BitShares Forum
Other => Graveyard => KeyID => Topic started by: toast on August 05, 2014, 02:00:43 am
-
To be clear: The allocation will never change in a way that takes pre-committed equity away from anyone except delegates. So this is a "one-way" change. MYSTERY sharedrop was not defined so we can take theirs.
New proposal:
20% AGS
20% PTS
5% MYSTERY sharedrop
5% dev preallocation - split among 4 or 5 trusted organizations (i3, das, dacsun, bitsuperlab, maybe more)
50% delegates (about 22.5% in first year, or 45% of remaining pool each year)
Biggest question: Will this be *perceived* as more or less FAIR?
-
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
-
where is toast in this picture?
One of the -' split among 4 or 5 trusted organizations '?
Better, but I prefer:
15% AGS
15% PTS
15% MYSTERY sharedrop
35% dev preallocation - split among 4 or 5 trusted organizations (i3, das, dacsun, bitsuperlab, maybe more)
20% delegates (about 22.5% in first year, or 45% of remaining pool each year)
-
better! +5%
I approve 22.5% in first year(50% delegates)
-
where is toast in this picture?
One of the -' split among 4 or 5 trusted organizations '?
"das" is my one-man LLC
-
Biggest question: Will this be *perceived* as more or less FAIR?
Good question, personally I think it will be 'perceived' as more fair.
Other thoughts
- I think the main thing is people will be more comfortable with less equity release as it is a new concept.
- I would choose 5% Mystery Sharedrop, I think the market might choose slightly more?
- I don't think the market will have a problem with 5% dev preallocation, I certainly don't
- I would choose even less via delegates for the first DAC 24/24/6/6 & 40.
+5% to this model though, I like it, I think the market would like it more & I would get behind it.
Will be very interested to hear what others think.
-
(about 22.5% in first year, or 45% of remaining pool each year)
are those two separate options? 25,5 % of the 50% or the 100% or 45% of remaining pool each year
means?
If we are comparing it to this...
1bn to AGS
1bn to PTS
1bn MYSTERY sharedrops onto other crypto. Targets might include BTC, NMC, NXT, ETH (snapshot using presale), PPC. They will likely be scaled so that they all give the same price per DNS and all have the same price *disadvantage* compared to PTS - this is why I feel OK not disclosing the exact allocation yet.. UP TO 100m of the sharedrop *might* be reserved for backpay and bounties but I fear the consequences of perceived unfairness and so I'll probably try to avoid this.
7bn delegate subsidy, about 45% of the pool paid out per year. Remember, this is a theoretical maximum! Realistically you will not have 7bn new tokens printed for the delegates!
...why should it be perceived less fair?
I think dev stake is totally justified. People might be confused though because it seems like there is dev stake twice in there, once as dev preallocation and once as delegates pay which will likely be the same parties as those from the dev preallocation. But in the end it isnt because the dev preallocation is there to pay for the work before release and the delegate share is to pay for work after the release.
Do I understand the dev preallocation right that it is supposed to honor those who contributed to Bitshares DNS the most? Did all those parties contribute? Just trying to understand the logic....
-
(about 22.5% in first year, or 45% of remaining pool each year)
are those two separate options? 25,5 % of the 50% or the 100% or 45% of remaining pool each year
means?
45% of the pool each year, which is 2.25 bn in the first year if max theoretical is 10bn.
-
very godd +5%
-
+1
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
+5%
-
+5%
-
+5%
-
+5%
-
+5% +5% +5%
Thank you ,toast.
The final result is not the key any more!
I think the effective way of communication make both BTS and the Community stronger.
:)
-
(about 22.5% in first year, or 45% of remaining pool each year)
are those two separate options? 25,5 % of the 50% or the 100% or 45% of remaining pool each year
means?
45% of the pool each year, which is 2.25 bn in the first year if max theoretical is 10bn.
