0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: cass on September 11, 2014, 07:39:28 pmindeed, really outdated! any feedback on this? Adam?He changed his name to Eagleeye. Didn't you know? Just kidding.
indeed, really outdated! any feedback on this? Adam?
Quote from: bytemaster on March 09, 2014, 08:42:09 pmFuznuts, you made a good post. Some things to realize about Brian Page.... he has a flair for things that grab attention and may not be practical. His job is to get attention and he thinks outside the box. Whether or not having actual sharks makes sense as something that would attract people I do not know. Brian is still learning his target audience and is pulling from experience he has in other fields where 'stunts' generate attention and thus sales. Gregory Wexler and his wife Amanda are working in the background with Brian to keep things in perspective with a focus on return on investment. Brian is doing a great job overall. Also note that Brian has been told that the conference should earn a profit, I have given him financial incentives to minimize the use of AGS funds and maximize the revenue from ticket sales. If everything works as planned the conference will cost the AGS holders nothing, generate a lot of publicity, and Brian will have earned a small profit for a job well done. Since we know a member of the real shark thank. Why not hold a bitshares Shark tank. On the board: Dan, Kevin, else. Maybe also Vitalik if you want to do it in cooperation with Ethereum. It wount bring Kevin the high tv ratings but he can sharpen his profile and reputation and show ppl that he has (investment) skills outside of the product line of a normal shark tank show which is not what serious investors look for really.
Fuznuts, you made a good post. Some things to realize about Brian Page.... he has a flair for things that grab attention and may not be practical. His job is to get attention and he thinks outside the box. Whether or not having actual sharks makes sense as something that would attract people I do not know. Brian is still learning his target audience and is pulling from experience he has in other fields where 'stunts' generate attention and thus sales. Gregory Wexler and his wife Amanda are working in the background with Brian to keep things in perspective with a focus on return on investment. Brian is doing a great job overall. Also note that Brian has been told that the conference should earn a profit, I have given him financial incentives to minimize the use of AGS funds and maximize the revenue from ticket sales. If everything works as planned the conference will cost the AGS holders nothing, generate a lot of publicity, and Brian will have earned a small profit for a job well done.
it seems this page is close to 'unmaintained' :-(
Can you add bitsharesX? Pls
The only problem is that Darth Vadar altered it for the worse... which means that from Adam's perspective changes that benefit AGS and PTS holders is seen as for the worse. This implies that he is in favor of us taking actions that would harm existing AGS and PTS holders and instead benefit some other group of people. His comments and angry posts on this forum have demonstrated a complete lack of consideration for the best interest of the community.
Quote from: donkeypong on March 07, 2014, 07:23:25 amThank you, bitbro! Half the freaking postings around here are from this Adam guy, who clearly does not feel like it's a good fit for him. He complains that his time is 150% committed and he doesn't have time for anything, yet he comes back here again and again to waste the time of these developers, who keep patiently responding to his crud. Move on already. How many times do you keep calling a girl who clearly isn't into you?Adam has clearly shown to be deeply committed and invested to making this whole DAC idea work. He has written, conversed, and added a ton of value to this space. What have you done besides shit on his work and say that he is wasting his time. Honestly if he isn't involved or has walked away, then that is a strong indication that we should leave as well.
Thank you, bitbro! Half the freaking postings around here are from this Adam guy, who clearly does not feel like it's a good fit for him. He complains that his time is 150% committed and he doesn't have time for anything, yet he comes back here again and again to waste the time of these developers, who keep patiently responding to his crud. Move on already. How many times do you keep calling a girl who clearly isn't into you?
I believe that making BTS 100% premined is a negative
Quote from: AdamBLevine on March 06, 2014, 05:04:46 amSeriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner. If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year. Don't predict outcomes, reward them. The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really. This is different.Out of this entire thread, I have to say this is the most lucid idea out there. It is SO simple to attain too...However, I can also say that in the grand scheme of things, Invictus has, after only 4 months they have a working beta in this BLEEDING edge of technology. In my humble opinion there is NO good reason to try to release numerous DACs all at once and this would put Invictus in a place where they are having to rush things that honestly do not need to be rushed. I don't care who comes out with the first banking DAC...I care about who comes out with the first FUNCTIONAL AND SECURE one. These things take time. How long did it take for Bitcoin to catch on again? Some might even say it STILL hasn't caught on. With that said, instead of putting your relatively large amount of capital to work posting bounties (like everyone else), POST A CHALLENGE for ANY team who breaks Bitshares. If they win, they receive an ample reward in the next, UPGRADED Bitshares chain and a temporary job with Invictus (maybe 1 year?). At that point, they are given the opportunity to fight it out yet again in ANOTHER competition. Developers who break and help strengthen BitShares will become FAMOUS among the Crypto Community and this will, in turn, bring more Devs who want to get that kind of recognition AND will enrich the entire crypto world. What better way to bring value to PTS/AGS than actually contributing something amazing to the world? I have seen some of those shitty places and I would give my PTS/AGS just to see it happen. Don't get profit and our real reason on this planet confused. Profit is not the master of Purpose.
Seriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner. If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year. Don't predict outcomes, reward them. The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really. This is different.
Who is this "we" that you speak of? I have read every one of Adam's posts, and although they contain some very interesting, informed and provocative ideas, I could not feel any less like leaving this community. In fact, the opposite, the complaining and fighting over the past few days has put a few areas and issues into better perspective for me personally, and now I want to contribute more actually as I have appreciated the responses from Invictus and their stance on these important matters.
Quote from: Ohpinot on March 07, 2014, 08:50:34 pmQuote from: donkeypong on March 07, 2014, 07:23:25 amThank you, bitbro! Half the freaking postings around here are from this Adam guy, who clearly does not feel like it's a good fit for him. He complains that his time is 150% committed and he doesn't have time for anything, yet he comes back here again and again to waste the time of these developers, who keep patiently responding to his crud. Move on already. How many times do you keep calling a girl who clearly isn't into you?Adam has clearly shown to be deeply committed and invested to making this whole DAC idea work. He has written, conversed, and added a ton of value to this space. What have you done besides shit on his work and say that he is wasting his time. Honestly if he isn't involved or has walked away, then that is a strong indication that we should leave as well.Who is this "we" that you speak of? I have read every one of Adam's posts, and although they contain some very interesting, informed and provocative ideas, I could not feel any less like leaving this community. In fact, the opposite, the complaining and fighting over the past few days has put a few areas and issues into better perspective for me personally, and now I want to contribute more actually as I have appreciated the responses from Invictus and their stance on these important matters. People come and people go, it is the natural ebb and flow of life, especially in a new community surrounding a new experiment in a completely new industry. Also, I really can not see the big value in third party DACs today. This shark tank concept and all of this fuss of AGS and PTS contribution from third parties and its potential value or non-value, just seems about as coherent as squabbling over property rights on the planet Mars. We can not even get there yet.Is there a big risk in just focusing 100% on Invictus DACs for a given time? (like Fuznuts is also suggesting) Am I missing something?
Quote from: bitbro on March 07, 2014, 09:01:58 pmQuote from: Ohpinot on March 07, 2014, 08:50:34 pmQuote from: donkeypong on March 07, 2014, 07:23:25 amThank you, bitbro! Half the freaking postings around here are from this Adam guy, who clearly does not feel like it's a good fit for him. He complains that his time is 150% committed and he doesn't have time for anything, yet he comes back here again and again to waste the time of these developers, who keep patiently responding to his crud. Move on already. How many times do you keep calling a girl who clearly isn't into you?Adam has clearly shown to be deeply committed and invested to making this whole DAC idea work. He has written, conversed, and added a ton of value to this space. What have you done besides shit on his work and say that he is wasting his time. Honestly if he isn't involved or has walked away, then that is a strong indication that we should leave as well.As far as I care to see it, this could probably be Adam under a new account Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkah, exactly what would be the point of that? He has nothing Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Ohpinot on March 07, 2014, 08:50:34 pmQuote from: donkeypong on March 07, 2014, 07:23:25 amThank you, bitbro! Half the freaking postings around here are from this Adam guy, who clearly does not feel like it's a good fit for him. He complains that his time is 150% committed and he doesn't have time for anything, yet he comes back here again and again to waste the time of these developers, who keep patiently responding to his crud. Move on already. How many times do you keep calling a girl who clearly isn't into you?Adam has clearly shown to be deeply committed and invested to making this whole DAC idea work. He has written, conversed, and added a ton of value to this space. What have you done besides shit on his work and say that he is wasting his time. Honestly if he isn't involved or has walked away, then that is a strong indication that we should leave as well.As far as I care to see it, this could probably be Adam under a new account Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why not have a simple way for developers to start an AGS 2.0 fund for any qualified DAC team that wants to develop - let them do more fund raising on our forum Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Stan on March 05, 2014, 09:29:34 pmThoughts? You need to use the Wisdom and Creativity of the Crowd as SANITY CHECK.This is impossible if you don't do detailed proposals before the allocation of resources. If you do so, you get to map potential flaws, suggested improvements and creative alternatives. If you don't, you'll be stuck with an idea born only of the faith the team or even one person has in it.Bytemaster has been doing this type of sanity check since 2010, and that why everyone trusts him; because he doesn't simply have faith in his own judgement.In addition to this critique of specific ideas, I would also argue that you need to involve the community in a) the very positing of ideas, and b) in the bigger picture. a) Involve the community in the positing of ideas by asking them to suggest alternative ideas. For instance, in the obi-wan meme thread the question remains, why only obi-wan memes?.b) Involve the community in the bigger picture by presenting it in detail. The big picture plan you have mapped out for the next year is just an idea like any other, it needs the same type of sanity check as all other ideas.It is a radical way to run a company and the legitimate objections I find is first, that openness about plans will allow others to sue, exploit or steal the ideas, and second, that it might lag the implementation process.
Thoughts?
