0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
NO.1 = NO.2 Obviously dispersed the same kind of people.What a fucking design of vote!!!
Quote from: sudo on October 25, 2014, 10:10:13 amwhy not AGS10% PTS10% BTS10%?Too much. It's already hard to explain why they should give 20% away, and you want them to give 30%?Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
why not AGS10% PTS10% BTS10%?
Quote from: amencon on October 25, 2014, 02:08:31 amSomeone did the math in another thread (forget which now) but I believe it was around 100BTS per PTS and 80something per AGS. I think the higher PTS number was due to not having all 2b mined yet.The math in real time: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M65Gt1mFstAgTkECJfUX18f187tGzqJeXT7877qLv-M/edit#gid=0
Someone did the math in another thread (forget which now) but I believe it was around 100BTS per PTS and 80something per AGS. I think the higher PTS number was due to not having all 2b mined yet.
One of the pressing questions we face in the long-term is the issue of 3rd-party DAC developers and who they should airdrop to. Here are the options that I've seen discussed (my favorite option is #3 or #4, btw):1. We could leave AGS as-is, and port only PTS into GENESIS (user-issued asset on BTS). That way, GENESIS is essentially PTS 2.0, and we preserve the idea that AGS is the illiquid share class, PTS is the liquid one.2. There have been at least two proposals (by Shentist and emski, I believe) to create a user-issued asset on the new BTS called GENESIS and snapshot it 50/50 AGS/PTS. Then new DACs would honor GENESIS with a 20% snapshot. I'm not crazy about combining AGS with anything like that. IMO, AGS should be left alone (disclosure: I own only 12 AGS; I'm not speaking from dishonest bias here).3. Let PTS end, but preserve AGS. Now, 3rd-party devs would be recommended to honor 10% AGS and 10% BTS. It does still give a slight preference to pre-Feb28 donators, but only a slight one, and preserves the original intentions of AGS. It ends PTS, which simplifies the marketing message (PTS was always a weird idea, don't you think?). 4. Invictus has floated the idea that they should honor the new BTS with 20%. The rationale is that the new BTS snapshotted AGS/PTS and thus honoring BTS is like honoring AGS/PTS. The dramatic flaw in this proposal is that it gives a huge preference to pre-Feb28 AGS donators. For that reason, I strongly oppose this option because it's severely unfair to those who donated after the original BTSX snapshot.Discuss. Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
Quote from: justin on October 25, 2014, 07:07:47 amthe poll is wrong setting, (1)and (2)are the same situation。and should be combined!投票设置有陷阱!(1)和(2)选项是一回事儿!都是支持AGSer 和 PTSer各10%。分开设置,分散了AGSer 和PTSer的集中度,使得BTS占了大便宜!他奶奶的!比BM还阴损!
the poll is wrong setting, (1)and (2)are the same situation。and should be combined!
The math in real time: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M65Gt1mFstAgTkECJfUX18f187tGzqJeXT7877qLv-M/edit#gid=0
BM said in mumble that he recommends the PTS/AGS 10/10% continue indefinitely, instead of honoring BitShares. If they are not liquid it would not be a way to buy in though.
Quote from: biophil on October 24, 2014, 02:26:21 pm4. Invictus has floated the idea that they should honor the new BTS with 20%. The rationale is that the new BTS snapshotted AGS/PTS and thus honoring BTS is like honoring AGS/PTS. The dramatic flaw in this proposal is that it gives a huge preference to pre-Feb28 AGS donators. For that reason, I strongly oppose this option because it's severely unfair to those who donated after the original BTSX snapshot.Could you elaborate on the bold text please. I'm still not clear on the math and I'm both pre/post-Feb28 PTS (10x more post-Feb28) and all post-Feb28 for AGS.Does anyone know the actual # of shares per PTS/AGS a person will receive for each proposed allocation method? The percentages aren't really helping me because I'm unclear on the #'s associated with those percentages.Thanks for any help!
