0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: tonyk on October 23, 2014, 01:47:06 amQuote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 08:42:58 pmQuote from: Gentso1 on October 22, 2014, 05:53:53 pmQuote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 05:15:53 pmQuote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 04:55:46 pmQuote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 04:47:55 pmYou are conflating two separate issues. If you don't think AGS/PTS should be granted X percentage of the superDAC, that has absolutely nothing to do with my post (read it again). I was specifically pointing out that the ratio of shares received by AGS should NOT be equal to those received by PTS because PTS holders paid 6X for liquidity and AGS holders received a 6X discount to be locked in. Your entire argument about future DACs and the value ascribed to PTS applies equally to AGS. It does not address the liquidity gift or the ratio.But you're creating this out of nothing. The Social Consensus was always 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS. They are co-equal in every way. Where does this "liquidity discount" come from, other than your mind? I was pointing out that any person could probably find a bunch of other random reasons for wishing to discount PTS or AGS...no less random than yours.They are absolutely NOT co-equal in every way. PTS investors paid a 6X premium over AGS investors in exchange for one thing: liquidity. This was the ONLY differentiating factor between AGS and PTS and was the crux of the social contract. According to you, this was an insignificant detail, and people are crazy enough to pay 6X more for an asset that is "co-equal in every way."If that is your argument the sell your pts now. With your pts you have all ready received stakes in btsx,dns and vote. You can choose to liquidate those stakes or hang-on to them in any ratio to receive bts. As a ags holder I have no option of liquidating my ags.Other then selling the stakes in the dacs I have received. Also consider the fact that their has been plenty of time to more then profit off pts. I was one of the hyped soul's that was buying pts at 14$+ pre 2/28 snapshot to make sure I got btsx before it went to the moon. Pts has had more the enough flexibility to make plenty of profit. As other's have pointed out even if this merger was not going to go through I think the other DAC's are a way of from being completed. Not to mention the mining problem with pts or and lets not forget if we don't merge we are taking are small dev team and splinting them in the dacs.Fact is the original plan was probably a little to ambitious. Having separate dac's sounds great but I just don't think its practical given the size of the dev teams at the moment. After the brand is built is the time to spin stand alone dac's off."sell your pts now" - Thank you for the completely irrelevant investment advice based on your assumption that the proposed allocation will not be modified."Also consider the fact that their has been plenty of time to more then profit off pts." - this is a property of liquidity, not some unforeseeable outcome. PTS holders PAID 6X for this opportunity while AGS holders received a 6X discount in exchange for "locking in" and never being able to sell. Now you want to violate the social contract, gift AGS with liquidity, and also let them keep their 6X discount. Sorry, but that violates the social contract and is provably unfair.First off - I am still waiting on the data that shows the 6x claim of yours.Second off - you are comparing money that you hold (PTS) with a donation... money that you have given away expecting nothing in return...Now if it was me I will give 3x more shares to people that trusted me and donated expecting potentially nothing in return, than to people like you that hodled their money in their pockets...But you do not stop there... you now claim that you deserve even more because of that? Your greed knows no boundaries....I told you that the premium was an estimate made by another forum user and is irrelevant. We can calculate the exact premium that PTS users paid for their liquidity once you acknowledge it in the first place. You are arguing against yourself when you say that "I will give 3x more shares to people that trusted me and donated expecting potentially nothing in return". Of course I agree that people who "lock in" and trust I3 with their funds would rationally expect a greater return.The problem is that you want to remove that "trust" by violating the social contract after-the-fact. You want to make AGS like (just like PTS) but you want them to keep the discount that they received in exchange for being "locked in" to I3. You can't have it both ways. Either you trust I3 and lock in your shares in exchange for a steep discount (AGS), or you accept a lower rate of return in exchange for liquidity (PTS).
