Quote from: tonyk on October 23, 2014, 04:49:43 am

Quote from: bitmeat on October 23, 2014, 04:32:10 am

That's my point - there is no real incentive to hold PTS at all with the current setup. Unless they make PTS not have to vest, which in my mind would be fair.

I mean it is liquid right now, so it's not like adding a lock to it is going to stop people from liquidating it.

I still do not get your point though....

You want BM to make such an incentive or what?

PTS is a sell-able badge in my view - "Here, I am a Bitshares enthusiast. And my self proclaimed value is X" (X is the amount of badge I have bought). I am not contributing any other value to the system except purchasing said badge, and declaring my value to be as high as that.
 ohh and btw, at any second I choose I can sell this badge for whatever I find appropriate....

The point is that PTS had a much higher value due to the fact that it is liquid, it was it's main characteristic.

When you bundle PTS and AGS into the merger, I can understand AGS liquidity being locked for 2 years, but the PTS should not be locked in.

The argument for the locking of liquidity was to prevent sudden dumping of BTS, but the thing is PTS is already liquid, so in fact it is causing people to dump PTS and buy BTSX. Since BTSX will remain liquid when it switched to BTS, while PTS portion will suddenly be locked.

   Bitmeat does make a valid point.   A good portion of the value of PTS is that it is liquid.......(this is not monitory value mind you but it is value none the less).  The deal is taking away the liquidity  (somewhat) from PTS owners but still provides  the same split to AGS which is GAINING liquidity..

I hesitate to make this point only because as a PTS owner, I really just want to accept BMs slip proposal, get on with the merger and move forward.  I'm ok to do that.   However the facts are the facts.

Quote from: LadyHeadShoot on October 23, 2014, 07:16:56 pm

Quote from: inarizushi on October 23, 2014, 06:49:13 pm

The allocation may be unfair, however I don't really get why some big Chinese investors are ready to sell so low right now : don't they believe in future high prices for BTS ? Even if one feels robbed by the allocation, BTS still have the potential to go to the moon, and even more after the merge.

I am European, I am not Chinese and certainly not American, but I think it is not neither about "changing the rules" but rather a principle. I feel it like that.
A lot of successful people say that it is necessary to stick to your goals with tooth's and nails.
And often the first decision is correct.

 

That, my friend, is a recipe for failure. Bitshares is a decentralized unmanned startup and startups need to pivot.

Okay so first of all, I'm so insanely exited for the birth of BTS!!!! It's going to be so freaking awesome, I can hardly put it into words. There'll be a new calendar, year 2014 = year 0. This is a complete gamechanger for humanity.

Okay, so on to the topic:

During the multi-DAC phase it made sense to have a centralized development team and an external funding pool to fund their projects and pay their salary. However, now that everything gets consolidated into a single blockchain, we can simplify and improve things tremendously, and we can drastically increase transparency. I want to stress that I argue for these measures not because I don't trust I3, on the contrary I have immense faith in them because they have really proven themselves to be absolute geniuses. Us, currently existing investors do not really need that much transparency, but these measures will be for new investors who will greatly value it, especially those coming from the altcoin community. With enough transparency, it will be so much easier for prospective buyers to decide to buy in, if they're able to see all the cards. As an investor that wants to see our DAC grow, I present these two measures I would like to see implemented:

Consolidate all assets and employees under the direct control of BTS

With the introduction of the revolutionary concept of share dilution in a DAC, we have gained an insane competitive advantage over any other blockchain due to the ability that we now have to rapidly fund development and marketing in a decentralized manner that scales infinitely. To ensure total transparency and optimal governance, we should have it as a rule that there will never be any middle men for paying salary i.e. any person who works full time and is paid a salary by BTS, must work directly for the blockchain rather than as a worker in some external, centralized management structure. With the introduction of share dilution there is simply no need for anyone to be employed by anything else than the DAC.

I would like to see every team member on this page http://bitshares.org/community/team/ apply to become a paid delegate after the hard fork. It would greatly increase transparency and understanding of the average shareholder about what exactly is being done, and who is doing it, and will MASSIVELY increase shareholder confidence and demand. I don't think anyone has ever seen a company structure like this before, the level of transparency will be absolutely revolutionary. Once the entire team has been integrated as paid delegates, it will provide an excellent showcasing to new developers that might be interested in working for the blockchain.

Also, now that BTSX has bought out AGS, that means we own 100% of what AGS donation are designated to be spent on. With the new capability we have to pay salary directly to team members, instead of going through an external entity, there is no need for these funds to be stored any longer. I propose that they are all used to buy up BTSX, and then burned. The only exceptions should be the funds set aside for the marketing push, and the funds that will be used to make the bitUSD buywall.

In the future, if a delegate wishes to raise a large, one time sum for a project, they should simply issue a user issued asset that is basically a bond for the project with a small interest rate. The bond will then be paid back by the delegate increasing their pay rate. This ensures that the DAC will never have to take on the risk of entrusting a single person with a large amount of money, but only people who specialize in judging risk will have to do that.

Create a forum for large stakeholders where EVERYTHING will be revealed, thus ending secrecy and implementing absolute transparency.

I have never been a big fan of the secrecy that I3 has had for stakeholders, but I fully understand they were necessary for competition reasons. However, now that BTS is maturing, I think it is time to implement a measure that will enable the community to have absolute transparency by proxy, through having independent people in the know. A forum for big stakeholders will allow at least a part of independent stakeholders to know everything that is going on, so they can relay to the broader community that everything is going well. As long as the required stake to gain access is large enough, there will be no chance that a competitor will manage to get in and steal an idea (if they bought that large a stake, they'd rather just collaborate). I'd say something like 0.1% should be the minimum to gain access to this private board. I think that eventually, when we have achieved the Network Effect, there will be no need for any secrecy at all, because there'll be no chance that people will choose to compete with us rather than collaborate.



