAC anymore, and you start having more of the problems you have with traditional centralized structures. Funneling the profits through the delegates who are elected by stakeholders I think mostly solves this, but I don't see a need to artificially fix the percentage of transaction fees available to them for profit and reinvestment in the success of the network.
Why not just let all delegates keep as much of the fee from their blocks as they want, and destroy the rest? If they abuse that, they'll be voted out quickly, and the market will naturally regulate the dividend rate and strategies for reinvestment.QuoteWhy not just let all delegates keep as much of the fee from their blocks as they want, and destroy the rest? If they abuse that, they'll be voted out quickly, and the market will naturally regulate the dividend rate and strategies for reinvestment.This might be good for political delegates (potentially not trustworthy?) and not sustainable for those delegates that only do it for profit.QuoteThe problem with this is that if you're reinvesting profits funneled through a small number of individuals, it isn't exactly a DAC anymore, and you start having more of the problems you have with traditional centralized structures.Companies like DACs can hire other companies and outsource something that can not be done inhouse. This is the case anyway because there will de facto always be a developer (team) that maintains the DAC and thus performs such an outside service to it.QuoteFunneling the profits through the delegates who are elected by stakeholders I think mostly solves thisOf course delegates have to be paid sufficiently. But that was not the point. The point was whether is makes sense to invest the companies revenues and / or shares into marketing so the price increase because of adoption increase can (by far) make good the expenses.
Or do you mean that the delegates should decide how to invest the money? That could make a lot of sense. It would be like the CEOs of a company deciding what to do with the money from revenue and whether it makes sense to issue new shares and then reinvest it or pay dividends.
(wallet closed) >>> get_info
{
"balance": 0,
"unlocked_until": "19700101T000000",
"version": 100,
"protocolversion": 100,
"walletversion": 100,
"chain_id": "ed2c3dba64a343002734f782bb3bc831a99a14c80490b85bfbf33751793469cc",
"symbol": "XTS",
"interval_seconds": 30,
"blocks": 7,
"current_share_supply": 80000000000000,
"shares_per_bip": 0,
"random_seed": "3bcace0f27b9d56d6e6fd9ac79ddf1aed0c30e1e000000000000000000000000",
"connections": 2,
"rpc_port": 5679,
"_node_id": "ee2d8e5611b6515825615b3f243ad6880d0f47e7",
"_fc_revision": "9f6b52eac2221f398896b318bd46824ee54623e0",
"_bitshares_toolkit_revision": "b8d61f18221fb6adfa30d1213a5ea43957c86ad0"
}
You don't want to create demand by appealing to people who want to make money by overcharging others to play a game that there's no reason for it to cost that much to play.
This is a subtle insight into how the coin might play out. Given that ChanceCoin seems to be floundering on a very price competitive 1% house rake . . . we might indeed do better by offering a 10% commission to ticket sellers/processors. I think usually people choose to play a lottery for reasons other than price competitiveness . . . excitement, convenience, timing etc.
The problem is .dac or .coin are really specific, so while they are better in each specific utility they are not better in all cases. because Nikolai specified he wants a single TLD, I think we need to pick something that can be applied to any circumstance like .p2p which defines the tranmission method rather than being suggestive of the content contained therin.
Open to other suggestions but I think they need to be non-specific so .coin and .dac are out.
I am all for charities, as you know from lotto and previous thread.
Why?
Number 1: Charities / Good causes will make (hopefully) the best use of the money.
And of course:
It helps to launch the charity / lotto DAC, as it initialises the selection of potential charities.
It will help to clear bad images of crypto in general and show our good will.
It will introduce to people outside of the crypto circle, the potentials of DACs and the offerings we provide.
Many others...
My suggestion would be to clone the new PTS2 coin (or whatever it will be called). Then airdrop 100% of it to AGS holders once the AGS donation period has ended, claimable only by those who have keys to donor addresses. Let them sell it or keep it, their choice. This would unlock some monetary value for those folks who don't want to hold or anyone else who wants to trim their holdings. And it would not hurt 3I the way that an early end to AGS would leave less for development/marketing. Plus, this would give new interested "investors" a chance to join late and still participate by buying AGS coins. And then use that new AGS coin for any future DACs to take their AGS snapshots.
Stan, do you understand the difference between a mathematically controlled logarithmic inflation and what you are proposing? If you know anything about the time-value relationship of money you would not try to equate an instantaneous frontloaded 15% centralized inflation scheme with what PTS currently has. It does amount to a theft of 15% from current shareholders. In other words, if I sold my coins tomorrow or next month we both know I would not incur the full 15% inflation. AGS contributors were promised a stake in FUTURE DACS, not the upgrade of PTS (which they knew about prior to investing in AGS). This hypothetical objection from AGS holders is a fiction, and is perfectly staged to grab 15% of our equity in the name of "fairness." I expected more from you guys.
No, I'm just trying to suggest that some of the negative posters move on; if you don't get it now, then I don't think the next few months are going to be pleasant for you and you may want to look for something that meets your needs better. The most important thing about this PTS2 proposal (aside from the needed upgrade that will eliminate mining inflation) is that we need a PR blitz as these DACs come out. If you're content to sit on your PTS/AGS and hope you will be successful, I think you're missing the point that we need a large influx of additional people and investment into this ecosystem. The fact that you think the 15% dilutes your value is extremely short-sighted when you consider how many magnitudes greater that value could be if we can use that 15% to create a buzz.
So call it what it is then - a donation. And feel free to donate 15%, heck even 50% of your PTS. Just don't force the rest of us to do it and don't try to call it "fair" by equating it to the mining block reward.
New Decentralized Crowdfunding Platform Could Reshape Bitcoin Landscape
http://www.coindesk.com/new-decentralized-crowdfunding-platform-reshape-bitcoin-landscape/
Great idea, but not really the same thing.
Still, that raises a question, when ME come out after PTS2, how do we turn it into the next Facebook or Twitter? How do we get everyone to do their own "IPO" from Lucy's Lemonade to BitShares Music?
Certainly a Shark Tank competition for the best new "IPOs" with a $10,000 prize every week might prime the pump. And once there are a few dozen trade-worthy offerings to speculate on, we've got a great training ground for people to move up to the major leagues of trading DACs, currencies, and commodities on the X chains.
There might even be a grant to help one of the weekly winners graduate to an independent DAC...
Just sayin'...
...
This is good. A viral component puts the strategy into a whole new category.
What did you think of Elon Musk's strategy where everyone got $10 for signing up and $10 for each person they signed up?
Theoretically, a million dollars could motivate maybe 50,000 sign-ups...
Of course, we'd have to decide what it means to "sign up". Getting 50,000 users for Keyhotee waiting for all our DACs to plop into their wallets would seem to take things to another level...
Combine that with your idea - competing to be the most private/secure communities, for example - would be a nice synergy.
