Is anyone else holding out for 100 AGS/BTC again before they donate more?
Is anyone else holding out for 100 AGS/BTC again before they donate more?
Now that everybody seems to think that PTS will drop sharply in value on midnight 28/2 the illiquidity of AGS seems to become secondary.
I expect PTS donations to reach 10-12 k a day quite soon and then level off until the night of nights :)
Is anyone else holding out for 100 AGS/BTC again before they donate more?
No chance before Feb 28. With all the new updates, AGS will give you almosr 3x Bitshares than PTS.
In fact, I expect people to sell off PTS to get more AGS.
Can you elaborate? I thought AGS will give the same amount of BTS as PTS. How is it giving you 3x bitshares? (Perhaps I missed an update somewhere)
I think the window for getting low price PTS only couple hours on 28th. 3I has controlled almost 2/3 PTS(1M) through AGS /mining and early buy in. so you can not expect 3I can hand off on pts price dropping on and after 28th.Now that everybody seems to think that PTS will drop sharply in value on midnight 28/2 the illiquidity of AGS seems to become secondary.
I expect PTS donations to reach 10-12 k a day quite soon and then level off until the night of nights :)
Will you guys ever buy back PTS, for example to spread your huge BTS stash?
So, you will buy back PTS or not?Will you guys ever buy back PTS, for example to spread your huge BTS stash?
That would be like a growing tech company doing a stock buy back rather than investing in developing real products just after the IPO.
So, you will buy back PTS or not?Will you guys ever buy back PTS, for example to spread your huge BTS stash?
That would be like a growing tech company doing a stock buy back rather than investing in developing real products just after the IPO.
So, you will buy back PTS or not?Will you guys ever buy back PTS, for example to spread your huge BTS stash?
That would be like a growing tech company doing a stock buy back rather than investing in developing real products just after the IPO.
We would only do a buy back if we felt that PTS was way undervalued and we felt we could make money for AGS holders through buying back PTS.... waiting for them to grow in value, and then selling them again to result in greater capital for Invictus to work with. I will not tie my hands any particular way, but I will say that I would not do so in some misguided attempt to manipulate the market as that would be a quick way to lose money.
If we were to buy back PTS with AGS funds then we would only do so after discussing with the forum and in a very public / controlled way. We will not secretly buy back PTS with AGS funds. I still maintain that it is not a good idea and thus not likely to happen.
PTS != I3 stock (which presumably will exist at some point)...
Get used to the concept of being a "shareholder" in a DAC, which has no employees or board of directors
If we were to buy back PTS with AGS funds then we would only do so after discussing with the forum and in a very public / controlled way. We will not secretly buy back PTS with AGS funds. I still maintain that it is not a good idea and thus not likely to happen.
See this worries me... in one moment invictus call us stockholders... and then we're donators on another page... even making the statement "buy back PTS" implies it is company stock/value... so legally we own invictus and PTS is the method in which we claim ownership... so my next question is, can I get a copy of the minutes from the last board meeting, and when is the shareholder meeting planned... because I've got questionnnnsssssss.
If we were to buy back PTS with AGS funds then we would only do so after discussing with the forum and in a very public / controlled way. We will not secretly buy back PTS with AGS funds. I still maintain that it is not a good idea and thus not likely to happen.
See this worries me... in one moment invictus call us stockholders... and then we're donators on another page... even making the statement "buy back PTS" implies it is company stock/value... so legally we own invictus and PTS is the method in which we claim ownership... so my next question is, can I get a copy of the minutes from the last board meeting, and when is the shareholder meeting planned... because I've got questionnnnsssssss.
If we were to buy back PTS with AGS funds then we would only do so after discussing with the forum and in a very public / controlled way. We will not secretly buy back PTS with AGS funds. I still maintain that it is not a good idea and thus not likely to happen.
See this worries me... in one moment invictus call us stockholders... and then we're donators on another page... even making the statement "buy back PTS" implies it is company stock/value... so legally we own invictus and PTS is the method in which we claim ownership... so my next question is, can I get a copy of the minutes from the last board meeting, and when is the shareholder meeting planned... because I've got questionnnnsssssss.
The confusion comes because we are developing crypto-equities which are nothing more than crypto-currencies backed by a built-in profitable business. But this is nothing but a metaphor - a polymorphic way of looking at the exact same thing. Bitcoin itself can be viewed as a crypto-equity in an unprofitable (but appreciating) unmanned business where bitcoins can be viewed metaphorically as stock in a value-transmission company.
