there is another drop today , it is 0.00000766 , what is the reason for this ?

Maybe if we do other FBA and complicate the system a bit more the price goes up. 

Why would you need to calculate on any feature individually? If you care and are
interested then you do your numbers, if you are not, you don't.

I mean to be able to valuate an FBA, as the revenue stream are divided with BTS an investor need to do a lot of math and guess to know wherever worth more buy BTS or the FBA itself. They would need to guess the TX rate of BTS as a hole as well as the expected TX rate of the feature. I don't think worth the effort, I think most investors would prefer just buy BTS instead without all this BS.

A lot of things can be changed on the stealth proposal like vesting period, a clear BTS denomination, etc. Before trying to subjugate your own worker design like this.

Quote from: xeroc on December 29, 2015, 09:10:10 am

I don't think that the interests of all shareholders are aligned with the
interest of people that want to propose, fund and use a particular feature and
we saw that very non-alignment when it comes to the stealth proposal. We will
probably see many more features that some shareholders either don't wont or
don't care about. Why would those that fund the proposal pay for its development
then?

Or the voters could haven't agreed with the conditions of the worker. I for instance do not like seeing things denominated in USD.

I mean you cannot assume that is because they do not want the feature.

1. Assuming that by "Future Fees" you mean "fees generated by a particular
   feature of which parts are given to holders of an FBA", then yes, future fees
   cannot be estimated. Actually, nothing in the future can be estimated
   considering the fact that the fees can be changed by the committee account and
   the maintenance account (of a feature/FBA).
   What I DO know is that a fraction of those fees generated by the feature ARE
   paid to the BitShares network/shareholders.

Why do we want a fraction when we can have a hole?

2. Committee member cannot decide this. It is a CLIENT-SIDE feature. We might
   see WALLETS that use the privacy mode by default, but NO-ONE will force you
   to do so, EVER. Recall that BitShares is about FREEDOM .. also FREEDOM of
   CHOICE

3. The feature is owned by everyone and (unless shareholders decide otherwise)
   will require an open source licencing. What WILL be owned by a subset of
   people that is distinct from BTS shareholders is a portion of the revenue
   stream from that feature (just a portion, not all of it, at least for those
   FBA proposals I know of). Not sure what you mean by "systemic risk".

So you are saying that we should disrespect the promise made to the FBA holder?

4. First, there is no DEMOCRATIC process in BitShares. We do per-stake voting,
   not per shareholder/individual. Secondly, since BitShares holders are
   distributed across the globe, I don't think you can simply say: "all
   shareholders are stupid and can't estimate risk against benefit so they will
   vote for FBAs because .. you know .. future fees". We don't know how big
   those future revenue streams will be either, but with FBAs you can a) take
   part in price discovery and b) get your stake in this future fee IF YOU LIKE!

Quote

I really think we should be united as BTS as all interests of all participants.
And always clear of any form of future debt beside vesting. And knowing all
worker costs on advance.

I don't think that the interests of all shareholders are aligned with the
interest of people that want to propose, fund and use a particular feature and
we saw that very non-alignment when it comes to the stealth proposal. We will
probably see many more features that some shareholders either don't wont or
don't care about. Why would those that fund the proposal pay for its development
then?

Have you heard of the tragedy of the commons? Can you see how FBAs can fix this
for BitShares?

Personally, I see FBAs as an AWESOME way to attract developers with great ideas.

Tragedy of the commons is not a big advantage. As we learn from BTS 1.0 the average investor do not even care enough to vote on things. What to say to learn and calculate every feature individually. 

[/quote]

Quote from: Xypher on December 23, 2015, 06:17:12 pm

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on December 23, 2015, 06:10:54 pm

One clear example of a good use case for an FBA would be a prediction market.

Augur raised $5.3 million to fund building and marketing their prediction market. https://sale.augur.net/
Augur have a specialist prediction market focused team of talent and entrepreneurs. http://www.augur.net/#team
Running a successful prediction market will take a lot of ongoing focus from that team.