Quote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 08:42:58 pmQuote from: Gentso1 on October 22, 2014, 05:53:53 pmQuote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 05:15:53 pmQuote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 04:55:46 pmQuote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 04:47:55 pmYou are conflating two separate issues. If you don't think AGS/PTS should be granted X percentage of the superDAC, that has absolutely nothing to do with my post (read it again). I was specifically pointing out that the ratio of shares received by AGS should NOT be equal to those received by PTS because PTS holders paid 6X for liquidity and AGS holders received a 6X discount to be locked in. Your entire argument about future DACs and the value ascribed to PTS applies equally to AGS. It does not address the liquidity gift or the ratio.But you're creating this out of nothing. The Social Consensus was always 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS. They are co-equal in every way. Where does this "liquidity discount" come from, other than your mind? I was pointing out that any person could probably find a bunch of other random reasons for wishing to discount PTS or AGS...no less random than yours.They are absolutely NOT co-equal in every way. PTS investors paid a 6X premium over AGS investors in exchange for one thing: liquidity. This was the ONLY differentiating factor between AGS and PTS and was the crux of the social contract. According to you, this was an insignificant detail, and people are crazy enough to pay 6X more for an asset that is "co-equal in every way."If that is your argument the sell your pts now. With your pts you have all ready received stakes in btsx,dns and vote. You can choose to liquidate those stakes or hang-on to them in any ratio to receive bts. As a ags holder I have no option of liquidating my ags.Other then selling the stakes in the dacs I have received. Also consider the fact that their has been plenty of time to more then profit off pts. I was one of the hyped soul's that was buying pts at 14$+ pre 2/28 snapshot to make sure I got btsx before it went to the moon. Pts has had more the enough flexibility to make plenty of profit. As other's have pointed out even if this merger was not going to go through I think the other DAC's are a way of from being completed. Not to mention the mining problem with pts or and lets not forget if we don't merge we are taking are small dev team and splinting them in the dacs.Fact is the original plan was probably a little to ambitious. Having separate dac's sounds great but I just don't think its practical given the size of the dev teams at the moment. After the brand is built is the time to spin stand alone dac's off."sell your pts now" - Thank you for the completely irrelevant investment advice based on your assumption that the proposed allocation will not be modified."Also consider the fact that their has been plenty of time to more then profit off pts." - this is a property of liquidity, not some unforeseeable outcome. PTS holders PAID 6X for this opportunity while AGS holders received a 6X discount in exchange for "locking in" and never being able to sell. Now you want to violate the social contract, gift AGS with liquidity, and also let them keep their 6X discount. Sorry, but that violates the social contract and is provably unfair.First off - I am still waiting on the data that shows the 6x claim of yours.Second off - you are comparing money that you hold (PTS) with a donation... money that you have given away expecting nothing in return...Now if it was me I will give 3x more shares to people that trusted me and donated expecting potentially nothing in return, than to people like you that hodled their money in their pockets...But you do not stop there... you now claim that you deserve even more because of that? Your greed knows no boundaries....