Invictus is a private corporation and none of its shares are involved in any of this. We develop and release free open source software that others are free to use to implement ordinary crypto-currencies that are backed by much more than speculative thin-air. They are backed by the services they perform and you can metaphorically view them as crypto-equities for that reason.
The reason we use the unmanned company metaphor is to better point out the value of embedding a profit-generating component into a crypto-currency. But you could also accurately refer to them simply as next-generation crypto-currencies if you prefer.
When we use the term "shareholders" we are talking about holders of shares/coins in a crypto-currency/equity - not in Invictus.
If we were to buy back PTS with AGS funds then we would only do so after discussing with the forum and in a very public / controlled way. We will not secretly buy back PTS with AGS funds. I still maintain that it is not a good idea and thus not likely to happen.
See this worries me... in one moment invictus call us stockholders... and then we're donators on another page... even making the statement "buy back PTS" implies it is company stock/value... so legally we own invictus and PTS is the method in which we claim ownership... so my next question is, can I get a copy of the minutes from the last board meeting, and when is the shareholder meeting planned... because I've got questionnnnsssssss.
The confusion comes because we are developing crypto-equities which are nothing more than crypto-currencies backed by a built-in profitable business. But this is nothing but a metaphor - a polymorphic way of looking at the exact same thing. Bitcoin itself can be viewed as a crypto-equity in an unprofitable (but appreciating) unmanned business where bitcoins can be viewed metaphorically as stock in a value-transmission company.
Invictus is a private corporation and none of its shares are involved in any of this. We develop and release free open source software that others are free to use to implement ordinary crypto-currencies that are backed by much more than speculative thin-air. They are backed by the services they perform and you can metaphorically view them as crypto-equities for that reason.
The reason we use the unmanned company metaphor is to better point out the value of embedding a profit-generating component into a crypto-currency. But you could also accurately refer to them simply as next-generation crypto-currencies if you prefer.
When we use the term "shareholders" we are talking about holders of shares/coins in a crypto-currency/equity - not in Invictus.
Well it sounds great when you try to explain it as this is your vision... my worry is your vision doesn't match up with the legal system and the way you have proceeded to create this value backing up the currency, because if the shares have no value in the company than using your logic the company has no value to back the cryptocurrency... so while it might be nice to say and think it, legally you have sold shares in your company by accepting "donations" in exchange for shares, so it is not an actual donation since you are selling a product... so either you're selling us a product, or you are selling shares in the company... which you and many others have refered to many time by calling us stockholders...
believe me I don't want to come off as the hard ass who is trying to make you fail... I've expressed I want this to succeed because I believe this really could create a huge impact on things, and to be at the beginning is ideal in anything... however the way you throw words around loosely they legally have meaning and consequence when you're representing yourself and your company... and I've got to say you guys have opened the door wide on legalities... and I'm sure much like your lawyers have recommended you don't actually host any future DACs and simply "sell" the software to generate company income, you can't undo what has already been done... you've already accepted the money for shares in the company... how those shares are expressed is open to interpretation but they are bring distributed and/or sold...
let's tackle the donations... are they donations... are you legally allowed under law to accept donations... or are you selling a product to individuals... that should be cleared up immediately... you are a for-profit incorporation correct? are you actually incorporated?
Is bitcoin "money"? Is bitcoin a "commodity" Is bitcoin both, or neither, or something else entirely? That hasn't been settled yet, because it is something entirely new that did not exist before. The debate rages on, but there seems to be some consensus forming around the idea that bitcoin is a distributed ledger system as very astutely presented by Trace Mayer (google his youtube interviews).
On the same note what Invictus is doing is entirely new, but you insist on trying to fit it into your old definitions of how business is done. It won't work that way. You are trapped in old concepts - causing yourself great frustration attempting the impossible. Let go of your concepts of how this "should" be done to fit your investing experience and expectations.
I'm guessing this is the part where your lawyers would say not to answer any of his questions about if you are legally allowed to accept donations and if you are a non-profit or incorporated company...
I'm guessing this is the part where your lawyers would say not to answer any of his questions about if you are legally allowed to accept donations and if you are a non-profit or incorporated company...