Without FBA's

- BTS would not be able to get a miniscule fraction of that amount through dilution without crashing BTS so would struggle to compete with competitors without being able to raise funding for the PM specifically and directly.
- A prediction market would need to incentivise entrepeneurs and specialist developers, to develop market and manage the PM.  They can only be attracted and incentivised with a share of that specific business and it's revenue.

If the development is small and doesn't require a lot of ongoing management then as BTS has dilution (I'm not a fan) it should be considered but for larger projects FBA's are superior.

Can you define "larger" projects in this context?
The E-sports venture is right in line for a prediction market and I've had atleast 5 people give me the augur comparison. Even Bytemaster for that matter, but there's no way we can legitimately raise say 500k with a UIA due to the legalities involved. Maybe we could do a FBA . Maybe, but that's a slight possibility.

I would guess some of the questions about whether something should be a UIA/FBA/Funded via dilution in general are...

Would this business model/product benefit from being blockchain based?
If so then an FBA/dilution funding could be a good idea.

Is it just something that BTS can code and it will be successful without any added input and expertise?
If so then BTS holders may be better off funding themselves via dilution.

If the answer to the above is yes, would it cost more than $50 000?
At the current CAP, that much dilution may considerably lower the value of BTS, so it might be better suited to an FBA.

If it costs less than that but shareholders don't want to fund it then it might be best to do an FBA. 

How much exclusivity are you expecting BTS holders to give you and for how long?

For example if STEALTH wanted to be the only anonymous transaction offering on BTS for the forseeable future then that could limit BTS.
The cost is also less than $50 000 and once it's coded it may need very little management. So STEALTH could be something shareholders could consider funding themselves.

No this cannot be considered at all, the network cannot be on debt with any person or token. I even think we should have same form of preventing this from happening.

Thank you @Xypher and @merockstar, I'm thinking now should I add "do not be expose to BTS price variation" to that list.

Referral program by itself is a good thing. However, the increased fee for the referral program is blocking various types of businesses.
I personally don't think that high fees are necessary to sustain referral program. If there are more users and greater ecosystem, referral system can be managed without high fees.

agree 100%

The proposals are still voted in, so it's still "democratic"... The only difference is the shareholders aren't directly paying for it through dilution. No dilution and a new feature is no doubt good for the price. The committee should control the fee so bitshares still has control over the feature, and also just for UI purposes I think the FBA should be listed next to the proposal with the total value, but other than those criticisms, I just see it as more money and features for all of us.

No it is not, maybe on literal sense of the word, but this is type of the wrong use of democracy that permits you to trick the system to vote in something hiding the costs. The stealth proposal for instance, CNX tried to pass this proposal charging something to do the job and fail. Then instead of discuss with the community and understand what was not working, they just made other proposal hiding the same costs or more so the people that do not understand right can vote for a future larger loss in revenue. If you have any doubt about this just read the comments on both proposal and you will find something like this: "just $300 dollars? let's do it".

To someone of communist mindset this FBA is offensive.

The FBA is born out of a capitalist methodology, and so those who agree in some way with capitalism they will be agreeable with the FBA.

Fact is that not everyone in the world agrees with capitalism and therefore will argue up and down over every point about the FBA because it is another departure from a purely socialized feature of BitShares.

I think what you are seeing in this thread is that clash.

However, if you look at how the FBA has been setup, I believe that there has been a good attempt at taking the best of both worlds of thought to create something new and stronger than one ideal or the other that stand alone. If it really works the way it should or not once implemented is another story.

Good news though, we can always vote to make improvements.

Until then though, discussions like this of throwing the baby with the bathwater don't go in the right direction.

Creating new innovations like FBA are exactly what we should be aspiring to do in BitShares.

I am as capitalist as you are or more, I just think is better for us to have only one token to not incentivise people trying to push one feature over other but the system as a whole.