Quote from: Gentso1 on October 22, 2014, 05:53:53 pmQuote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 05:15:53 pmQuote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 04:55:46 pmQuote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 04:47:55 pmYou are conflating two separate issues. If you don't think AGS/PTS should be granted X percentage of the superDAC, that has absolutely nothing to do with my post (read it again). I was specifically pointing out that the ratio of shares received by AGS should NOT be equal to those received by PTS because PTS holders paid 6X for liquidity and AGS holders received a 6X discount to be locked in. Your entire argument about future DACs and the value ascribed to PTS applies equally to AGS. It does not address the liquidity gift or the ratio.But you're creating this out of nothing. The Social Consensus was always 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS. They are co-equal in every way. Where does this "liquidity discount" come from, other than your mind? I was pointing out that any person could probably find a bunch of other random reasons for wishing to discount PTS or AGS...no less random than yours.They are absolutely NOT co-equal in every way. PTS investors paid a 6X premium over AGS investors in exchange for one thing: liquidity. This was the ONLY differentiating factor between AGS and PTS and was the crux of the social contract. According to you, this was an insignificant detail, and people are crazy enough to pay 6X more for an asset that is "co-equal in every way."If that is your argument the sell your pts now. With your pts you have all ready received stakes in btsx,dns and vote. You can choose to liquidate those stakes or hang-on to them in any ratio to receive bts. As a ags holder I have no option of liquidating my ags.Other then selling the stakes in the dacs I have received. Also consider the fact that their has been plenty of time to more then profit off pts. I was one of the hyped soul's that was buying pts at 14$+ pre 2/28 snapshot to make sure I got btsx before it went to the moon. Pts has had more the enough flexibility to make plenty of profit. As other's have pointed out even if this merger was not going to go through I think the other DAC's are a way of from being completed. Not to mention the mining problem with pts or and lets not forget if we don't merge we are taking are small dev team and splinting them in the dacs.Fact is the original plan was probably a little to ambitious. Having separate dac's sounds great but I just don't think its practical given the size of the dev teams at the moment. After the brand is built is the time to spin stand alone dac's off."sell your pts now" - Thank you for the completely irrelevant investment advice based on your assumption that the proposed allocation will not be modified."Also consider the fact that their has been plenty of time to more then profit off pts." - this is a property of liquidity, not some unforeseeable outcome. PTS holders PAID 6X for this opportunity while AGS holders received a 6X discount in exchange for "locking in" and never being able to sell. Now you want to violate the social contract, gift AGS with liquidity, and also let them keep their 6X discount. Sorry, but that violates the social contract and is provably unfair.
Quote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 05:15:53 pmQuote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 04:55:46 pmQuote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 04:47:55 pmYou are conflating two separate issues. If you don't think AGS/PTS should be granted X percentage of the superDAC, that has absolutely nothing to do with my post (read it again). I was specifically pointing out that the ratio of shares received by AGS should NOT be equal to those received by PTS because PTS holders paid 6X for liquidity and AGS holders received a 6X discount to be locked in. Your entire argument about future DACs and the value ascribed to PTS applies equally to AGS. It does not address the liquidity gift or the ratio.But you're creating this out of nothing. The Social Consensus was always 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS. They are co-equal in every way. Where does this "liquidity discount" come from, other than your mind? I was pointing out that any person could probably find a bunch of other random reasons for wishing to discount PTS or AGS...no less random than yours.They are absolutely NOT co-equal in every way. PTS investors paid a 6X premium over AGS investors in exchange for one thing: liquidity. This was the ONLY differentiating factor between AGS and PTS and was the crux of the social contract. According to you, this was an insignificant detail, and people are crazy enough to pay 6X more for an asset that is "co-equal in every way."If that is your argument the sell your pts now. With your pts you have all ready received stakes in btsx,dns and vote. You can choose to liquidate those stakes or hang-on to them in any ratio to receive bts. As a ags holder I have no option of liquidating my ags.Other then selling the stakes in the dacs I have received. Also consider the fact that their has been plenty of time to more then profit off pts. I was one of the hyped soul's that was buying pts at 14$+ pre 2/28 snapshot to make sure I got btsx before it went to the moon. Pts has had more the enough flexibility to make plenty of profit. As other's have pointed out even if this merger was not going to go through I think the other DAC's are a way of from being completed. Not to mention the mining problem with pts or and lets not forget if we don't merge we are taking are small dev team and splinting them in the dacs.Fact is the original plan was probably a little to ambitious. Having separate dac's sounds great but I just don't think its practical given the size of the dev teams at the moment. After the brand is built is the time to spin stand alone dac's off.