You seem to think I mean "there shouldn't be a team developing"That's not what I mean. I mean if you put all your eggs in one basket, lets say all you invest in is Bitcoin. Then when Bitshares comes along and it starts going up in price, well you don't have any of that and it's getting all this attention instead of Bitcoin. What a dick that bitshares is, why can't they just get out of the way when Bitshares is really just a modification on the idea you already invested in Bitcoin. You don't want to get your head in a space where "Myself" = "The Investment" because that means if the investment has something going wrong with it, you'll miss it. You're too close to it. And to the guy who is all in Angelshares, that's exactly my point.
Quote from: AdamBLevine on March 06, 2014, 07:46:41 pmQuote from: bitbro on March 06, 2014, 07:25:32 pmThen I am a man of faith. Interesting.Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkFaith is easy when you pick a team and become blind to anything but what the association can bring you. As an investor the last thing you want to do is pick a team. If you're joining a religion, go for it.As an investor one of the first things I want to do is pick a team.The easiest example, though not entirely appropriate to this instance, is "franchises". One team in a very good location can have miserable results with a proven franchise concept. Let it be sold and another team take over, and the same location, same concept, can be wildly successful.A bad team can run ANYTHING into the ground. But Bitshares is not a franchise. It is original (the original vision which, if successful, can produce something akin to (NOT "equivalent to") franchise opportunities. It seems to me that the very purpose of this bitshares forum is to further the interests of PTS and AGS (BTS) holders. In what way has Invictus ever transgressed that purpose? Some other prominent posters however, have, to my thinking, clearly posted at cross purposes. They are, to put it succinctly, placing ads for their own projects rather than contributing to the purpose of this forum. This can be subtle (Charles Hoskinson, Barwizi, etc) or outright blatant (see the scam ads in OFF TOPIC).
Quote from: bitbro on March 06, 2014, 07:25:32 pmThen I am a man of faith. Interesting.Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkFaith is easy when you pick a team and become blind to anything but what the association can bring you. As an investor the last thing you want to do is pick a team. If you're joining a religion, go for it.
Then I am a man of faith. Interesting.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I disagree , I have complete trust because i3 continues to make the deal betterSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: AdamBLevine on March 06, 2014, 05:04:46 amSeriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner. If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year. Don't predict outcomes, reward them. The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really. This is different.Bounties rewarded for specific outcomes do work. Have you heard of Peter Diamandis and his X Prize Foundation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BltRufe5kkI
QuoteTo avoid what is already a huge problem, i gave PTS holders who were actually interested in my ideas a huge discount....see Invictus show any interest? Any support? NO...why? see the above quote.It's not complicated: You didn't follow the social contract, so you were deliberately marginalized. How do you know it wouldn't have looked different if you hadn't? QuoteIf you are so convinced by your "NETWORK EFFECT", please lets modify the PTS code and make an extra 2 million and push them out in a single block, the lets give them away, and watch how the price will react. Don't go asking devs to do something you clearly cannot do....what? That's *nothing* like asking you to honor 10/10 when you launch...
To avoid what is already a huge problem, i gave PTS holders who were actually interested in my ideas a huge discount....see Invictus show any interest? Any support? NO...why? see the above quote.
If you are so convinced by your "NETWORK EFFECT", please lets modify the PTS code and make an extra 2 million and push them out in a single block, the lets give them away, and watch how the price will react. Don't go asking devs to do something you clearly cannot do.
What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated. That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you.
Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you!
Let's wait and see how well they do compared to those that honor this community. Of course, if the community doesn't favor DACs that honor them and shun those who don't, we will be proven wrong. We don't exactly have a scientifically large sample yet.
Quote from: AdamBLevine on March 06, 2014, 05:04:46 amSeriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner. If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year. Don't predict outcomes, reward them. The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really. This is different.It's an intriguing concept worthy of consideration. Perhaps we can do both.Our view was that deploying a successful DAC was its own reward. Plenty of motivation at that end of the rainbow already.We figured what got in the way for people was lack of support funding when they really need it - before the DAC is developed. Our shark tank variant lets the little guy invest just enough to write a convincing proposal. If the angels and judges (not just Dan) like that proposal best, then the little guy gets all kinds of help while he is doing the development.
Quote from: AdamBLevine on March 06, 2014, 05:04:46 amSeriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner. If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year. Don't predict outcomes, reward them. The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really. This is different.It's an intriguing concept worthy of consideration. Perhaps we can do both.Our view was that deploying a successful DAC was its own reward. Plenty of motivation at that end of the rainbow already.We figured what got in the way for people was lack of support funding when they really need it - before the DAC is developed. Our shark tank variant lets the little guy invest just enough to write a convincing proposal. If the angels and judges (not just Dan) like that proposal best, then the little guy gets all kinds of help while he is doing the development. In the end, I guess it comes down to a choice of which end of the rainbow we should put the pot of gold. And then there's the buzz and excitement of a contest that pays off in July, right in front of a studio audience that has just been trained in how to evaluate and create good DACs. A chance to apply what they have learned and see how others have approached the problem the day after they take the class.We are looking to kill many birds with each stone. Its all part of an integrated push by every member of our team in every department and has built in community involvement at every stage. Not only that, but even the "losers" win, because they will become well known in the process and may get help from other attending investors. Those who watch talent search shows know that most of the finalists get a big career boost from a public competition with judges and instant gratification.Of course all of this hinges on whether there are enough simultaneously-appearing quality contestants to make the concept work. Also, if there's an obviously qualified developer ready to go with a great DAC idea, do we really want to make her wait until July? That's a lifetime in this industry. So the competition idea is really a wild-card second-chance opportunity for candidates that don't get funded on the spot.There is much to ponder and as we said in the newsletter, we welcome civil comments and want to hear if there are actually any interested contestants for either of the approaches on the table.If you want to compete for a post-development demonstrated-success prize, let us know.If you want to compete for a pre-development demonstrated-potential stipend, let us know.
