How would the Vote Snapshot fit into this since it was already taken?
(i.e. what if you had 1,000 PTS when the Vote snapshot was taken and have 500 PTS now?)
How would the Vote Snapshot fit into this since it was already taken?
(i.e. what if you had 1,000 PTS when the Vote snapshot was taken and have 500 PTS now?)
I think that in Bytemasters proposal, VOTE will not exist, and everything will be part of Bitshares.
In your case of having 1000 PTS when the VOTE snapshot happene,d but 500 now, then you only get 500 PTS worth of the new BTS.
However, you also have a bunch of USD/CNY/BTC that you got for selling the PTS. And if you want you could buy some PTS or BTSX now with that money, and get your full share. (Actually, would will probably get MORE than those of us who held through this recent price dump, if you buy now!)
Is this process going to be absolutely, perfectly, 100% fair to everyone? No, it cannot be. It is impossible, because we all bought and sold various things at different prices at different times.
But it is going to be as fair as it can to as many people as it can. It uses values approximating current market prices, so it at least gets as close as possible.
Thank you for this useful overview.
Do we really need to launch a new BTSX?
It would be easy enough do dilute BTSX to add AGS/PTS. Then just rename it to BTS.
The 2 billion cap is only a mental trap, and launching a new DAC with 2 billion shares is more work than accepting that 2B can increase. And accomplishes the same thing.
Do we really need to launch a new BTSX?
It would be easy enough do dilute BTSX to add AGS/PTS. Then just rename it to BTS.
I understand and agree with the statement that "we need to recognize those who have helped fund development after Feb 28th so they don't compete with us."
However, I don't see why or how anybody who participated in AGS or for that matter PTS after the snapshot would have any expectation of getting a stake in BTSX.
The proposal to have a lock-in period of 6 months is at best a hack and at worst arbitrary.
They didn't expect to get a stake in BTSX... but they did in domains, voting, and every other idea we came up with. If we add those to BTSX you better believe they would expect a cut to be fair. I picked 6 months because that is how long I think it would be reasonable to expect some of those features in BTS.
+5% 10%/10%/80% is great!
as i understand it bitshares vote will also exist, but not with support of bytemaster. what he wants is to create all planed feature then for the BTS chain and want that "Adam" (vote guy?) to agree to join the BTS boat.
BM and I bounced the number "~16%" for PTS+AGS (+ small for DNS) around because it uses the value at which BTSX seemed to be stable for a long time ($75m for BTSX), also it is halfway between it's current price and ATH.
BM and I bounced the number "~16%" for PTS+AGS (+ small for DNS) around because it uses the value at which BTSX seemed to be stable for a long time ($75m for BTSX), also it is halfway between it's current price and ATH.
Yes, I prefer this 16% (or 18% or whatever) number personally (it benefits me slightly). It more evenly allocates the value based on the market caps at the time. I made option B because I figured the PTS/AGS people would think this was unfair and would want a bit more. :)
i am BTSX /AGS and no PTS holder - but with the merger you will strip my AGS from the right to get 10% for every chain in the future. on the day of the proposal the BTSX market cap was under 50 million, so how would 75 million be fair?
just to count BTSX on the best possible market cap and PTS to the lowest will not be happen.
Will any of these options reduce current BTSX holders shares by number or percentage of the whole?
Will any of these options reduce current BTSX holders shares by number or percentage of the whole or both?
By % of the total ?Will any of these options reduce current BTSX holders shares by number or percentage of the whole or both?
They all will.
But you will have a smaller part of a larger whole.
By % of the total ?
Thats unclear right now. We need to get a consensus on the fair percentages for everyone.
Edit: Just wondering what difference will people see ? In their wallet or in marketcap type numbers? Will they see less BTSX in their wallet is really the question?
Edit: Just wondering what difference will people see ? In their wallet or in marketcap type numbers? Will they see less BTSX in their wallet is really the question?