Quote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 04:55:46 pmQuote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 04:47:55 pmYou are conflating two separate issues. If you don't think AGS/PTS should be granted X percentage of the superDAC, that has absolutely nothing to do with my post (read it again). I was specifically pointing out that the ratio of shares received by AGS should NOT be equal to those received by PTS because PTS holders paid 6X for liquidity and AGS holders received a 6X discount to be locked in. Your entire argument about future DACs and the value ascribed to PTS applies equally to AGS. It does not address the liquidity gift or the ratio.But you're creating this out of nothing. The Social Consensus was always 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS. They are co-equal in every way. Where does this "liquidity discount" come from, other than your mind? I was pointing out that any person could probably find a bunch of other random reasons for wishing to discount PTS or AGS...no less random than yours.They are absolutely NOT co-equal in every way. PTS investors paid a 6X premium over AGS investors in exchange for one thing: liquidity. This was the ONLY differentiating factor between AGS and PTS and was the crux of the social contract. According to you, this was an insignificant detail, and people are crazy enough to pay 6X more for an asset that is "co-equal in every way."
Quote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 04:47:55 pmYou are conflating two separate issues. If you don't think AGS/PTS should be granted X percentage of the superDAC, that has absolutely nothing to do with my post (read it again). I was specifically pointing out that the ratio of shares received by AGS should NOT be equal to those received by PTS because PTS holders paid 6X for liquidity and AGS holders received a 6X discount to be locked in. Your entire argument about future DACs and the value ascribed to PTS applies equally to AGS. It does not address the liquidity gift or the ratio.But you're creating this out of nothing. The Social Consensus was always 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS. They are co-equal in every way. Where does this "liquidity discount" come from, other than your mind? I was pointing out that any person could probably find a bunch of other random reasons for wishing to discount PTS or AGS...no less random than yours.
You are conflating two separate issues. If you don't think AGS/PTS should be granted X percentage of the superDAC, that has absolutely nothing to do with my post (read it again). I was specifically pointing out that the ratio of shares received by AGS should NOT be equal to those received by PTS because PTS holders paid 6X for liquidity and AGS holders received a 6X discount to be locked in. Your entire argument about future DACs and the value ascribed to PTS applies equally to AGS. It does not address the liquidity gift or the ratio.
Quote from: bytemaster on October 23, 2014, 06:42:14 pmPlay & Music are still honoring at high ratios... PTS continues...PTS does not end is not "merged"... it just got lucky enough to have a share-drip on them.The real news is that I3 will not be building any other DACs.So, future 3rd party DACs will honor AGS/PTS based on Nov 5 snapshot?
Play & Music are still honoring at high ratios... PTS continues...PTS does not end is not "merged"... it just got lucky enough to have a share-drip on them.The real news is that I3 will not be building any other DACs.
Quote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 09:29:49 pmQuote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 08:37:34 pmSo you are saying that liquidity had nothing to do with people paying 6X more to obtain PTS instead of AGS, an otherwise identical investment. I'm sorry I really cannot hold a conversation with you.Everyone knew what they were getting into. The market created a different value for each. Trying to re-write the rules with a discount now makes little sense.Apparently nobody knew what they were getting into, this whole process is already re-writing all the rules, not even sure what you are talking about here.If everyone knew there was going to be a single DAC and that PTS and AGS would be converted into the same token with the same properties and they could buy PTS or AGS with AGS getting 6x the stake for the investment in that DAC do you think anyone at all would have invested in PTS? I certainly wouldn't have.
Quote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 08:37:34 pmSo you are saying that liquidity had nothing to do with people paying 6X more to obtain PTS instead of AGS, an otherwise identical investment. I'm sorry I really cannot hold a conversation with you.Everyone knew what they were getting into. The market created a different value for each. Trying to re-write the rules with a discount now makes little sense.
So you are saying that liquidity had nothing to do with people paying 6X more to obtain PTS instead of AGS, an otherwise identical investment. I'm sorry I really cannot hold a conversation with you.
Quote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 05:15:53 pmThey are absolutely NOT co-equal in every way. PTS investors paid a 6X premium over AGS investors in exchange for one thing: liquidity. This was the ONLY differentiating factor between AGS and PTS and was the crux of the social contract. According to you, this was an insignificant detail, and people are crazy enough to pay 6X more for an asset that is "co-equal in every way."AGS was flawed and it continued on for so long that it became a better deal. The Social Consensus never included any discount. Nor has there ever been talk of one until now from you, after the fact. AGS liqudity has been discussed many times. Just as a PTS buyout has been discussed as one possibility.