Quote from: AdamBLevine on March 06, 2014, 02:29:11 amQuoteMost AGS members became that way for one reason: they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded. How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?I did it for the 2.5x Bitshares, and I did it despite my growing concerns about Daniels judgement. I did not realize donating funds to Angelshares meant that Daniel would be king, I thought this was the most transparent and collaborative community built company but I may have misunderstood the material. The only reason there is a dip in the price of PTS is because Invictus has failed to explain their plan for incentivizing other DAC creating companies to follow their model. What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated. That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you. You say it's the community, seems to me you're holding it hostage. Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you! So Protoshares truly are the gift that keeps on giving for invictus, and yet we're getting close to the part where I get that queasy ripple feeling in my stomach where the private company holds most of the tokens because they set up perverse incentives and have no accountability within the system...................Ignoring the problem has just made the wound fester, I approached you guys quietly about these basic basic issues for months and months, and nothing ever changed. Quoteinsanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different resultI'm crazy, but I'm not insane. Please address the 10,000 PTS for 3rd party DAC that meets criteria set by Invictus and the community, please do it in the thread responding to my proposal. I've devoted quite a bit of time and attention to the things I feel are important to rectify about the project we're all invested in, and I would appreciate a small amount of your very valuable time.You will find the requested response here:https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3363.msg43039#msg43039We think about this stuff 24x7. We are balancing many Global Optimization Factors. This means that every single factor will be sub-optimum so that the Global Whole will be the best we can make it. You specialize in pointing out how individual factors are sub-optimum. I'm a system's engineer and program manager with 38 years of experience who has published a detailed summary of our optimization criteria and strategy for achieving a globally optimum solution here:https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988I begin to despair when I see quotes like the following. Each statement is obviously unfair and blatantly false. How can I say anything more that we haven't already explained? But I'll try once again...QuoteThe only reason there is a dip in the price of PTS is because Invictus has failed to explain their plan for incentivizing other DAC creating companies to follow their model. No. As we explained in "Watch for Falling PTS" the price changed because the value was split between two chains that will now grow and divide again and again. I offered a comprehensive "Shark Tank" plan for incentivizing other DAC developers as the Featured Article in our February newsletter as highlighted and explained here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3363.msg43039#msg43039 Incentivizing and training DAC developers is the whole point of our Beyond Bitcoin Summit in July.
QuoteMost AGS members became that way for one reason: they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded. How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?I did it for the 2.5x Bitshares, and I did it despite my growing concerns about Daniels judgement. I did not realize donating funds to Angelshares meant that Daniel would be king, I thought this was the most transparent and collaborative community built company but I may have misunderstood the material. The only reason there is a dip in the price of PTS is because Invictus has failed to explain their plan for incentivizing other DAC creating companies to follow their model. What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated. That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you. You say it's the community, seems to me you're holding it hostage. Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you! So Protoshares truly are the gift that keeps on giving for invictus, and yet we're getting close to the part where I get that queasy ripple feeling in my stomach where the private company holds most of the tokens because they set up perverse incentives and have no accountability within the system...................Ignoring the problem has just made the wound fester, I approached you guys quietly about these basic basic issues for months and months, and nothing ever changed. Quoteinsanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different resultI'm crazy, but I'm not insane. Please address the 10,000 PTS for 3rd party DAC that meets criteria set by Invictus and the community, please do it in the thread responding to my proposal. I've devoted quite a bit of time and attention to the things I feel are important to rectify about the project we're all invested in, and I would appreciate a small amount of your very valuable time.
Most AGS members became that way for one reason: they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded. How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result
The only reason there is a dip in the price of PTS is because Invictus has failed to explain their plan for incentivizing other DAC creating companies to follow their model.
QuoteWhat we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated. That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you. Let's wait and see how well they do compared to those that honor this community. Of course, if the community doesn't favor DACs that honor them and shun those who don't, we will be proven wrong. We don't exactly have a scientifically large sample yet. QuoteYou say it's the community, seems to me you're holding it hostage. We plan to fund the best DACs we can find. We have announced a half dozen that are at the top of our list. We will not insert a lesser DAC in front of the line, but a better 3rd Party idea will be placed there immediately. The only reason they are not executing yet is the lack of a qualified proposal to develop one of them or qualified staff to do it internally. Again, the whole point of the Shark Tank contest and the Beyond Bitcoin Summit is to recruit developers.
You say it's the community, seems to me you're holding it hostage.