You are obviously very "legally aware" so it ought to be clear to you that it would be foolish indeed for "mere" engineers to run on in this forum about all the legal theory involved in this emerging international field of law. You ask a lot of great questions. We have taken all the steps we have been advised by counsel to do so far and have a growing team of the best lawyers, economists and accountants we can find working on it. We expect to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this in the coming months and many millions before we are done. This legal research is part of the body of work we are contributing to the development of this industry and we plan to share it as part of the DAC developer's course we have planned for the Beyond Bitcoin conference in Las Vegas this summer.
Let's let the lawyers and the regulators iterate a while and we'll keep this forum posted on the progress they are making.
I'm guessing this is the part where your lawyers would say not to answer any of his questions about if you are legally allowed to accept donations and if you are a non-profit or incorporated company...
You are obviously very "legally aware" so it ought to be clear to you that it would be foolish indeed for "mere" engineers to run on in this forum about all the legal theory involved in this emerging international field of law. You ask a lot of great questions. We have taken all the steps we have been advised by counsel to do so far and have a growing team of the best lawyers, economists and accountants we can find working on it. We expect to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this in the coming months and many millions before we are done. This legal research is part of the body of work we are contributing to the development of this industry and we plan to share it as part of the DAC developer's course we have planned for the Beyond Bitcoin conference in Las Vegas this summer.
Let's let the lawyers and the regulators iterate a while and we'll keep this forum posted on the progress they are making.
I'm betting that bitshares will be successful enough to afford lots of justice.
what would be the worst case / consequences in this respect (legal issues developing in a negative way)?
Do you want to get out this terrible future legal position by selling me all your shares now?
what would be the worst case / consequences in this respect (legal issues developing in a negative way)?
what would be the worst case / consequences in this respect (legal issues developing in a negative way)?
the worst case scenario is someone files a lawsuit against them for fraud, misrepresentation, or legal claim to assets of the company because of how this whole scenario has been handled... then all the "donations" from AGS/PTS people become part of the lawsuit and awarded as a judgement to those who sued (well whats left of it)... all it takes is one disgruntled person willing to take a step with a lawyer hungry enough to realize, they've got millions, and the lawyer will profit millions... thats generally all it takes, they can paint a picture of how "its different", however legally the court system follows printed law, not "how it should be" law... and that is what worries me... instead of getting things in order, they intend to jump in feet first and hope they don't hit a rock in the water... money has a way of putting blinders on people...
best case scenario, things go well and everything comes true...
reality of it, will probably be a mix of these two...
the big question being, how much of each and who loses more...
what would be the worst case / consequences in this respect (legal issues developing in a negative way)?
the worst case scenario is someone files a lawsuit against them for fraud, misrepresentation, or legal claim to assets of the company because of how this whole scenario has been handled... then all the "donations" from AGS/PTS people become part of the lawsuit and awarded as a judgement to those who sued (well whats left of it)... all it takes is one disgruntled person willing to take a step with a lawyer hungry enough to realize, they've got millions, and the lawyer will profit millions... thats generally all it takes, they can paint a picture of how "its different", however legally the court system follows printed law, not "how it should be" law... and that is what worries me... instead of getting things in order, they intend to jump in feet first and hope they don't hit a rock in the water... money has a way of putting blinders on people...
best case scenario, things go well and everything comes true...
reality of it, will probably be a mix of these two...
the big question being, how much of each and who loses more...
Worst case here: Uncle Sam (or one of his lawyers) seizes the Angel fund. Then we are there where Counterparty is now. AGS just becomes proof-of-burn - which seems to work just as well :)
Doc Brown: I foresee two possibilities.
One: The governments of the world could agree to disband peacefully...
Or two: the encounter could create an economic paradox, the result of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum and destroy the entire universe! Granted, that's a worst-case scenario. The destruction might in fact be very localized, limited to merely our own galaxy.
Marty: Well, that's a relief.
what would be the worst case / consequences in this respect (legal issues developing in a negative way)?
the worst case scenario is someone files a lawsuit against them for fraud, misrepresentation, or legal claim to assets of the company because of how this whole scenario has been handled... then all the "donations" from AGS/PTS people become part of the lawsuit and awarded as a judgement to those who sued (well whats left of it)... all it takes is one disgruntled person willing to take a step with a lawyer hungry enough to realize, they've got millions, and the lawyer will profit millions... thats generally all it takes, they can paint a picture of how "its different", however legally the court system follows printed law, not "how it should be" law... and that is what worries me... instead of getting things in order, they intend to jump in feet first and hope they don't hit a rock in the water... money has a way of putting blinders on people...
best case scenario, things go well and everything comes true...
reality of it, will probably be a mix of these two...
the big question being, how much of each and who loses more...