Your balance will remain the same. Market cap will increase by several million. Your balance will increase when you claim your PTS/AGS allocated shares.
i am BTSX /AGS and no PTS holder - but with the merger you will strip my AGS from the right to get 10% for every chain in the future. on the day of the proposal the BTSX market cap was under 50 million, so how would 75 million be fair?
Actually, the newly merged BTS should be the entity that provides shares in future DACs. After all, WE ARE MERGING PTS AND AGS INTO IT!
So the social consensus in the future changes from:
10% PTS/10%AGS/80% Dev.
to:
20% BTS/80% Dev.
BTS is not ONLY the new BTSX. It is also the new 'proto/angel' shares! Because we are merging!
So you are not stripped of your ability to get 10% of new DACs.
You would get BTS due to your BTSX shares, and due to your AGS shares. And then you would get stake in new independant DACs based on those shares, because PTS and AGS would be no more!
At least that is my interpretaiton. I could be wrong! Someone please tell me if I am. :)Quotejust to count BTSX on the best possible market cap and PTS to the lowest will not be happen.
Actually, this is counting BTSX with its recent diminshed market cap, no where near its high at $100M.
And the PTS market cap went down because you got VOTE and DNS out of it. (And BTSX, if pre- Feb 28)
i did't calculated which allocation will be better for me, because i allready increased my BTSX holding in the past, but we all should consider what AGS and PTS holders is promised and that is 10% of a new chain, and that is a new chain as far as i see it.
It's amazing how far people are willing to spin things based on their own personal investment.
QuoteIt's amazing how far people are willing to spin things based on their own personal investment.
Obviously...And this will continue to happen until BM comes with a final proposal and seals the deal in what he thinks is the best way as usual..
pre - 28th snapshot 0% on new BTS obviously
after 28th snapshot 30% / 10% / 60% AGS / PTS / BTSX.
The reason I believe in this allocation is because one should take into account the opportunity cost from the lack of liquidity to AGS and one shouldn't take into account the high valuation of BTSX @ $75 mil and the low of PTS @ 5 mil. AGS valuation should be much more than $5 mil imho...
I was happy with 10/10/80.sounds fine with me.
The problem with this averaging out stuff is that one can make the argument for PTS. Then people will say but no, PTS obviously had value shaved off during snapshots and future value leading up to snapshots. Who really knows? We can get into nested arguments all biased on what we want.
Try to correlate what the value of BTSX was pre-scare and do that with PTS. Assume efficient markets. Then chop it up like that.
or
10/10/80 as simple and straightforward. It will save a lot of bickering and people will move on.
Then people will say but no, PTS obviously had value shaved off during snapshots and future value leading up to snapshots.
10/10/80 as simple and straightforward. It will save a lot of bickering and people will move on.
Then people will say but no, PTS obviously had value shaved off during snapshots and future value leading up to snapshots.
All of the value that PTS had shaved off during snapshots is made up with the fact that they GOT SHARES of DACs. For example, DNS and MUSIC.
People who just bought BTSX did NOT get MUSIC. If you just say "PTS should be valued more highly", then you basically give the person who bought PTS both new BTS AND MUSIC, while giving the person who bought BTSX only the BTS.
That is not fair. The PTS/AGS people need to get slightly lower amounts of BTS in order to account for the fact that they got other shares in the meantime.
My proposals from the first post are roughly fair. The 10/10/80 split is the most that should be given to PTS/AGS. Actually it is kindof unfair in their favor, over the BTSX holders. A 9/9/82 or 8/8/84 split is actually a lot fairer, based on market cap. The DNS and MUSIC shares that the PTS holders have makes up for the slightly lower allocation.
All of the value that PTS had shaved off during snapshots is made up with the fact that they GOT SHARES of DACs. For example, DNS and MUSIC.
I believe this assumes that the same people still own PTS as the ones then.