QuoteEvery DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you! No, we are operating in the role of an honest broker community-building "foundation" until the formal legal structures can be set up to make that role explicit. The portion you refer to goes to developing the community, not Invictus. We merely offered to manage those funds for the community. We encourage other people to make similar offers and compete with us for that position of trust.
QuoteSo Protoshares truly are the gift that keeps on giving for invictus, and yet we're getting close to the part where I get that queasy ripple feeling in my stomach where the private company holds most of the tokens because they set up perverse incentives and have no accountability within the system.We have always said we are bootstrapping a community. Our books are open to the point where we get asked about individual expenditures every day. That's the best accountability we know how to do. Those tokens are being recirculated into the community to fund development and marketing. As to whether the industry thinks the incentives to contribute to building the industry are "perverse" or not, people have been voting for them with real money for 65 days, have they not?
So Protoshares truly are the gift that keeps on giving for invictus, and yet we're getting close to the part where I get that queasy ripple feeling in my stomach where the private company holds most of the tokens because they set up perverse incentives and have no accountability within the system.
Quote from: AdamBLevine on March 03, 2014, 03:00:15 pmNow sure would be a good time to take some of those angelshares funds and create a big bounty that is paid to the first successful dac to pass xx% profitability for its token holders, honor PTS/AGS with 10% each and survive 6 months. Then it would be *obvious* that PTS will have value in the future, whereas right now honestly who knows. In the video it said that Bitshares Music was currently in development but when I spoke to the invictus folks it sounded like they were thinking early 2015 as a reasonable guess. This seems like an exceptionally good use of AGS funds as it adds value to the ecosystem and provides a very attractive reason for people to develop for invictus based technologies and honor the 'invisible hand' social contract vs. picking one of the literally seven other protocols that are tackling this same broad problem. Invictus does not exist in a vacuum, but it's developing like it's in one. Don't define the tech or specifics as has been done with bounties to the point, just define the outcome you want and let the market participants self organize into the winning combination.' How will you distribute this bounty? Here is an idea. Award the bounty according to the stake proportion shareholders have in the winning DAC. Since none of us would know which DAC would be the winning DAC you'd end up with a lottery effect where we buy shares in the DACs we think will be the winning DAC.So if for example you make a DAC, now I'll buy shares in your DAC and will work hard to help your DAC be successfully profitable so that we all can have the award distributed in proportion to the amount of shares we own in your DAC. If I own a lot of shares in your DAC then I'd of course deserve most of the credit for the success if your DAC wins the award.The same way Angelshares were mapped to PTS, Angelshares could be mapped to the shares of your DAC. The shareholders of the winning DAC would wake up one day to find that their shares have inherited an award of bonus Angelshares mapped to their shares in some proportional ratio. In the future the businesses in the ecosystem could sweeten the pot by adding shares of their own to the award pool.Simply put, I support the idea of having a bounty for this. I just think the bounty shouldn't go to individuals but should be distributed proportionally to the winning shareholders because that is a way to get people to buy shares in hopes of winning the Angelshare bonus (or whatever future reward bonuses that go beyond this), it also would make people work really hard to make the DACs profitable to win the shareholder bonuses.Nothing would stop us down the road if multiple DACs are successful from pooling the awards in such a way that the pot gets sweeter for DACs that come along later. Maybe instead of just winning Angelshares maybe the DACs of 2015 could win Awardshares in different DACs according to the innovation or technical problems they solve for the ecosystem. The Awardshares would be used as an incentive to drive innovation and we could have a top 5 list with the top 5 DACs in some category all winning some awards.Awardshares would function like bonuses or higher salaries for all participants. This would encourage everyone to participate in making DACs a success because eventually the potential for Awardshares would be so huge that everyone would want to get involved.The social contract says 10% for Angelshares and 10% for Protoshares. That would mean 80% remains. If 10% were to be for Awardshares then the DAC creators could award these shares at their discretion to other DACs provided that criteria is put in place, voted on democratically by the community, and that the shares are held in some sort of escrow so that once the community votes on the winners the shares are automatically distributed without much human involvement. It should be automatic that the winning DAC gets the Awardshares held in the pool, escrow, or whatever.
Now sure would be a good time to take some of those angelshares funds and create a big bounty that is paid to the first successful dac to pass xx% profitability for its token holders, honor PTS/AGS with 10% each and survive 6 months. Then it would be *obvious* that PTS will have value in the future, whereas right now honestly who knows. In the video it said that Bitshares Music was currently in development but when I spoke to the invictus folks it sounded like they were thinking early 2015 as a reasonable guess. This seems like an exceptionally good use of AGS funds as it adds value to the ecosystem and provides a very attractive reason for people to develop for invictus based technologies and honor the 'invisible hand' social contract vs. picking one of the literally seven other protocols that are tackling this same broad problem. Invictus does not exist in a vacuum, but it's developing like it's in one. Don't define the tech or specifics as has been done with bounties to the point, just define the outcome you want and let the market participants self organize into the winning combination.'