4. Invictus has floated the idea that they should honor the new BTS with 20%. The rationale is that the new BTS snapshotted AGS/PTS and thus honoring BTS is like honoring AGS/PTS. The dramatic flaw in this proposal is that it gives a huge preference to pre-Feb28 AGS donators. For that reason, I strongly oppose this option because it's severely unfair to those who donated after the original BTSX snapshot.
We should add if airdrop to AGS/pts then can not use bitusd.
Quote from: Riverhead on October 24, 2014, 05:38:41 pmQuote from: CLains on October 24, 2014, 05:22:55 pmI vote simplicity: 20% to BTS is complicated enough.It could be argued that the only way to buy the GENESIS asset is with BTS so it's effectively adding a wasted step. However, it could also be argued that there is opportunity cost in holding GENESIS in the hopes a great new DAC comes along to increase its value or give you a cheaper foothold in the new product.Also, it depends how we view the social contract: Which of these better captures the spirit?(a) Early risk takers bought into an unknown team developing an unknown product with the promise their early risk would pay dividends for years in every new product.(b) New DAC developers will want to airdrop to GENESIS holders because they'll gain instant community support and to some extent user base.Either way if GENESIS is liquid it's a moot point. Those that view (a) would hold and those that view (b) would sell or buy with the market.BM said in mumble that he recommends the PTS/AGS 10/10% continue indefinitely, instead of honoring BitShares. If they are not liquid it would not be a way to buy in though.
Quote from: CLains on October 24, 2014, 05:22:55 pmI vote simplicity: 20% to BTS is complicated enough.It could be argued that the only way to buy the GENESIS asset is with BTS so it's effectively adding a wasted step. However, it could also be argued that there is opportunity cost in holding GENESIS in the hopes a great new DAC comes along to increase its value or give you a cheaper foothold in the new product.Also, it depends how we view the social contract: Which of these better captures the spirit?(a) Early risk takers bought into an unknown team developing an unknown product with the promise their early risk would pay dividends for years in every new product.(b) New DAC developers will want to airdrop to GENESIS holders because they'll gain instant community support and to some extent user base.Either way if GENESIS is liquid it's a moot point. Those that view (a) would hold and those that view (b) would sell or buy with the market.
I vote simplicity: 20% to BTS is complicated enough.
I vote simplicity: 20% to BTS is complicated enough.Personally I would gain more from 3, but this would be tremendously myopic. We need to think big! In addition, if people want to honor AGS or PTS they can do so if they want; AGS is already in stone, and PTS will be soon.
Quote from: biophil on October 24, 2014, 02:26:21 pmOne of the pressing questions we face in the long-term is the issue of 3rd-party DAC developers and who they should airdrop to. Here are the options that I've seen discussed (my favorite option is #3 or #4, btw):1. We could leave AGS as-is, and port only PTS into GENESIS (user-issued asset on BTS). That way, GENESIS is essentially PTS 2.0, and we preserve the idea that AGS is the illiquid share class, PTS is the liquid one.2. There have been at least two proposals (by Shentist and emski, I believe) to create a user-issued asset on the new BTS called GENESIS and snapshot it 50/50 AGS/PTS. Then new DACs would honor GENESIS with a 20% snapshot. I'm not crazy about combining AGS with anything like that. IMO, AGS should be left alone (disclosure: I own only 12 AGS; I'm not speaking from dishonest bias here).3. Let PTS end, but preserve AGS. Now, 3rd-party devs would be recommended to honor 10% AGS and 10% BTS. It does still give a slight preference to pre-Feb28 donators, but only a slight one, and preserves the original intentions of AGS. It ends PTS, which simplifies the marketing message (PTS was always a weird idea, don't you think?). 4. Invictus has floated the idea that they should honor the new BTS with 20%. The rationale is that the new BTS snapshotted AGS/PTS and thus honoring BTS is like honoring AGS/PTS. The dramatic flaw in this proposal is that it gives a huge preference to pre-Feb28 AGS donators. For that reason, I strongly oppose this option because it's severely unfair to those who donated after the original BTSX snapshot.Discuss. Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2Let's not forget that pre-Feb28 AGS Donators paid a huge premium.Also destroying AGS might be a good idea, with the SEC knocking on "crypto IPO" doors