Worst case here: Uncle Sam (or one of his lawyers) seizes the Angel fund. Then we are there where Counterparty is now. AGS just becomes proof-of-burn - which seems to work just as well :)
Isn't the Angel Fund held in PTS and BTC? Hopefully mostly in cold storage? How is Uncle Anybody going to seize anything?
what would be the worst case / consequences in this respect (legal issues developing in a negative way)?
the worst case scenario is someone files a lawsuit against them for fraud, misrepresentation, or legal claim to assets of the company because of how this whole scenario has been handled... then all the "donations" from AGS/PTS people become part of the lawsuit and awarded as a judgement to those who sued (well whats left of it)... all it takes is one disgruntled person willing to take a step with a lawyer hungry enough to realize, they've got millions, and the lawyer will profit millions... thats generally all it takes, they can paint a picture of how "its different", however legally the court system follows printed law, not "how it should be" law... and that is what worries me... instead of getting things in order, they intend to jump in feet first and hope they don't hit a rock in the water... money has a way of putting blinders on people...
best case scenario, things go well and everything comes true...
reality of it, will probably be a mix of these two...
the big question being, how much of each and who loses more...
Worst case here: Uncle Sam (or one of his lawyers) seizes the Angel fund. Then we are there where Counterparty is now. AGS just becomes proof-of-burn - which seems to work just as well :)
Isn't the Angel Fund held in PTS and BTC? Hopefully mostly in cold storage? How is Uncle Anybody going to seize anything?
to answer your question about how can anyone seize anything...
http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2013/manhattan-u.s.-attorney-announces-seizure-of-additional-28-million-worth-of-bitcoins-belonging-to-ross-william-ulbricht-alleged-owner-and-operator-of-silk-road-website
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/10635359/Drugs-guns-and-assassination-Silk-Road-successor-Utopia-shut-down-by-police.html
the US government seized control of millions of accounts and dollars... or has everyone forgotten this back from early 2013... there are dozens of more examples as criminals move, so does the justice department... they've sized bitcoins from many people... including this guy below trying to sue to get them back before they sell the seized asset... (and its not just america, its every government around the nation seizing them)
http://www.coindesk.com/silk-road-seller-sues-stop-government-sale/
now this is not to imply PTS/AGS have a drug problem... I'm just showing its extremely easy to seize bitcoins... so they can be taken away and sold off by the government...
what would be the worst case / consequences in this respect (legal issues developing in a negative way)?
the worst case scenario is someone files a lawsuit against them for fraud, misrepresentation, or legal claim to assets of the company because of how this whole scenario has been handled... then all the "donations" from AGS/PTS people become part of the lawsuit and awarded as a judgement to those who sued (well whats left of it)... all it takes is one disgruntled person willing to take a step with a lawyer hungry enough to realize, they've got millions, and the lawyer will profit millions... thats generally all it takes, they can paint a picture of how "its different", however legally the court system follows printed law, not "how it should be" law... and that is what worries me... instead of getting things in order, they intend to jump in feet first and hope they don't hit a rock in the water... money has a way of putting blinders on people...
best case scenario, things go well and everything comes true...
reality of it, will probably be a mix of these two...
the big question being, how much of each and who loses more...
Worst case here: Uncle Sam (or one of his lawyers) seizes the Angel fund. Then we are there where Counterparty is now. AGS just becomes proof-of-burn - which seems to work just as well :)
Isn't the Angel Fund held in PTS and BTC? Hopefully mostly in cold storage? How is Uncle Anybody going to seize anything?
to answer your question about how can anyone seize anything...
http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2013/manhattan-u.s.-attorney-announces-seizure-of-additional-28-million-worth-of-bitcoins-belonging-to-ross-william-ulbricht-alleged-owner-and-operator-of-silk-road-website
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/10635359/Drugs-guns-and-assassination-Silk-Road-successor-Utopia-shut-down-by-police.html
the US government seized control of millions of accounts and dollars... or has everyone forgotten this back from early 2013... there are dozens of more examples as criminals move, so does the justice department... they've sized bitcoins from many people... including this guy below trying to sue to get them back before they sell the seized asset... (and its not just america, its every government around the nation seizing them)
http://www.coindesk.com/silk-road-seller-sues-stop-government-sale/
now this is not to imply PTS/AGS have a drug problem... I'm just showing its extremely easy to seize bitcoins... so they can be taken away and sold off by the government...