Quote from: toast on March 04, 2014, 12:55:50 amLots of good ideas being generated in multiple threads right now.. Anyone want to curate?* move % of angel funds to community multi-sig* offer bounty for first non-I3 DACI think instead of just thinking about "Angelfunds" we should just develop Awardshares as an idea. Let it be a community controlled pool via multi-sig. We vote on the winner to receive the Awardshares. The Awardshares could include any cryptoassets we put into the pool but primarily at this time it should be Angelshares. This way there is flexibility so that in the future should some DACs have shares which a lot of people want or which can be used as an incentive we could put them in the pool.Awardshares would allow any current or future DAC creator to feed some of their valuable shares into a community controlled pool. Then you would have a list of DACs and a PoS voting system so that the community can vote on the winner. Some criteria should be something which is automatic and which cannot be disputed.So whether or not a DAC is profitable is not something we should vote on. We should try to find some technical means of measuring the profitability of a DAC and then turn that into a data feed which produces a true or false or a number in the form of a percent. Then the DACs with the highest percent should rise to the top of the list. So the data set could be the top 5 most profitable DACs of 2015, and then let people vote on which DAC is their favorite and speculate by prediction markets which DACs will win the battle of the DACs or the DAC of the year award.This way you get PoS shareholder feedback, but you also get some data from a data feed which needs no voting. The real question is how to measure profitability? We could make Coinmarketcap and several sites like it a data feed but is that really the right way to go about it?If consensus can be reached on what is the most profitable, and on what success is, yet there is room for preference to be included, I think it will work great.
Lots of good ideas being generated in multiple threads right now.. Anyone want to curate?* move % of angel funds to community multi-sig* offer bounty for first non-I3 DAC
http://dacindex.comPart one of this two part project is out in minimum-viable-product form. Tracks all 2.0 metacoins right now using CoinMarketCap data, we're moving towards custom metrics and figuring our the best way to determine an index price. I'm thinking it might be market cap / 1,000,000 BUT with coins like XRP and NXT in there you can't really do anything by market cap because their volume is soooooooooooo low relative since most of the coins are held in few hands and don't trade.So Protoshares is doing well because we're doing the primary ranking by 24hr market volume, which is a more real estimation of whats going on.Comments are welcome but just be aware this is a very early project and a proof of concept launch.
Great set of discussions guys! Let me add some more thoughts for you to chew on...Do you really want to exclude our top talent from working on AGS-funded projects? Should we hire someone lesser-qualified and make them work as a consultant or bounty hunter instead of as an employee?To get risk-averse top talent quit their secure day job to sign on as an employee, they always want to know their job is funded for at least a year, sometimes two. Should we stop raising funds now and spend all the existing funds in the next six months as some have suggested? What is our recruiting potential then?Most AGS members became that way for one reason: they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded. How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?If you want to offer your services as an industry evangelist, start another incubator and convince people you have a better way to run it. We might even offer to kickstart you. We are eager to fund any competent developer to develop any viable DAC, but the developer must be truly competent, put his own skin in the game, and have an idea better than the ones that are already queued up for development.We will gladly fund a qualified and committed 3rd party to build any of the DACs we have already queued up. You can get to the top of the list and be funded even without having your own idea. Convince us you can and will deploy something near the top of our queue.Should we fund every DAC that comes along as soon as it is proposed without holding any form of competition? Do you really want bytemaster not to filter, sort, and rank them?
Great set of discussions guys! Let me add some more thoughts for you to chew on...AGS funding ends in July and those funds must support ecosystem infrastructure for the multi-year life cycles of all sponsored DACS.For example, the big advertisement blitz for a DAC must happen after it has passed all testing and is considered robust enough for the general public. Burning those funds now would be wasteful, even counterproductiveThose who understand the published and oft-repeated game plan ought to be delighted that PTS is on sale now.The function of PTS is to build and track interest in future DACs. We have seen how that works precisely as planned and as publicly predicted.PTS will rise and fall again...and again...and again. Each peak is an exit point for unbelievers. Each valley is an entry point for new believers and the old faithful.The valleys are very bad places to be arguing for us to burn PTS - its when their buying power is the lowest. The next natural (announced) peak is the Beyond Bitcoin conference in July. We build to a creshendo there and deploy reinvigorated PTS to get twice as much done.Invictus has been operating informally in a neutral honest broker mode since the Fourth of July.Setting up a formal neutral honest broker entity takes time and regulator approvals but is well underway.We have repeatedly said we are building a decentralized industry, not a big company.We do not care who develops each DAC.It doesn't matter to us whether a DAC or component is developed by an employee, a contractor, a consultant, a bounty hunter, a start-up, or a third party.Some good developers don't want the risk of being their own company. They want the security of being somebody's employee. So we hire them to give them that security. Does that make them suddenly ineligible?Do you really want to exclude our top talent from working on AGS-funded projects? Should we hire someone lesser-qualified and make them work as a consultant or bounty hunter instead of as an employee?To get risk-averse top talent quit their secure day job to sign on as an employee, they always want to know their job is funded for at least a year, sometimes two. Should we stop raising funds now and spend all the existing funds in the next six months as some have suggested? What is our recruiting potential then?Most AGS members became that way for one reason: they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded. How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?If you want to offer your services as an industry evangelist, start another incubator and convince people you have a better way to run it. We might even offer to kickstart you. We are eager to fund any competent developer to develop any viable DAC, but the developer must be truly competent, put his own skin in the game, and have an idea better than the ones that are already queued up for development.We will gladly fund a qualified and committed 3rd party to build any of the DACs we have already queued up. You can get to the top of the list and be funded even without having your own idea. Convince us you can and will deploy something near the top of our queue.If we have not sponsored a proposed DAC yet, its because it hasn't crossed that minimum threshold.A new developer can get plenty of incentive from the remaining 80% she has to allocate in what she is developing. Owning PTS and AGS should not be her incentive. Owning shares in her own DAC should be where her heart lies. The incentive to honor AGS and PTS holders is independent of actually being an AGS or PTS holder. The incentive is to attract a community of proven supporters to critique and evangelize what you are doing. Read the 10 Natural Laws again (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2876.0). Those are the incentives that matter.How would you suggest we improve on Shark Tank article in the February newsletter? Does it not meet your goals of building public interest by holding a competition and involving the community at every step in evaluating and selecting a winner?Should we fund every DAC that comes along as soon as it is proposed without holding any form of competition? Do you really want bytemaster not to filter, sort, and rank them?Can you make us a list of potential Shark Tank Judges who have consistently demonstrated a clear understanding of all the above considerations?Is there another list of those who you would absolutely not want to have involved in making these decisions? Those who consistently offer non sequiturs and fail to consider the Big Picture?Which list is longer? Do you really want to have the combined members of both lists vote on how the industry's precious resources are deployed?Thoughts?