People who just bought BTSX did NOT get MUSIC. If you just say "PTS should be valued more highly", then you basically give the person who bought PTS both new BTS AND MUSIC, while giving the person who bought BTSX only the BTS.
That is not fair. The PTS/AGS people need to get slightly lower amounts of BTS in order to account for the fact that they got other shares in the meantime.
My proposals from the first post are roughly fair. The 10/10/80 split is the most that should be given to PTS/AGS. Actually it is kindof unfair in their favor, over the BTSX holders. A 9/9/82 or 8/8/84 split is actually a lot fairer, based on market cap. The DNS and MUSIC shares that the PTS holders have makes up for the slightly lower allocation.
And which numbers from what ranges did you decide on were "fair" to calculate this?
10/10/80 is slightly more generous than it looks like Bytemaster may have been discussing, which was in the 16-18% range for PTS+AGS (+DNS?). (That is, his original proposal seems to be more like my proposal A?)
If the PTS/AGS hholders end up getting 10/10/80, plus MUSIC shares that we BTSX holders didnt get, then you came out ahead.
if the PTS holders get just under that, console yourselves with the fact that you also got MUSIC and we (BTSX buyers) didnt.
THere is a big question here about the value that PTS holders give up when the whole PTS/AGS system is abandoned. It is value that is being destroyed by the acquisition. How do you even put that into the equation ? You guys can just take a BTSX vote, but that isn't the same as a PTS vote.
THere is a big question here about the value that PTS holders give up when the whole PTS/AGS system is abandoned. It is value that is being destroyed by the acquisition. How do you even put that into the equation ? You guys can just take a BTSX vote, but that isn't the same as a PTS vote.
I thought the idea was to transfer the remaining value of PTS/AGS into BTS.. not destroy value
THere is a big question here about the value that PTS holders give up when the whole PTS/AGS system is abandoned. It is value that is being destroyed by the acquisition. How do you even put that into the equation ? You guys can just take a BTSX vote, but that isn't the same as a PTS vote.
I thought the idea was to transfer the remaining value of PTS/AGS into BTS.. not destroy value
So what will change after the merger? Will I get any Music, Vote, DNS or XYZ DAC shares, or is my gain more through association like my original impression?
People with PTS were expecting a % of DACs going forward. This % will be severely diluted. If someone snapshots 20% in the future to BTSX, that is far different than 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS.
THere is a big question here about the value that PTS holders give up when the whole PTS/AGS system is abandoned. It is value that is being destroyed by the acquisition. How do you even put that into the equation ? You guys can just take a BTSX vote, but that isn't the same as a PTS vote.
I thought the idea was to transfer the remaining value of PTS/AGS into BTS.. not destroy value
So what will change after the merger? Will I get any Music, Vote, DNS or XYZ DAC shares, or is my gain more through association like my original impression?
Those will become "apps" (wont' necessarily have an equity) and not a DAC.
THere is a big question here about the value that PTS holders give up when the whole PTS/AGS system is abandoned. It is value that is being destroyed by the acquisition. How do you even put that into the equation ? You guys can just take a BTSX vote, but that isn't the same as a PTS vote.
I thought the idea was to transfer the remaining value of PTS/AGS into BTS.. not destroy value
Yes, future DACs (the functionality and/or actual separate DACs) will emerge from BTS. it's not destroyed, only transferred.
People with PTS were expecting a % of DACs going forward. This % will be severely diluted. If someone snapshots 20% in the future to BTSX, that is far different than 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS.
What remaining DACs are there? Just an abstract "any future DACs"?
THere is a big question here about the value that PTS holders give up when the whole PTS/AGS system is abandoned. It is value that is being destroyed by the acquisition. How do you even put that into the equation ? You guys can just take a BTSX vote, but that isn't the same as a PTS vote.
I thought the idea was to transfer the remaining value of PTS/AGS into BTS.. not destroy value
Yes, future DACs (the functionality and/or actual separate DACs) will emerge from BTS. it's not destroyed, only transferred.
