Quote from: Empirical1.1 on December 26, 2014, 12:35:44 am

Quote from: islandking on December 25, 2014, 11:57:25 pm

Quote from: Ander on December 25, 2014, 11:46:06 pm

Sell your PTS, buy some BTS, and release your video.

  We all need to be on the same team for this to be extremely successful.

By analogy, I think it's fine for shareholders to have positions in and support multiple companies and even direct competitors.

But I don't think it's OK to give 33% equity to a competitor in anything without shareholder approval though. Especially, when said shareholders have just paid a fortune to buy out said competitor.

Sharedrops are given to the owners/customers of a competitor, not to the competitor. 
This is a valid concept that may or may not entice some of them away from the competitor.
(It hasn't really been tried yet except in some ancient discussion about DNS sharedropping on Namecoin users.)

In the case of DevShares, its intended customer base is DPOS developers and ecosystem partners, including those who may prefer the new PTS positioning as a "neutral" share drop target.  So naturally its sharedrop should be engineered to attract such customers wherever we can find them.  The only other airdroppable source of potential DPOS customers is PLAY and MUSIC.  I can see advantages to trying to motivate their developers to use the same test chain as well.  Standardization, cross-pollination of ideas, more testing on common code modules and continued code compatibility testing come to mind.

Many advantages, come to think of it.  Hmmmm....

BTS literally just paid millions of dollars to absorb PTS 39 days prior. I highly doubt they attracted many DPOS customers in 39 days and they have like 3 developers.

As it was something that effects BTS, done without shareholder consent & in favour of a competitor or customers of a competitor they feel they had just absorbed,  I'm pretty confident it will be overturned.

Quote from: Ander on December 25, 2014, 11:46:06 pm

Sell your PTS, buy some BTS, and release your video.

  We all need to be on the same team for this to be extremely successful.

By analogy, I think it's fine for shareholders to have positions in and support multiple companies and even direct competitors.

But I don't think it's OK to give 33% equity to a competitor in anything without shareholder approval though. Especially, when said shareholders have just paid a fortune to buy out said competitor.

Quote

Quote

Would you be angry if the devs coordinated a massive dump to test out undercollateralization?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!

Would you be angry if the devs discovered and exploited a bug in DVS which permanently brought down the network and forced a reset?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!

Would you be angry if the devs reset the network and allocated 100% to Vikram?
DON'T HOLD DEVSHARES!

The counter argument is that, devshares will be the platform that gets exposed to the best new Bitshares features first (if I understand the intention of a release-candidate/test platform correctly). 

Someone outside the community who hears about some new feature development in a public press-release for example, and wants to get involved, is going to be told that it's not in Bitshares BTS yet but is in devshares.

The first thing they will want to know is how to acquire devshares.
 
 Also, If Bitshares' developers are paid out of BTS contributions through delegate inflation, then it should be BTS holders that are the recipient of sharedrops irrespective of the perceived value. Dropping to PTS gives PTS a lot symbolic legitimacy when BTS holders already paid to acquire them, at least that seems to be the common understanding.

Yeah I would be worried if DVS is traded that it could be a competitor. My worst case scenario is something like...

DVS -  The Trojan Horse

- The sharedrop will make DVS independent of BTS & seem well distributed.
- Key BTS developers will buy it up after it's purposely made pretty worthless at first.
- The result is you now have a traded DAC that looks well distributed, isn't beholden to BTS and all the key BTS talent has a much larger % stake in.
- Will all the BTS development talent be incentivised to turn DVS into something more over time at the expense of, but while being salaried by BTS? 

Crazy I know 

Quote from: Empirical1.1 on December 25, 2014, 06:26:37 pm

It's irrelevant whether DVS is worth $0.01

It's the principal of BTS or devs being seen to direct anything at post 11/05 PTS.

This is my issue too. It's about respect, and about whether or not BTS delegates actually work for BTS and can be trusted by stakeholders to have their best interests in mind.

pre OR post PTS shouldn't get them, since it is BTS ONLY who will have to pay for whatever minuscule value DVS gets through dilution of OUR funds. PTS/AGS already diluted us 25% in an agreement I think was very fair. There is no need to continue pushing through wealth transfers from us to them, in any shape or form, no matter the amount. They already received enough. It's simply exhausting that as a stakeholder you have to be on guard against this kind of stuff even now, months later. It should be a closed chapter.

"What's the next thing that our delegates will give to PTS/AGS?" This is the question that makes people paranoid.

Edit: honoring the 11/5 snapshot is also fair since that was what originally announced. The current sharedrop to the undead PTS just must be undone. Its a question of avoiding a new integrity crisis and split of the community. No matter how good our tech is we will not survive if we just keep having PR blunder after PR blunder like this.

It's unfortunate as the PR blunders over a low/no value DVS overshadows potentially positive development news of BitShares Object Graph https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12647.0

It's irrelevant whether DVS is worth $0.01

It's the principal of BTS or devs being seen to direct anything at post 11/05 PTS.

This is just an idea I haven't really thought through.

- I think it would be good if we had 4/5 BitAssets on the front CMC page. Which currently requires > $125 000 CAP
- I think it would be great if those 4/5 markets were more active on a day to day basis
- I think it would be great if some of that volume flowed through places like bter and started to build a more liquid market there.

Delegates could do this without it costing BTS very much at all because the value wouldn't be leaving BTS.

The advantage is we would also hedge our ability to self-fund against a fall in BTS price buy having a pool of BitAssets. We would be able to have bounty delegates who could pay for one off projects.

Disadvantage is that it would require a lot of trust in a few delegates.

Thoughts?

I agree, if we could advertise that a single delegate paid 10k it would be a lot easier to get attention. We have precedence for a single person running several paid delegates though, so it should be possible for a well established bitcoin/altcoin dev like Taaki or Todd (my two favorite "targets") to get enough delegates voted in for them to receive a fair market rate salary (especially considering the immediate market cap benefit their announcement would give us). Problem is that we can't simply approach them and "offer" such a position. They still publicly have to do a lot of work themselves to get the votes, and it won't really be possible to do behind-the-scenes negotiations and then only announce the deal when it's already closed.

I would be interested in testing this. I think BTS should attempt to get some developer on a three month trial/contract and view how much value the market gives moves like that.

I think big BitAsset announcements are far more value changing though. BTC38 & BitCNY was absolutely huge, it was up 20% at one point I think. We weren't able to judge how valuable that was because it coincided with the big fork. I think that announcement alone could have really marked a significant turning point in BTS growth otherwise.