Quote from: AdamBLevine on March 05, 2014, 05:21:55 pmExcept Protoshares should be *more* valuable now than before the split, because now the model has been "proven" and it's no longer speculative if PTS will deliver you another product without losing your PTSI wouldn't call it "proven" until BTS X actually launches and works. It would have been trivial to prove the model with any shitty altcoin DAC (MMC is pretty much this), but somehow I think things will look different if people discover PTS through BTS X.By the way I would highly suggest Counterparty, I'd even help you out for some LTBcoins =]
Except Protoshares should be *more* valuable now than before the split, because now the model has been "proven" and it's no longer speculative if PTS will deliver you another product without losing your PTS
Quote from: AdamBLevine on March 05, 2014, 04:31:39 pmQuote from: toast on March 05, 2014, 04:24:01 pmQuote from: bitbro on March 05, 2014, 04:09:10 pmWhy not have a simple way for developers to start an AGS 2.0 fund for any qualified DAC team that wants to develop - let them do more fund raising on our forum Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThere already is a way, there are two independent implementions of the code for taking genesis block snapshots.People keep making suggestions like this... I still haven't seen *any* development effort publicly ask for AGS money. I'm not convinced invictus is just hoarding it as much as waiting for anyone who can do anything with it to show up.There are two bounty proposals up right now waiting for any response from invictus. And apparently the independent implementations weren't good enough for Barwizi, who is a developer himself and who fulfilled many bounties in the PTS ecosystem but who could not figure out how to honor PTS holders. Also notice AGS holders were completely ignored. Most people aren't advertising the fact that they ask for money, they want to make sure it happens before they talk about it otherwise not getting it looks like you tried and failed, which implies you might not be worth other people funding.So you're not going to see this happen in public, but look around - How many new development teams have jumped onboard creating DACs with Invictus? The forums are an echo chamber, I can't even tell you how many conversations I've had with people who want to know if I'm still following invictus because they want to jump.I wouldn't take it that far - I3 still offers enough internal development to hold PTS at ~$6 after the Bts dividend, which is based mostly on the fact that i3 will produce new DACs on their own - much less because of potential 3rd party initiatives. Anyone of these potential jumpers must see it differently Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: toast on March 05, 2014, 04:24:01 pmQuote from: bitbro on March 05, 2014, 04:09:10 pmWhy not have a simple way for developers to start an AGS 2.0 fund for any qualified DAC team that wants to develop - let them do more fund raising on our forum Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThere already is a way, there are two independent implementions of the code for taking genesis block snapshots.People keep making suggestions like this... I still haven't seen *any* development effort publicly ask for AGS money. I'm not convinced invictus is just hoarding it as much as waiting for anyone who can do anything with it to show up.There are two bounty proposals up right now waiting for any response from invictus. And apparently the independent implementations weren't good enough for Barwizi, who is a developer himself and who fulfilled many bounties in the PTS ecosystem but who could not figure out how to honor PTS holders. Also notice AGS holders were completely ignored. Most people aren't advertising the fact that they ask for money, they want to make sure it happens before they talk about it otherwise not getting it looks like you tried and failed, which implies you might not be worth other people funding.So you're not going to see this happen in public, but look around - How many new development teams have jumped onboard creating DACs with Invictus? The forums are an echo chamber, I can't even tell you how many conversations I've had with people who want to know if I'm still following invictus because they want to jump.
Quote from: bitbro on March 05, 2014, 04:09:10 pmWhy not have a simple way for developers to start an AGS 2.0 fund for any qualified DAC team that wants to develop - let them do more fund raising on our forum Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThere already is a way, there are two independent implementions of the code for taking genesis block snapshots.People keep making suggestions like this... I still haven't seen *any* development effort publicly ask for AGS money. I'm not convinced invictus is just hoarding it as much as waiting for anyone who can do anything with it to show up.