You get more value in the form of BTSX but less from future snapshots which is why people invested in PTS/AGS to begin with. That whole thing is flushed down to 17% or whatever of what it would have been. So now PTS gets 17% of 20% instead of 20%. Thats what PTS looses.
People with PTS were expecting a % of DACs going forward. This % will be severely diluted. If someone snapshots 20% in the future to BTSX, that is far different than 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS.
What remaining DACs are there? Just an abstract "any future DACs"?
Yes. Was this not what Dan sold as his vision for donations... from the beginning? All these low barrier to entry DACs? Has everyone done a 180 on that view now ?
People with PTS were expecting a % of DACs going forward. This % will be severely diluted. If someone snapshots 20% in the future to BTSX, that is far different than 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS.
What remaining DACs are there? Just an abstract "any future DACs"?
Yes. Was this not what Dan sold as his vision for donations... from the beginning? All these low barrier to entry DACs? Has everyone done a 180 on that view now ?
Man outside a core group of existing BitShares related talent Hackfisher, Toast, Eddie & Cob and perhaps Vote etc. there was really not much in the upcoming pipeline really. The one third party that did honour it LTS didn't do so well. Plus in a few months there'll be Ethereum competing for attention anyway. Personally I think this is a great deal for PTS and my AGS stake.
People with PTS were expecting a % of DACs going forward. This % will be severely diluted. If someone snapshots 20% in the future to BTSX, that is far different than 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS.
People with PTS were expecting a % of DACs going forward. This % will be severely diluted. If someone snapshots 20% in the future to BTSX, that is far different than 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS.
What remaining DACs are there? Just an abstract "any future DACs"?
Yes. Was this not what Dan sold as his vision for donations... from the beginning? All these low barrier to entry DACs? Has everyone done a 180 on that view now ?
Man outside a core group of existing BitShares related talent Hackfisher, Toast, Eddie & Cob and perhaps Vote etc. there was really not much in the upcoming pipeline really. The one third party that did honour it LTS didn't do so well. Plus in a few months there'll be Ethereum competing for attention anyway. Personally I think this is a great deal for PTS and my AGS stake.
I think Bitshares was "The Big Idea" for most of us.
Personally I never found the need to get rid of AGS/PTS. If they're hard to market, then don't market them. Re-brand it all and make PTS/AGS like products of BItshares and make them an asset.
Keep Bitshares plan as it is otherwise. Drop the X, add democratic stake issuance. I'm still quite happy.
Wow! how things move fast around here.
I listened to the mumble session and have spent the last 6 hours reading. I hold only BTSX and got in about 2 months ago.
But I haven't really seen the X of BTSX materialize. There is no way to trade other cryptos with BTSX unless you use some OTHER exchange. So there's something quite different about the btsX than all other crypto exchanges available today. There's so much discussed and so many ideas I've practically forgotten about BTSX as an eXchange.
I'm generally in favor of BM's proposal. I do have a question about what I'll be invested in after the merger. When I bought BTSX I thought I was investing in the eXchange, which would become worth more as each new DAC was added. I viewed it similarly to how PTS investors view their share "dividends" accrued with each new DAC launched.
I'm not too sure that was an accurate perspective, but that was my viewpoint. I never felt I had an explicit understanding of how a new DAC would add to my BTSX value. But I was confident in BM's vision and believed the time was right to get onboard. I've been listening to BM since April.
So what will change after the merger? Will I get any Music, Vote, DNS or XYZ DAC shares, or is my gain more through association like my original impression?
I cann't understand the reason why AGS/PTS holders have already acquired btsx shares and now will be allocated again by diluting btsx shares!!!
In nature, it is a dilution! Btsx system is the key product for 3I. Even if btsx system doesn't merge AGS/PTS, it will have a good future too.I cann't understand the reason why AGS/PTS holders have already acquired btsx shares and now will be allocated again by diluting btsx shares!!!