I think you are over reacting a bit. The government isn't as powerful as you imply that it is. The thing with cryptocurrencies and cryptoequities is that if you take the proper precautions to protect your cryptowealth it is virtually impossible for them to seize anything. We can all learn something from SilkRoad and that is that if you don't take the proper precautions the government can in theory confiscate your cryptowealth.
However, what if your cryptowealth was not stored on your computer at home? What if someone created a DAC whose sole purpose is to ensure the security of your cryptowealth? What if your private key for your millions in cryptowealth were stored somewhere in cyberspace that only YOU knew about? This isn't like stacks of hundred dollar bills that require large amounts of energy and space to move and hide. You can literally store millions of dollars worth of cryptowealth in a few megabytes worth of data.
As far as the legal aspect goes have you forgotten that government derives its power from the consent of the governed, at least that is the way it should be. Technological innovation and the adoption of technology is exponential in nature and governments are way to slow and inefficient to do anything to stop it or slow it down. Do you think that the new class of millionaires and billionaires that this technology creates will simply not put up a fight? I believe that the adoption of this cryptocurrency and cryptoequity technology will be faster than anything that has been done before. Think about this, it took Facebook about 10 years to reach 1 Billion users or roughly half of the internet users online worldwide as of today and the vast majority of people don't use Facebook to make money as Facebook is the one that makes money from our information. Now, here we will have a technology whose fundamental purpose is profit. I think that the whole crypocurrency/cryptoequity industry will reach 1 Billion users faster than Facebook did simply because there will be a little bit of profit for everybody out there.
Believe me these people with a vested interest to protect their cryptowealth will do everything in their power to protect themselves including using their fortunes to change the law and so what used to be illegal will then be legal.
Darkbane... you have made your points and like you said past actions simply are what they are.
We are focused on fixing any mistakes made as rapidly as possible and working with some of the best lawyers in the field to put things on solid footing.
Darkbane... you have made your points and like you said past actions simply are what they are.
We are focused on fixing any mistakes made as rapidly as possible and working with some of the best lawyers in the field to put things on solid footing.
and as part of the community I would appreciate some steps also being made to handle other concerns... such as a public decree stating invictus and its employees/shareholders will not purchase pts/ags before and/or 72 hours after they make announcements on DAC's or other information that may affect value of of it... I think its only fair to expect them to not use information only they are privy to for making good buys early before its released to the general public... I think something like this would go along way in a social consensus... people underestimate your ability to use that information and get in before we're able to get in... and since invictus claims this is for the community and not for their for-profit business, that would calm a lot of speculation since we can track blocks and see who transfer what, albeit with some ability to hide transactions in unknown ID's... (not to mention insider trading laws as this is slowly being transformed into currency on the bitsharesX description page, and subject to FTC rules at that point by transitioning it into currency, despite the fact when used in other forms its simple a commodity)
otherwise using "donated" money to build up hype to raise awareness, to buy in before you do such, could make us all quite vulnerable since we're not sitting there listening to the plan of attack so to speak... so malicious things could occur which is why the company needs to divorce itself from investing in its own products, assuming these products are for the community and not for invictus... invictus said it would publish all transactions, so I assume this includes purchasing PTS, since they said they would not use any money to purchase AGS?
I acknowledge the website has recently changed to I assume handle issues raised, so while I think this is a good start, if they plan to become a true non-profit (if they choose) that will be a huge step, but until then I think having a single announcement source off the main website page, along with a statement the company and employees will not trade on information released prior or after for a period of time would go a long way... its just a huge conflict of interest to be trading in it at all...
Darkbane... you have made your points and like you said past actions simply are what they are.
