0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: abit on February 10, 2016, 03:39:32 pmQuote from: bytemaster on February 10, 2016, 03:17:29 pm... allocate it as best as we can. ...How?It would create a market competition for the BEST things to fund. If people don't like where the money is going they can bid better / more work for the same money.
Quote from: bytemaster on February 10, 2016, 03:17:29 pm... allocate it as best as we can. ...How?
... allocate it as best as we can. ...
I don't think the price would react at all. It's a non-event. non-change. purely perceptual. Anyone selling or buying on this non-change doesn't care enough about the project to understand this non-difference, and likely wouldn't even notice.IMO, I don't think it makes sense to change for CMC reporting though, because the supply is not actually available, even if you accounted for what could conceivably be released over a year or two, it still doesn't amount to much.However, I do think it makes sense to change the way we communicate and talk about the supply. Having a supply that goes down, and can *only go down is a very positive and healthy way of looking at it. Anywhere you might mention the supply just start with the total supply and if necessary derive the available supply.
Perception is everything, and making any "official" adjustments to the already stated supply levels will not be seen as a positive change. And all this just to avoid the talk about dilution? Seems a lot like QE logic by the FED to me, "lets just spend our way out of debt", Keynesian economics. "Lets dilute so we can say we're not diluting".
You will kill bts if you adjust the supply to 3.7 billion. That number is only true if it is used up in worker proposals or witness pay. The price is bts will be cut by a 3rd and traders are going to get margin called and stopped out. Think of what happened to the swiss Frank after they said they were abandoning the euro peg. The frank rose 20% causing exchanges to blow up while many traders were carried out in body bags.This would be the most detrimental thing ever to happen to bitshares... It will be much worse than the merger.
Quote from: abit on February 07, 2016, 12:15:15 pmQuote from: Shentist on February 07, 2016, 10:42:53 amQuote from: Riverhead on February 07, 2016, 10:37:57 amQuote from: Shentist on February 07, 2016, 10:20:58 ami am not sure if we want to do this, but i also don't like the discussions and threads about dilution.but i think it would be wrong to add it on coinmarketcap. with the same agrument bitcoin could say we have to change the numbers also.makes no sense to report the shares als "availabel" if you can not sell them. the same problem exists with the vesting shares.The difference between Bitshares and Bitcoin here is that their supply is locked up with POW. They are unlocking them literally as fast as humanly possible. Our supply could be released tomorrow with enough votes.i thought we have a limit of 400.000 BTS? or can this also be changed? if this is, i didnt have the right information and the available shares should be adjusted on CMC.If enough share holders agree, we can easily change that 400K BTS per day limitation. Even possible a hard fork to change the 3.7BB limitation. IMO it's no need to discuss right now at all.The BTS asset is owned by the null-account for a reason
Quote from: Shentist on February 07, 2016, 10:42:53 amQuote from: Riverhead on February 07, 2016, 10:37:57 amQuote from: Shentist on February 07, 2016, 10:20:58 ami am not sure if we want to do this, but i also don't like the discussions and threads about dilution.but i think it would be wrong to add it on coinmarketcap. with the same agrument bitcoin could say we have to change the numbers also.makes no sense to report the shares als "availabel" if you can not sell them. the same problem exists with the vesting shares.The difference between Bitshares and Bitcoin here is that their supply is locked up with POW. They are unlocking them literally as fast as humanly possible. Our supply could be released tomorrow with enough votes.i thought we have a limit of 400.000 BTS? or can this also be changed? if this is, i didnt have the right information and the available shares should be adjusted on CMC.If enough share holders agree, we can easily change that 400K BTS per day limitation. Even possible a hard fork to change the 3.7BB limitation. IMO it's no need to discuss right now at all.
Quote from: Riverhead on February 07, 2016, 10:37:57 amQuote from: Shentist on February 07, 2016, 10:20:58 ami am not sure if we want to do this, but i also don't like the discussions and threads about dilution.but i think it would be wrong to add it on coinmarketcap. with the same agrument bitcoin could say we have to change the numbers also.makes no sense to report the shares als "availabel" if you can not sell them. the same problem exists with the vesting shares.The difference between Bitshares and Bitcoin here is that their supply is locked up with POW. They are unlocking them literally as fast as humanly possible. Our supply could be released tomorrow with enough votes.i thought we have a limit of 400.000 BTS? or can this also be changed? if this is, i didnt have the right information and the available shares should be adjusted on CMC.