It's not diluting, it's a merger. BTSX is buying out AGS and PTS. I love it!
You as a BTSX holder would also receive dividends on all future DACs. Isn't it great?
THere is a big question here about the value that PTS holders give up when the whole PTS/AGS system is abandoned. It is value that is being destroyed by the acquisition. How do you even put that into the equation ? You guys can just take a BTSX vote, but that isn't the same as a PTS vote.
I thought the idea was to transfer the remaining value of PTS/AGS into BTS.. not destroy value
Yes, future DACs (the functionality and/or actual separate DACs) will emerge from BTS. it's not destroyed, only transferred.
You get more value in the form of BTSX but less from future snapshots which is why people invested in PTS/AGS to begin with. That whole thing is flushed down to 17% or whatever of what it would have been. So now PTS gets 17% of 20% instead of 20%. Thats what PTS looses.
ah, I see. There is a bit of a difference but that is very hard to calculate. It seems very theoretical. You don't know if the value added (new DAC-like functinality/app) to the new whole (BTS) is worth more than the sum of the separate DACS. Some of them may not have been successful on their own and would benefit from being part of BTS or possibly the reverse I suppose.
Yes that was my motivation for my investment in PTS and AGS.THere is a big question here about the value that PTS holders give up when the whole PTS/AGS system is abandoned. It is value that is being destroyed by the acquisition. How do you even put that into the equation ? You guys can just take a BTSX vote, but that isn't the same as a PTS vote.
I thought the idea was to transfer the remaining value of PTS/AGS into BTS.. not destroy value
Yes, future DACs (the functionality and/or actual separate DACs) will emerge from BTS. it's not destroyed, only transferred.
You get more value in the form of BTSX but less from future snapshots which is why people invested in PTS/AGS to begin with. That whole thing is flushed down to 17% or whatever of what it would have been. So now PTS gets 17% of 20% instead of 20%. Thats what PTS looses.
ah, I see. There is a bit of a difference but that is very hard to calculate. It seems very theoretical. You don't know if the value added (new DAC-like functinality/app) to the new whole (BTS) is worth more than the sum of the separate DACS. Some of them may not have been successful on their own and would benefit from being part of BTS or possibly the reverse I suppose.
It's not easy to estimate the value that would have accrued to PTS/AGS from stakes in all future DACs. But it can't be ignored. Didn't Bytemaster himself predict a couple of weeks ago that the potential future trillion-dollar valuation of the industry wouldn't just reside in BTSX, but instead be spread out over about a dozen or so different DACs?
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that 10% of the new BTS would be a raw deal for PTS and AGS holders. And BTSX holders may be gaining an unfairly large windfall because they will now have the ability to inherit a stake in all the future DACs, which was previously only available to investors in PTS and AGS.
People with PTS were expecting a % of DACs going forward. This % will be severely diluted. If someone snapshots 20% in the future to BTSX, that is far different than 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS.
What remaining DACs are there? Just an abstract "any future DACs"?
Yes. Was this not what Dan sold as his vision for donations... from the beginning? All these low barrier to entry DACs? Has everyone done a 180 on that view now ?
Outside a core group of existing BitShares related talent Hackfisher, Toast, Eddie & Cob and perhaps Vote etc. there was really not much in the upcoming pipeline really. The one third party that did honour it LTS didn't do so well. Plus in a few months there'll be Ethereum competing for attention anyway. Personally I think this is a great deal for PTS and my AGS stake.
I agree completely, I'm actually not "happy" about 10/10/80, but sounds like BTSX only holders wouldn't be happy either, and they say when both sides of a negotiation come away unhappy then it was probably a fair deal.People with PTS were expecting a % of DACs going forward. This % will be severely diluted. If someone snapshots 20% in the future to BTSX, that is far different than 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS.
What remaining DACs are there? Just an abstract "any future DACs"?