We are focused on fixing any mistakes made as rapidly as possible and working with some of the best lawyers in the field to put things on solid footing.
and as part of the community I would appreciate some steps also being made to handle other concerns... such as a public decree stating invictus and its employees/shareholders will not purchase pts/ags before and/or 72 hours after they make announcements on DAC's or other information that may affect value of of it... I think its only fair to expect them to not use information only they are privy to for making good buys early before its released to the general public... I think something like this would go along way in a social consensus... people underestimate your ability to use that information and get in before we're able to get in... and since invictus claims this is for the community and not for their for-profit business, that would calm a lot of speculation since we can track blocks and see who transfer what, albeit with some ability to hide transactions in unknown ID's... (not to mention insider trading laws as this is slowly being transformed into currency on the bitsharesX description page, and subject to FTC rules at that point by transitioning it into currency, despite the fact when used in other forms its simple a commodity)
otherwise using "donated" money to build up hype to raise awareness, to buy in before you do such, could make us all quite vulnerable since we're not sitting there listening to the plan of attack so to speak... so malicious things could occur which is why the company needs to divorce itself from investing in its own products, assuming these products are for the community and not for invictus... invictus said it would publish all transactions, so I assume this includes purchasing PTS, since they said they would not use any money to purchase AGS?
I acknowledge the website has recently changed to I assume handle issues raised, so while I think this is a good start, if they plan to become a true non-profit (if they choose) that will be a huge step, but until then I think having a single announcement source off the main website page, along with a statement the company and employees will not trade on information released prior or after for a period of time would go a long way... its just a huge conflict of interest to be trading in it at all...
"In a free society, there would be no such thing as laws against so-called insider trading."The $5,000 wasn't taken from the people who sold the shares to the trader. They were trying to sell anyway, and would have sold it to somebody else had the trader not entered the market. In fact, by snatching the 1,000 shares at the current price of $10, the trader's demand may have held the price higher than it otherwise would have been. In other words, had the trader not entered the market, the people trying to sell 1,000 shares may have had to settle for, say, $9.75 per share rather than the $10.00 they actually received. So we see that the people dumping their stock either were not hurt or actually benefited from the action of the trader.
There is another critical aspect to the current Reign of Terror over Wall Street. Freedom of speech, and the right of privacy, particularly cherished possessions of man, have disappeared. Wall Streeters are literally afraid to talk to one another, because muttering over a martini that "Hey, Jim, it looks like XYZ will merge," or even, "Arbus is coming out soon with a hot new product," might well mean indictment, heavy fines, and jail terms. And where are the intrepid guardians of the First Amendment in all this?
But of course, it is literally impossible to stamp out insider trading, or Wall Streeters talking to another, just as even the Soviet Union, with all its awesome powers of enforcement, has been unable to stamp out dissent or "black (free) market" currency trading. But what the outlawry of insider trading (or of "currency smuggling," the latest investment banker offense to be indicted) does is to give the federal government a hunting license to go after any person or firm who may be out of power in the financial-political struggles among our power elites. (Just as outlawing food would give a hunting license to get after people out of power who are caught eating.) It is surely no accident that the indictments have been centered in groups of investment bankers who are now out of power.
In my opinion the entire concept of insider trading is ridiculous and based upon envy-based motives. Anyone buying something they do not understand fully is gambling and not investing. There is no *objective* line on what constitutes 'insider' vs 'outsider' and the reality is that every market participant has different insider information and by trading on their information they send price signals to everyone else in the market. Suppose a competitor discovered a flaw in our system and thus took an opportunity to sell all of their position prior to publishing the flaw, isn't that *INSIDER* trading?
What the Fed gives us
Take the concept of an elastic money supply. One of the reasons the modern world runs on an elastic money supply rather than on a fixed money supply (such as a rigid gold standard) is that it is a powerful tool for the government to enforce a stable purchasing power for a currency. Stable purchasing power is a good thing for a currency to have! It provides a real economic benefit if people can expect things to cost the same next month as they do now.
I'm highly suspicious of anyone who denounces something as categorically bad if someone else praises it as categorically good.
at some point in history, someone thought the benefits outweighed the costs.
Quote from: biophilWhat the Fed gives us
Take the concept of an elastic money supply. One of the reasons the modern world runs on an elastic money supply rather than on a fixed money supply (such as a rigid gold standard) is that it is a powerful tool for the government to enforce a stable purchasing power for a currency. Stable purchasing power is a good thing for a currency to have! It provides a real economic benefit if people can expect things to cost the same next month as they do now.
So much for...Quote from: biophilI'm highly suspicious of anyone who denounces something as categorically bad if someone else praises it as categorically good.
Having said that, I support Invictus and the goals of BitShares XT because they look like we may have finally reached a moment in history when technology will allow us to build a fair, deterministic financial system. And that makes the engineer/economist in me smile.