As a shareholder, I think that if these measures were implemented then it would be such a HUGE value boost, due to the high demand for transparency, especially in the crypto world. It would really help cement the launch pad we are building to get ready for the marketing push and the Moon. People who are smart enough to understand will literally not be able to come up with a single reason why they shouldn't invest, or even bet the farm.

I currently own a couple million of shares, and the only thing holding me back from going all-in is the transparency. If I get a commitment that this absolute transparency will be implemented with the formation of BTS, I'll be making another huge buy. I'm just so insanely excited for BTS!!!! It's literally one of the greatest things EVER. We are shaping the history of the universe. I feel silly talking about the moon, we're going to the freaking GALACTIC CENTER.

 .  You haver some good opines heresia.

I think your requiremnt to be a "large stakeholder" is too low though.   It should be a minimum of 0.02%........twice what you have proposed, minimum.

AGS and PTS will be dead after the proposed merger.  In future third parties will honor BTS(x).  I don't believe the rate has been established yet.   

Quote from: James212 on October 20, 2014, 12:59:00 pm

Quote from: matt608 on October 20, 2014, 12:21:36 pm

I'm in favour of the proposal so long as we got VOTE on board BTS.  I haven't looked into DNS so I don't know how big a deal it is, but merging with competition which then becomes a feature is a great move.

I'm a bit confused as to why merging VOTE (and DNS?) with BTSX (which will become BTS) is connected to acquiring PTS+AGS?  Is it because VOTE is (was) an independent DAC and BM had an obligation to support it due to obligations to PTS+AGS holders, so if PTS+AGS are brought on board BTSX THEN VOTE should be too so that vote isn't competing with BTSX which would contain the PTS + AGS holders?

AGS/PTS value comes from all future DACs.  If these future dacs are now to be a division of bst(x) then we are TRANSFERING the value that used to belong to PTS/AGS.  Therefore they will be useless and have no value.  Bts(x) will need to compensate the AGE,PTS holders with new BTS<- this is where the value was transferred to. 

What is stated above relates to dacs launched by I3/the bitshares team.  Third parties can still use the bitshares tool kit and pay a percentage to  (now) all BTS(x) holders

This makes good sense James212 as i3 are large PTS/AGS holders they will also receive extra development funds and there is  then no need for any dilution/share issuing.

My understanding is that there will in fact  be funds made available to the new BTS resulting from the merger with PTS/AGS, However the issue of financing will still me on the table.  Structuring BTS so that it can issue value when needed will allow it to monitize its efforts and ideas much,much more effectively.  That is why BM says the BTS(X) will grow much more slowly without the ability to raise capital, and growing too slowly could very well be the death nail for BTS(X).   Remember this is a race to gather network effect.   Network effect is 90% of the determining factor for who will succeed and it is a zero sum game!

I'm in favour of the proposal so long as we got VOTE on board BTS.  I haven't looked into DNS so I don't know how big a deal it is, but merging with competition which then becomes a feature is a great move.

I'm a bit confused as to why merging VOTE (and DNS?) with BTSX (which will become BTS) is connected to acquiring PTS+AGS?  Is it because VOTE is (was) an independent DAC and BM had an obligation to support it due to obligations to PTS+AGS holders, so if PTS+AGS are brought on board BTSX THEN VOTE should be too so that vote isn't competing with BTSX which would contain the PTS + AGS holders?

AGS/PTS value comes from all future DACs.  If these future dacs are now to be a division of bst(x) then we are TRANSFERING the value that used to belong to PTS/AGS.  Therefore they will be useless and have no value.  Bts(x) will need to compensate the AGE,PTS holders with new BTS<- this is where the value was transferred to. 

What is stated above relates to dacs launched by I3/the bitshares team.  Third parties can still use the bitshares tool kit and pay a percentage to  (now) all BTS(x) holders

Quote from: stuartcharles on October 20, 2014, 08:45:40 am

Been plowing through the posts and listened to the mumble.

I can see why the mumble session was positive, putting some of the DAC's together makes absolute sense, from a pooling of resource and not competing with ones self point of view. However, the problem which made me feel uncomfortable was not addressed. These are:-

We carnt fairly vote on whether to issue more shares or not (dilution) when i3 controls enough shares to sway the vote.
Where are any newly issued shares kept, who controls them?

Edit - To be clear i am not talking about the conversion of AGS,PTS and BTSX to BTS that can be reasoned out with discussion. I am talking about any future dilution which Dan said could be voted on and then used for development.

This looming question is why I'm against dilution schemes.  Sure proposals might be put to a vote but even if I3 didn't control a majority of the voting shares they would likely only have to make a recommendation and the votes would flock. 

If dilution proposals by I3 are anything like current proposals they only need to claim some big secret and everyone will rush to vote for the printing press based on information they don't even have.

I believe I3 will continue to try to do what they think will give them the greatest chances for success and maybe it's best to leave them an avenue to print money when wanted.  That's just not the system I was excited to invest in.

On top of that, to my knowledge there is no code base or even proposal to autonomize the restriction of use for added funds, tracking them or the calculation for how much extra profit they've bought.  Let's say I spend all the dilution funds raised on hooker and blow, then what?  You vote me out and hopefully the next guy doesn't also sweet talk more funds out of shareholders with some grand plans?

[/b]

They are in printing money, they are issuing shares.  THIS IS NOT BITCOIN.   The mechanics and function of crypto shares are/should be totally different from crypto currency   People are still getting confused with this! 

The details of the delution/ infusion plan are still to be worked out.  As I understand it, nothing has been divided yet.  The only thing the many are starting to come around to is that the general idea is worth exploring.    There are many details to be worked out before agreement is reached.