Yes. Was this not what Dan sold as his vision for donations... from the beginning? All these low barrier to entry DACs? Has everyone done a 180 on that view now ?
Outside a core group of existing BitShares related talent Hackfisher, Toast, Eddie & Cob and perhaps Vote etc. there was really not much in the upcoming pipeline really. The one third party that did honour it LTS didn't do so well. Plus in a few months there'll be Ethereum competing for attention anyway. Personally I think this is a great deal for PTS and my AGS stake.
Upcoming pipeline? Lets please keep things in perspective. The toolkit consists of Bitshares X which has not really hit a truly stable release. How long was Bitcoin live before the first fork ?
Well I looked up something similar.. bitcoin - somewhere in 2009, litecoin - october 2011. There were probably earlier forks, but you guys act like... it is all done and wrapped up by I3 DACs.. Very bizarre to me.
PTS is getting the shaft. PTS has a commitment and paid funding to finish the toolkit. I get toolkit will continue, but PTS is gone. People left in BTSX do not appear to want any possible competitors.
You guys are buying out PTS and replacing it with a snapshot that is openly anti-fork.
Or are we just making a genesis block written in stone and not transferring that to BTSX ? THat is what BTSX should give up for paying market price and PTS/AGS giving up all future R&D PTS/AGS paid for to be directed in their interest.
If PTS owners wanted BTSX, they would have liquidated and have BTSX.
yadda yadda... just leave it at 10/10/80. PTS is owed a premium base price.
also fine with meI was happy with 10/10/80.sounds fine with me.
The problem with this averaging out stuff is that one can make the argument for PTS. Then people will say but no, PTS obviously had value shaved off during snapshots and future value leading up to snapshots. Who really knows? We can get into nested arguments all biased on what we want.
Try to correlate what the value of BTSX was pre-scare and do that with PTS. Assume efficient markets. Then chop it up like that.
or
10/10/80 as simple and straightforward. It will save a lot of bickering and people will move on.
The problem with these debates is that there is a larger interest in BTSX. So of course they are for their side, which is BTSX. Therefore we hear their side the most and people start thinking that is the consensus.
Then from there we vote on BTSX chain how to treat PTS.
I'll go along with whatever, but it becomes obvious that those of us with an interest in PTS are not being represented that well in these discussions.
The problem with these debates is that there is a larger interest in BTSX. So of course they are for their side, which is BTSX. Therefore we hear their side the most and people start thinking that is the consensus.
Then from there we vote on BTSX chain how to treat PTS.
I'll go along with whatever, but it becomes obvious that those of us with an interest in PTS are not being represented that well in these discussions.
I really hate to agree with this guy, but whatever +5%
The problem with these debates is that there is a larger interest in BTSX. So of course they are for their side, which is BTSX. Therefore we hear their side the most and people start thinking that is the consensus.
Then from there we vote on BTSX chain how to treat PTS.
I'll go along with whatever, but it becomes obvious that those of us with an interest in PTS are not being represented that well in these discussions.
I really hate to agree with this guy, but whatever +5%
We are the single largest holder of PTS by far. Giving a large stake to PTS and AGS would be massively in our favor. So you can believe that PTS perspective was considered.
The problem with these debates is that there is a larger interest in BTSX. So of course they are for their side, which is BTSX. Therefore we hear their side the most and people start thinking that is the consensus.
Then from there we vote on BTSX chain how to treat PTS.
I'll go along with whatever, but it becomes obvious that those of us with an interest in PTS are not being represented that well in these discussions.
I really hate to agree with this guy, but whatever +5%
We are the single largest holder of PTS by far. Giving a large stake to PTS and AGS would be massively in our favor. So you can believe that PTS perspective was considered.
DNs and vote are mostly ags and pts so 10% it is for all practical purposes.10% and devs were supposed to hold 80%. Now these 80% are into btsx. And there will be further dilution. Which is much different than the promises.