Hey! You're not supposed to flippantly write off the entire point of my post by highlighting my imprecise choice of words..
QuoteHey! You're not supposed to flippantly write off the entire point of my post by highlighting my imprecise choice of words..
Well it is clear that the forum and text communication doesn't convey that I meant that in the most light-hearted way possible. I did that because like you I try to avoid making logical fallacies or contradicting myself and yet I frequently choose words poorly ;) I hope I went on to address the rest of your point so you cannot quite say that a flippantly wrote of the entire point.
I just thought that it was ironic that you must be highly suspicious of yourself ;) Probably a good policy to have.
...
Is one side in the debate ever completely wrong?
...
Bytemaster... my point being... invictus claims this is all for the community and not the company... so if they are making a statement, why not back it with action...
I don't think it's unreasonable for them to acknowledge this is a potential huge conflict of interest... and to put a rule in place for employee behavior... maybe the day of or 72 hours after are not the right amounts for time... but I think there should be some buffer from people directly involved in the company... or an equal footing for those who aren't sitting around the office and know when the company is about to put out notice of a new DAC or other news that will directly impact the price...
this would seem logical and reasonable, maybe people can signup for some email announcements listing, that when company news is announced, all parties will receive and email within roughly the same time depending where they are on the list and how fast things get processed, but within minutes reasonably... then those who choose to can signup to receive company announcements and all receive the same opportunity... versus lost in the forums, website that isn't done yet, or finding out once prices double... then once all are given the same notice, employees can act 1 hour after? I don't know the time but the need to separate employee's from manipulating the market is important to the community...
if word ever got out an employee was doing this, how long do you think people would continue to support this whole project? then the community would fail because of the actions of someone who was not held to some conditions due to their ability to access information ahead of time... I think quite a lot of damage would occur if people saw employees or the company buying thousands of PTS before announcements and selling after it went up... thats damaging to us all...
Bytemaster... my point being... invictus claims this is all for the community and not the company... so if they are making a statement, why not back it with action...
I don't think it's unreasonable for them to acknowledge this is a potential huge conflict of interest... and to put a rule in place for employee behavior... maybe the day of or 72 hours after are not the right amounts for time... but I think there should be some buffer from people directly involved in the company... or an equal footing for those who aren't sitting around the office and know when the company is about to put out notice of a new DAC or other news that will directly impact the price...
this would seem logical and reasonable, maybe people can signup for some email announcements listing, that when company news is announced, all parties will receive and email within roughly the same time depending where they are on the list and how fast things get processed, but within minutes reasonably... then those who choose to can signup to receive company announcements and all receive the same opportunity... versus lost in the forums, website that isn't done yet, or finding out once prices double... then once all are given the same notice, employees can act 1 hour after? I don't know the time but the need to separate employee's from manipulating the market is important to the community...
if word ever got out an employee was doing this, how long do you think people would continue to support this whole project? then the community would fail because of the actions of someone who was not held to some conditions due to their ability to access information ahead of time... I think quite a lot of damage would occur if people saw employees or the company buying thousands of PTS before announcements and selling after it went up... thats damaging to us all...
(http://trinities.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/spock-illogical.jpg)
While I am sure you have good intentions here, but I believe your logic is being clouded by a misplaced since of fairness. Your premise is that *some* people are more entitled to profits and than others. Namely, that profits belong to the lucky and not to the knowledgeable. That having knowledge is 'unfair' and that not having knowledge and earning unexpected profits or losses is fair and virtuous. In my opinion what is unfair is having a market where any information is being withheld from the price. A ban on insider trading is thus a form of market manipulation and is grossly unfair to everyone.
We are the most open development team you will find, perhaps to a fault. Anyone can follow our code and commits and/or try the code out for themselves and know exactly where we are and make their own estimate on when things will be ready for release and how buggy it will be. Anyone who is following us also knows that snapshots cannot be 'botched' AND that ultimately we have no say over which snapshot the market accepts. If we said... sorry guys, we meant March 28th... then the market would punish us dramatically and honor the 28th snapshot anyway while rejecting everything we say.
There are no victims of insider trading except those who were making the same bet AS the insider and were forced to buy at a slightly higher or slightly lower price. These individuals will make slightly less profit from their dumb luck than they would have without the insider trading.
Anyone with a buy and hold mentality is entirely unaffected by insider trading.
Knowledge
The Ultimate Proof of Work