Quote from: Shentist on February 07, 2016, 10:20:58 ami am not sure if we want to do this, but i also don't like the discussions and threads about dilution.but i think it would be wrong to add it on coinmarketcap. with the same agrument bitcoin could say we have to change the numbers also.makes no sense to report the shares als "availabel" if you can not sell them. the same problem exists with the vesting shares.The difference between Bitshares and Bitcoin here is that their supply is locked up with POW. They are unlocking them literally as fast as humanly possible. Our supply could be released tomorrow with enough votes.
i am not sure if we want to do this, but i also don't like the discussions and threads about dilution.but i think it would be wrong to add it on coinmarketcap. with the same agrument bitcoin could say we have to change the numbers also.makes no sense to report the shares als "availabel" if you can not sell them. the same problem exists with the vesting shares.
Quote from: Riverhead on February 07, 2016, 10:50:34 amQuote from: abit on February 07, 2016, 10:14:53 amCan you guys organize a professional PR team and marketing team, and make a plan, and execute according to the plan? Everyday some ideas show up and get buried after some days. Actions?I understand your frustration at the ad hoc nature of these discussions and the seemingly arbitrary implementation or discarding of ideas. The problem is that there isn't a "you guys". Unless you mean the committee? Right now it's just a brainstorming thread IMHO.Perhaps the proposal put forth for a vote can include a budget for a PR and Marketing team and the making of a plan. Since this is more of a semantic change anyway marketing is basically all this would be.@abit IIRC @bunketchain-labs has had an idea for a PR worker ..
Quote from: abit on February 07, 2016, 10:14:53 amCan you guys organize a professional PR team and marketing team, and make a plan, and execute according to the plan? Everyday some ideas show up and get buried after some days. Actions?I understand your frustration at the ad hoc nature of these discussions and the seemingly arbitrary implementation or discarding of ideas. The problem is that there isn't a "you guys". Unless you mean the committee? Right now it's just a brainstorming thread IMHO.Perhaps the proposal put forth for a vote can include a budget for a PR and Marketing team and the making of a plan. Since this is more of a semantic change anyway marketing is basically all this would be.
Can you guys organize a professional PR team and marketing team, and make a plan, and execute according to the plan? Everyday some ideas show up and get buried after some days. Actions?
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on February 07, 2016, 01:34:08 amIn practical terms how would we go through a process like this?There isn't really a process. Most people here know there are 3.7BB BTS. We just typically subtract the reserve fund when communicating supply.
In practical terms how would we go through a process like this?
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on February 06, 2016, 11:21:26 pmQuote from: puppies on February 06, 2016, 11:03:30 pmI think that changing our reported supply would lead to a drop in bts price of at least 200 sats. If we are going to do this then I would sell the majority of my bts first so I could buy more back later. Don't know what the specific price fall would be but yes I'm fairly certain the price would fall >25%. Quote from: Empirical1.2 on November 23, 2015, 08:03:37 amAdding the reserve pool to the total would be similar to what XRP did but I think it would have a negative price effect. We survived that just a couple weeks ago. Imagine going through that again and then never hearing the words Dilution and Bitshares in the same sentence ever again...However I don't think the price would change much. Typically with something like this it changes because the market is flooded with huge sell pressure. In this case the order books haven't moved at all because the supply on the open market hasn't actually changed. We'd just be reporting how many BTS actually exist.
Quote from: puppies on February 06, 2016, 11:03:30 pmI think that changing our reported supply would lead to a drop in bts price of at least 200 sats. If we are going to do this then I would sell the majority of my bts first so I could buy more back later. Don't know what the specific price fall would be but yes I'm fairly certain the price would fall >25%. Quote from: Empirical1.2 on November 23, 2015, 08:03:37 amAdding the reserve pool to the total would be similar to what XRP did but I think it would have a negative price effect.
I think that changing our reported supply would lead to a drop in bts price of at least 200 sats. If we are going to do this then I would sell the majority of my bts first so I could buy more back later.
Adding the reserve pool to the total would be similar to what XRP did but I think it would have a negative price effect.
Quote from: yvv on February 06, 2016, 01:41:19 pmQuote from: JonnyBitcoin on February 06, 2016, 11:40:57 amI've always thought in my head that total supply included the reserve pool and have never understood why we use the word dilution. It's not dilution it is using our reserve funds. These reserve funds are controlled by the the share holders.You have to distinguish between your personal funds, which you can sell upon your wish, and company funds, which can not be sold by yourself. Personal property and public property are different things.Yes, they are different in this case because the value of the shareholder-owned property (I think public property isn't the proper word here, since it implies it's owned by the public where it's in fact owned by the shareholders) is implicitly already valued into the price of all the privately held "shares". If the shareholder-owned property is used as payment to 3rd parties (or even as dividends to shareholders), the value of the privately held shares go down. This is the same reason that stocks drop in price ex-dividend.
Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on February 06, 2016, 11:40:57 amI've always thought in my head that total supply included the reserve pool and have never understood why we use the word dilution. It's not dilution it is using our reserve funds. These reserve funds are controlled by the the share holders.You have to distinguish between your personal funds, which you can sell upon your wish, and company funds, which can not be sold by yourself. Personal property and public property are different things.
I've always thought in my head that total supply included the reserve pool and have never understood why we use the word dilution. It's not dilution it is using our reserve funds. These reserve funds are controlled by the the share holders.
Quote from: yvv on February 06, 2016, 03:09:43 amQuote from: Riverhead on February 06, 2016, 02:23:29 amQuote from: yvv on February 05, 2016, 11:11:28 pmIf you call a piece of crap a chocolate, it will not become a chocolate.I can't tell if this is for or against.Diluting to fund workers is a current issue.Anyway it's just semantics. We don't consider pool funds as real but we use them to pay workers...In order for pool funds to reach the market, they need to change hands. They need to go to personal accounts of witnesses and workers first. Then they become available to market supply. And it is fair to consider this funds only available. Unless you want to lie to yourself.When a company buys back its own stock those shares are off the market. Do they still count towards supply? I honestly don't know but I feel the situation is analogous.
Quote from: Riverhead on February 06, 2016, 02:23:29 amQuote from: yvv on February 05, 2016, 11:11:28 pmIf you call a piece of crap a chocolate, it will not become a chocolate.I can't tell if this is for or against.Diluting to fund workers is a current issue.Anyway it's just semantics. We don't consider pool funds as real but we use them to pay workers...In order for pool funds to reach the market, they need to change hands. They need to go to personal accounts of witnesses and workers first. Then they become available to market supply. And it is fair to consider this funds only available. Unless you want to lie to yourself.
Quote from: yvv on February 05, 2016, 11:11:28 pmIf you call a piece of crap a chocolate, it will not become a chocolate.I can't tell if this is for or against.Diluting to fund workers is a current issue.Anyway it's just semantics. We don't consider pool funds as real but we use them to pay workers...
If you call a piece of crap a chocolate, it will not become a chocolate.
Quote from: Ander on February 05, 2016, 08:07:34 pmQuote from: Riverhead on February 05, 2016, 06:36:10 pmIf I recall correctly the exclusion of the reserve pool from total supply was because it couldn't be spent and it provided the feeling of deflation. However the cost of that is the stigma of dilution any time that pool is tapped.What are the communities thoughts on basically pulling a "Ripple" and adding the reserve pool to the communicated total supply and doing away with the term dilution altogether? There'd be a one time hit as the market adjusted to the new supply but the long term benefits may outweigh that cost.Thoughts?Hell no.What would happen is that instead of having an $8M market cap at a 2.5B supply, we would go down to a $*M market cap for the 3.7B supply.The only thing pulling a ripple did was make everyone hate them, remember? Furthermore, listing 3.7B supply of BTS would not be accurate, because this amount does not exist. It would be like listing BTC's supply at 21M right now, and saying its market cap is 50% higher.well it did one other thing oretty effectively...destroy a amassive headwind pushing us up past them. had they not done that, i still suspect we would have stayed higher than them....but then again i could be wrong.
Quote from: Riverhead on February 05, 2016, 06:36:10 pmIf I recall correctly the exclusion of the reserve pool from total supply was because it couldn't be spent and it provided the feeling of deflation. However the cost of that is the stigma of dilution any time that pool is tapped.What are the communities thoughts on basically pulling a "Ripple" and adding the reserve pool to the communicated total supply and doing away with the term dilution altogether? There'd be a one time hit as the market adjusted to the new supply but the long term benefits may outweigh that cost.Thoughts?Hell no.What would happen is that instead of having an $8M market cap at a 2.5B supply, we would go down to a $*M market cap for the 3.7B supply.The only thing pulling a ripple did was make everyone hate them, remember? Furthermore, listing 3.7B supply of BTS would not be accurate, because this amount does not exist. It would be like listing BTC's supply at 21M right now, and saying its market cap is 50% higher.
If I recall correctly the exclusion of the reserve pool from total supply was because it couldn't be spent and it provided the feeling of deflation. However the cost of that is the stigma of dilution any time that pool is tapped.What are the communities thoughts on basically pulling a "Ripple" and adding the reserve pool to the communicated total supply and doing away with the term dilution altogether? There'd be a one time hit as the market adjusted to the new supply but the long term benefits may outweigh that cost.Thoughts?
Quote from: Akado on February 05, 2016, 07:11:37 pmpeople would most likely think we diluted even if we didn't.Exactly.Sometimes I feel like the community is looking for problems where really non exist. Let's focus on real problems like liquidity and I believe we'll be fine.
people would most likely think we diluted even if we didn't.