They are absolutely NOT co-equal in every way. PTS investors paid a 6X premium over AGS investors in exchange for one thing: liquidity. This was the ONLY differentiating factor between AGS and PTS and was the crux of the social contract. According to you, this was an insignificant detail, and people are crazy enough to pay 6X more for an asset that is "co-equal in every way."
DNS and PTS should be immediately liquid. The only reason I can think of to justify this is that BTS will have far greater liquidity than PTS/DNS and a large motivated seller would have incentive to not sell now but wait for BTS liquidity to sell into. However, vesting these 2 creates some other current market distortions and may carry over into BTS as a long drawn out sell pressure that could have been satisfied today in the PTS and DNS markets.I think this is an opportunity to squash the quibble between the PTS/AGS liquidity arguments. PTS should remain liquid and perhaps AGS should be completely locked for a year and then vested over the following year. I only own AGS currently (of the two) and did not expect to be able to sell them anytime soon. (though, I did expect someone would eventually make a tradeable asset to replace AGS. That had been talked about many times)So i suggest:PTS - no vestingDNS - no vestingAGS - locked then vestingVOTE - normal vestingThis make sense to me and puts out a few needless fires.
Quote from: biophil on October 22, 2014, 02:41:57 pmQuote from: bytemaster on October 22, 2014, 02:33:07 pmVesting only applies to VOTE + DNS + PTS + AGS.There is some confusion over whether or not claiming your funds early results in losing everything else... I think that you can claim them as they mature.... so after 1 year you are 50% liquid and 50% locked up. After 2 years everyone should be able to claim 100% of their allocation.This is a compromise on the liquidity proposition... the other idea would have incentivized people to hold on for 2 years to avoid losing anything.In other words... everyone will eventually get 100% of their allocation. No penalty for claiming your matured BTS.Is the vesting curve continuous? I asked this somewhere else but my question got buried. So do I get 1/24 after the first month, 2/24 after the 2nd month, etc?In my opinion, this would be a better way to go about this as anyone looking to "get out" would sell sometime after the date the funds are "released" with smaller sell pressure rather than every 6 months or year, which would have a big incoming dump with a known date. If I knew that on Nov 1st, my funds and everyone's funds would be released for the first time in 6 months and I want out, everyone would sell...on the flip side, if I held something I knew people would be dumping into for the first time in 6 months, I would sell off before that date then buy in at the dip, effectively scalping some of the cost. Ideally, it would be a daily release of whatever percent that may have a constant pressure the market could get acclimated to....this is all speculation though as people may be interested in just holding like me
Quote from: bytemaster on October 22, 2014, 02:33:07 pmVesting only applies to VOTE + DNS + PTS + AGS.There is some confusion over whether or not claiming your funds early results in losing everything else... I think that you can claim them as they mature.... so after 1 year you are 50% liquid and 50% locked up. After 2 years everyone should be able to claim 100% of their allocation.This is a compromise on the liquidity proposition... the other idea would have incentivized people to hold on for 2 years to avoid losing anything.In other words... everyone will eventually get 100% of their allocation. No penalty for claiming your matured BTS.Is the vesting curve continuous? I asked this somewhere else but my question got buried. So do I get 1/24 after the first month, 2/24 after the 2nd month, etc?
Vesting only applies to VOTE + DNS + PTS + AGS.There is some confusion over whether or not claiming your funds early results in losing everything else... I think that you can claim them as they mature.... so after 1 year you are 50% liquid and 50% locked up. After 2 years everyone should be able to claim 100% of their allocation.This is a compromise on the liquidity proposition... the other idea would have incentivized people to hold on for 2 years to avoid losing anything.In other words... everyone will eventually get 100% of their allocation. No penalty for claiming your matured BTS.