DNs and vote are mostly ags and pts so 10% it is for all practical purposes.10% and devs were supposed to hold 80%. Now these 80% are into btsx. And there will be further dilution. Which is much different than the promises.
The problem with these debates is that there is a larger interest in BTSX. So of course they are for their side, which is BTSX. Therefore we hear their side the most and people start thinking that is the consensus.
Then from there we vote on BTSX chain how to treat PTS.
I'll go along with whatever, but it becomes obvious that those of us with an interest in PTS are not being represented that well in these discussions.
I really hate to agree with this guy, but whatever +5%
We are the single largest holder of PTS by far. Giving a large stake to PTS and AGS would be massively in our favor. So you can believe that PTS perspective was considered.
The devs 80% was to be removed... didn't clarify that.
The problem with these debates is that there is a larger interest in BTSX. So of course they are for their side, which is BTSX. Therefore we hear their side the most and people start thinking that is the consensus.
Then from there we vote on BTSX chain how to treat PTS.
I'll go along with whatever, but it becomes obvious that those of us with an interest in PTS are not being represented that well in these discussions.
I really hate to agree with this guy, but whatever +5%
We are the single largest holder of PTS by far. Giving a large stake to PTS and AGS would be massively in our favor. So you can believe that PTS perspective was considered.
1) You are "gifting" liquidity to AGS at the expense of all other assets, with literally NO discount. Essentially assigning liquidity a value of ZERO.
2) You are killing the sharedrop incentive by transferring a DAC-agnostic asset like PTS/AGS into a superDAC representing a variety of biased interests. This further devalues PTS/AGS.
3) You are violating the social contract of PTS/AGS.
4) You are making decisions based on mixing and conflating the consensus of one group of asset holders with those of another. In fact, I wouldn't even call it consensus, but that's another point entirely.
And when I bring up these very clear points you say "this hurts me more than it hurts you." Really Dan? Entertain me with a semblance of a response, at least.
The problem with these debates is that there is a larger interest in BTSX. So of course they are for their side, which is BTSX. Therefore we hear their side the most and people start thinking that is the consensus.
Then from there we vote on BTSX chain how to treat PTS.
I'll go along with whatever, but it becomes obvious that those of us with an interest in PTS are not being represented that well in these discussions.
I really hate to agree with this guy, but whatever +5%
We are the single largest holder of PTS by far. Giving a large stake to PTS and AGS would be massively in our favor. So you can believe that PTS perspective was considered.
1) You are "gifting" liquidity to AGS at the expense of all other assets, with literally NO discount. Essentially assigning liquidity a value of ZERO.
2) You are killing the sharedrop incentive by transferring a DAC-agnostic asset like PTS/AGS into a superDAC representing a variety of biased interests. This further devalues PTS/AGS.
3) You are violating the social contract of PTS/AGS.
4) You are making decisions based on mixing and conflating the consensus of one group of asset holders with those of another. In fact, I wouldn't even call it consensus, but that's another point entirely.
And when I bring up these very clear points you say "this hurts me more than it hurts you." Really Dan? Entertain me with a semblance of a response, at least.See if this change of perspective makes you feel a bit better...
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10293.msg135034#msg135034 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10293.msg135034#msg135034)
PTS and AGS have spawned a child that surpasses their performance by a light year. I know the feeling. :)
BM and I bounced the number "~16%" for PTS+AGS (+ small for DNS) around because it uses the value at which BTSX seemed to be stable for a long time ($75m for BTSX), also it is halfway between it's current price and ATH.
BM and I bounced the number "~16%" for PTS+AGS (+ small for DNS) around because it uses the value at which BTSX seemed to be stable for a long time ($75m for BTSX), also it is halfway between it's current price and ATH.
Maybe the price is "stable" because you pumped it with our AGS donations? You will be remembered as just another crypto-scammers with lots of broken promises.
Anyone?
Did DNS tank by 50% today for no reason because we misunderstood the allocation? Should it actually still be around 300 sat?