The market cap may not even retain $50M... if merged in pts/ags members may sell and also btsx may sell snowballing a marketcap way lower than it started with.

Will future DACs be snapshoted from BTS? If so, will you have cases where it will be pumped and dumped as new snapshots occur?

Maybe if one BTS snapshot is taken a the start and distibuted to BTS holders and then traded somehow as an unpegged bitasset on BTS?  So as not to rock the BTS price unnecessarily. 

My delegate will help pay for translation services and I hope every delegate will consider doing this as well.

I will definitely vote for a delegate that will help pay for Chinese translation services 
A Chinese user is complaining about the need for better communication with them:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10216.msg133768;boardseen#new

Nice summary, sounds good to me!  How do we move forward with this?  Do BTSX holders need to vote for delegates who support this or is it all just being done via Bytemaster power somehow?

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2js8yd/i_work_for_a_youtube_network_with_over_4000/clet0zg

Quote from: Gentso1 on October 20, 2014, 04:00:46 pm

Quote from: davidpbrown on October 20, 2014, 03:31:26 pm

Quote from: Gentso1 on October 20, 2014, 03:15:15 pm

How can we ever how to reach any kind of a mainstream adoption when many have agreed we are message is far to complex?

I don't understand why marketing many DACs becomes different by being all within one BitShares brand. Each DAC will need its own effort and perhaps marketing to different audiences and interests.

It would be vastly more expensive having a separate marketing team for each dac. My own opinion is that it would be so much easier to understand at a consumer level to just push one name. I dont think bitshares has nearly enough size to warrant having separate stand alone marketing teams. In the future after adoption is achieved, standalone chains with independent dev teams and marketing teams would be great. Would you agree that it is easier to grow one large business compared to a few small one? If you consider that the small businesses a still a bit away from even turning a profit I think it furthers the argument. Look at the delegate situation for btsx. I am not sure but I am assuming vote would be setup the same way. I would also bet that delegates their may be put in the same position. I think its wise to learn from what we have experienced with the first released product.

What advantages would their be to not combine?

That's easy.  With separate DACs you don't have to convince people to spend more for all the features in a swiss army knife DAC.  Let's say someone is only interested in one aspect of the DAC, well now you have to convince them that's it's worth their money spending it on all the functions within the DAC for access to the one feature they are interested in.

Further, multiple DACs let you experiment with various DAC features.  Dilution is an obvious one.  If you have one DAC and it employs dilution and there is a potential user/investor that doesn't like dilution then you have no products for them to invest in.  With multiple DACs you have a greater chance of apealing to a greater cross section of users and investors overall.

The thing is the DAC's job is to sell bitassets.  That's the 1 core business model potential investors need to be convinced of, that bitassets are awesome and can be sold and repackaged to countless markets in various of creative ways.  Each feature or 'merged dac' is really just another way to sell bitassets.  Investors just need to be convinced that the product (bitassets) is great.

It's like we have a multi-purpose product, bitassets.  There will be disagreements about which is the best way to sell the bitassets (which features/dacs to integrate), but its better to have one DAC selling bitassets in many ways than 20 DACS giving their bitassets the same name and coming up with similar ways to sell them (get merchants to accept them!  Get everyone to use them!). 

Full steam ahead!

There is no freedom if you depend on something. Especially if it is person. However marvelous he is.
I'm selling my 100k, not because it is not profitable anymore, but because I saw how dangerous it is to be dependent on another.

Guys, please, question authority.

That is fair enough.  Dependency on a particular person or central team is a weakness, but the network supporting it is dencentralized (DPOS) and it's an evolving system.  As it evolves it should give more and more power to stakeholders to vote on features/changes, and be less dependant on the direction of one leader (BM).  Given more time BTS should become strong enough, with its fingers in multiple industries, to survive leadership changes and become a "true" DAC.  It will grow in multiple directions with different teams around the world working on different features, if the delegates, as chosen by the stakeholders, approve their inclusion.  This combining means the rocket is well fuelled for launch and able to enter a stable orbit, where it's flight path is self-sustaining.

Even bitcoin was completely dependant on the core devs while it was being developed, and it can't evolve to survive anywhere near as well as BTS can.

Best of luck.

Quote from: bytemaster on October 20, 2014, 01:13:46 pm

Quote from: betax on October 20, 2014, 01:11:44 pm

It seems that we are all happy with the proposal (as it makes lot of sense to make the developers and the market compete with each other). Now the main and complex issue is how to make everyone fairly happy.

Will it be 25% PTS 25% AGS 50% BTSX ? Or..............  It will be good to see the numbers in another thread and see the reaction.

Disclaimer: I have AGS (pre and post), BTSX and a small amount of PTS.

Only fair way is proportional to pts market cap vs btsx.

Not really. If you don't give PTS a set % to value. People would just spike the likely thin PTS sell wall before snapshot to maximise BTS equity. PTS could end up having a temporary CAP of $20 million and get 33% of BTS equity.

The value they had at the time of this proposal posting could be used? 

There still seems to be a much more negative attitude on the chinese forums (from the garbled Google translate).  In the English speaking section people are much more positive towards the move, I think because they are able to read each others responses and listen to the mumble talk.  The Chinese have BM original post immediately translated (great first step), but they don't get all the English speaking community comments translated too, which consists of us gradually figuring out that this is a good idea.  Unification of bitshares into one dac should make the price go up, we're talking about adding features, developers and marketers to bitshares.  A lot of the price decrease imo is due to misunderstanding.

 It would help if someone translated entire threads, because people come to understand complicated things by reading others questions and seeing them answered, like in a school class. 

We need to strengthen the community connection via much more translating of discussions imo, it makes a big difference, not just small selective translations, but entire discussions.  Responses to what may seem like 'stupid questions' are still useful because the chances are there were a bunch of people wanting to ask the stupid question and we all learn and have our understanding confirmed by all of the responses.  Also we have our confidence reassured by seeing all the different concerns + opinions vs a single translation from a lone poster (harder to trust).

Not sure of the best way to do this, an army of volunteers?  How do we select which threads to translate?  Obviously there are junk threads too not worth translating and times when there's nothing much going on and no need to