Just saw this on the Mastercoin forum http://mastercointalk.org/index.php?topic=193.0 about Adam's upcoming big decision between Mastercoin and Protoshares/Bitshares for his new coin.Like to hear more about the decision-making process Adam (aka Andy by those in the Mastercoin forum).
Adam please introduce me to these underfunded DAC developers, if you think that the problem is Invictus not releasing money I will gladly fund them personally
I work for a company that has 30 employees and makes in one year as much as ags funding does in 3 months. I think there is enough money there already.
Quote from: bitbro on March 05, 2014, 03:43:13 pmIt will fix itself with the buzz and advent of new DACs. I think that's your point, as well as Daniels Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkIn the last 48hrs I've spoken with a DAC development team lead who apparently approached invictus about developing their ecosystem on the AGS/PTS platform, but Invictus told them if they wanted to have a stake before they announce and develop their first platform they should "buy some while they're cheap"This was weeks ago when the price was quite a bit higher. Point is, there is no reason to jump into this ecosystem if you have no stake in it. Invictus sucked up all the funds intended for investing and incentivizing development of the community and now is the boot standing on the neck of DAC development.How exactly do you think "Buzz" happens? Because there is good news and things are in development. I don't understand why it makes sense to sit on 300,000PTS and over a thousand BTC if the plan is to not spend it incentivizing other people into the space. Invictus said "AGS Funds will never be taken as profit" but they ARE using them to pay for salaries and general operating costs at invictus, so while it may not be "profit" they are PAYING THEMSELVES using these funds and not using them to incentivize other developers getting into their ecosystem, which was much of the intent of the fund if I recall correctly. A bounty literally is saying "IF someone does this thing we want done, to the specifications we require we guarantee to pay whoever does it this fixed amount" So it's not like they're just throwing money around, they ONLY pay for results in this scenario.I'm getting tired of saying the same obvious things. I have been very patient but that is ending.
It will fix itself with the buzz and advent of new DACs. I think that's your point, as well as Daniels Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The problem with mining is that if the difficulty gets high and the market adjusts the price then it becomes 'unprofitable' to mine and thus people stop doing it. However, if the shareholders in PTS believe it needs faster confirmations then they will 'mine' without direct profit to protect their existing value. So I can assure you mining will not stop.The long term solution to PTS is to convert it to TaPOS chain and then abandon the Bitcoin based chain. In the mean time the way we are working to save it is to raise awareness about upcoming DACs by documenting and releasing specs. When this happens the price will pick up and thus mining interest will resume.
Protoshares is like a protodac, and it did just spawn Bitshares so it is definitely not a 1.0 coin. I view protoshares as a 1.5
Why are people trying to "save" protoshares? Low mining interest means NOTHING, mining interest does not generate demand. The only problem is slower blocks because the difficulty is not caught up. PTS was never intended to have advanced features, FFS it uses proof of work when invictus is clearly against mining. Maybe I'm missing the point?
Quote from: unimercio on March 04, 2014, 08:02:43 pmQuote from: AdamBLevine on March 04, 2014, 02:10:39 pmhttp://dacindex.comPart one of this two part project is out in minimum-viable-product form. Tracks all 2.0 metacoins right now using CoinMarketCap data, we're moving towards custom metrics and figuring our the best way to determine an index price. I'm thinking it might be market cap / 1,000,000 BUT with coins like XRP and NXT in there you can't really do anything by market cap because their volume is soooooooooooo low relative since most of the coins are held in few hands and don't trade.So Protoshares is doing well because we're doing the primary ranking by 24hr market volume, which is a more real estimation of whats going on.Comments are welcome but just be aware this is a very early project and a proof of concept launch.will you be selling banner space?Probably won't be selling banner space, it's part of a larger play here.Quote from: xeroc on March 04, 2014, 07:59:48 pmActually, protoshares are not metacoins .. bitshares will be .. Besides that .. nice siteProtoshares is like a protodac, and it did just spawn Bitshares so it is definitely not a 1.0 coin. I view protoshares as a 1.5
Quote from: AdamBLevine on March 04, 2014, 02:10:39 pmhttp://dacindex.comPart one of this two part project is out in minimum-viable-product form. Tracks all 2.0 metacoins right now using CoinMarketCap data, we're moving towards custom metrics and figuring our the best way to determine an index price. I'm thinking it might be market cap / 1,000,000 BUT with coins like XRP and NXT in there you can't really do anything by market cap because their volume is soooooooooooo low relative since most of the coins are held in few hands and don't trade.So Protoshares is doing well because we're doing the primary ranking by 24hr market volume, which is a more real estimation of whats going on.Comments are welcome but just be aware this is a very early project and a proof of concept launch.will you be selling banner space?
Actually, protoshares are not metacoins .. bitshares will be .. Besides that .. nice site
So Protoshares is doing well because we're doing the primary ranking by 24hr market volume, which is a more real estimation of whats going on.