Vesting only applies to VOTE + DNS + PTS + AGS.There is some confusion over whether or not claiming your funds early results in losing everything else... I think that you can claim them as they mature.... so after 1 year you are 50% liquid and 50% locked up. After 2 years everyone should be able to claim 100% of their allocation.This is a compromise on the liquidity proposition... the other idea would have incentivized people to hold on for 2 years to avoid losing anything.In other words... everyone will eventually get 100% of their allocation. No penalty for claiming your matured BTS. It is linear... each block you can unlock some small amount of shares... make a transaction with the "fee/share ratio is favorable".
Here is another concern, during the two years will 20% of new DACs only be given to vested stakes or will unvested stakes also be rewarded?
Quote from: alphaBar on October 22, 2014, 04:25:56 pmHey Dan, why don't you give us the logic behind your "vesting" proposal. PTS holders paid a 6X premium for their liquidity while AGS holders received a 6X discount for being "locked in". Now, as the largest holder of AGS, you want to "gift" liquidity to AGS AND keep your 6X discount. All at the expense of everyone else in the superDAC. Even worse, the new proposal actually reverses PTS liquidity by locking them into a vesting period. Rather than giving me the standard "it hurts me more than it hurts you" answer, why don't tell us simply - how can the value of liquidity be ZERO? What rational justification do you have for taking out the only differentiating factor between AGS and PTS (actually reversing them in a sense) and at the same time allowing AGS to keep the 6X discount for being "locked in"?This idea of a discount for liquidity is interesting. I haven't seen it before. It seems that you are arbitrarily valuing the liquidity, while you could just as easily pick 10 other aspects of these stakes to discount/devalue for various reasons. Really, if you were to do this, then it would be the equivalent of a PTS premium. What the hell are PTS holders expecting? We've got our DNS, Vote, Music, and BTSX stakes already. Does anyone else here see too many other new DACs on the horizon? These are the profitable ones. One could easily make the argument that PTS holders are getting a major gift here. From holding something that could be utterly worthless (I don't see BitShares Me or Play on the near horizon, do you?), this merger gives PTS additional stake in BitShares X. Are you kidding? Give me your Alta Vista shares; here's some Google.
Hey Dan, why don't you give us the logic behind your "vesting" proposal. PTS holders paid a 6X premium for their liquidity while AGS holders received a 6X discount for being "locked in". Now, as the largest holder of AGS, you want to "gift" liquidity to AGS AND keep your 6X discount. All at the expense of everyone else in the superDAC. Even worse, the new proposal actually reverses PTS liquidity by locking them into a vesting period. Rather than giving me the standard "it hurts me more than it hurts you" answer, why don't tell us simply - how can the value of liquidity be ZERO? What rational justification do you have for taking out the only differentiating factor between AGS and PTS (actually reversing them in a sense) and at the same time allowing AGS to keep the 6X discount for being "locked in"?
It is linear... each block you can unlock some small amount of shares... make a transaction with the "fee/share ratio is favorable".
Quote from: Gentso1 on October 22, 2014, 03:44:08 pmPlease confirm that this vesting period only applies to the 500mill or whatever the final number created.The btsx I hold now when transferred to bts I will have the option to sell whenever I prefer.The ags I donated to pre 2/28 will be slowly released during the vesting period you stated. All BTSX will remain liquid... no migrating... just an upgrade to your wallet. All BitUSD / BitBTC/BitGLD unaffected.
Please confirm that this vesting period only applies to the 500mill or whatever the final number created.The btsx I hold now when transferred to bts I will have the option to sell whenever I prefer.The ags I donated to pre 2/28 will be slowly released during the vesting period you stated.
Quote from: Frodo on October 22, 2014, 02:38:30 pm This way we also avoid a huge dump after the 2 years.Isn't that exactly when a "huge dump" will happen. Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but as soon as the shares are unlocked, the market will be flooded.
This way we also avoid a huge dump after the 2 years.
2 year vesting period... ie: you can withdraw early for a fraction of your cut.. if you want to sell after 6 months you get 25%... if you wait for a year you get 50%... etc.