I am all for dilution to fund expansion! But such big dilution is a challenge for DPOS. This requires a lot of trust in delegates (which in the end are the devs and a few others maybe here) or intelligent decision making and research by shareholders. But network effect is all that matters here and the devs are trustworthy so I am for it! ...and it's obviously a better deal anyway!
-
Biggest question: Will this be *perceived* as more or less FAIR?
Good question, personally I think it will be 'perceived' as more fair.
Other thoughts
- I think the main thing is people will be more comfortable with less equity release as it is a new concept.
- I would choose 5% Mystery Sharedrop, I think the market might choose slightly more?
- I don't think the market will have a problem with 5% dev preallocation, I certainly don't
- I would choose even less via delegates for the first DAC 24/24/6/6 & 40.
+5% to this model though, I like it, I think the market would like it more & I would get behind it.
Will be very interested to hear what others think.
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
-
time to grab more cheap pts!!
-
+5%
-
better!
-
toast, new allocation proposal looks better except
5% dev preallocation - split among 4 or 5 trusted organizations (i3, das, dacsun, bitsuperlab, maybe more)
5% dev preallocation is too little for dev at least 15%
i have some questions regarding DNS
1)What kind of hardware is the minimum requirement for running DNS delegate's node?
2) is there performance scorecard for evaluating delegates node's ?
-
+5% +5%
Better, but :D ：
15% AGS
15% PTS
15% MYSTERY sharedrop
10% dev preallocation - split among 4 or 5 trusted organizations (i3, das, dacsun, bitsuperlab, maybe more)
45% delegates (about 45% in first year, or 45% of remaining pool each year)
NO FAIR, BUT EQUILIBRIUM.
-
Better
I prefer
25% AGS
25% PTS
5% MYSTERY sharedrop
5% dev preallocation - split among 4 or 5 trusted organizations (i3, das, dacsun, bitsuperlab, maybe more)
40% delegates(not more than 21% in first year)
or
21% AGS
21% PTS
5% MYSTERY sharedrop
7% dev preallocation - split among 4 or 5 trusted organizations (i3, das, dacsun, bitsuperlab, maybe more)
46% delegates and others ?(not more than 21% in first year - just delegates, Or if big companny getting in with pledging large amount of assets in in DAC and sharesholders may more than 17% but not more than 29~33% in first year)
-
15% AGS
15% PTS
10% BTC/NMC/NXT....
5% dev preallocation - split among 4 or 5 trusted organizations (i3, das, dacsun, bitsuperlab, maybe more)
55% delegates (about 15%~20% in first year, or 20% of remaining pool each year)
This is the best in my mind
-
+5% +5%very godd
-
17.5% AGS
17.5% PTS
5% BTC/NMC/NXT....
10% dev preallocation - split among 4 or 5 trusted organizations (i3, das, dacsun, bitsuperlab, maybe more)
50% delegates (about 15%~20% in first year, or 20% of remaining pool each year)
this is way better. Dev deserve more stake.
-
+5%
-
25% AGS
25% PTS
50% delegates (about20% per year）
This means that the investors and the maintenance is equal treatment
ase you see，Volunteers and delegates will set up funds to promote，its neddless to make the distribution become more complex.
Our team has held several activities to promote btsx, these are self funding or donations, promotion funds easily scandal. donations from the delegates is enough.
-
By the way，why nobody Mentioned 1 SHARE 1 VOTE， I think it is the core problem
-
better !
my points
1. it should be clear for everyone max. shares will be 10bn, but if delegates choose to burn some of the fees it will less shares available.
2. i would prefer 0% preallocation for devs but say clear that the devs will run at least X delegates for 2-3 years. with the votingpower of I3 it should be easly done.
great work toast
-
good!!!!!
-
To be clear: The allocation will never change in a way that takes pre-committed equity away from anyone except delegates. So this is a "one-way" change. MYSTERY sharedrop was not defined so we can take theirs.
New proposal:
20% AGS
20% PTS
5% MYSTERY sharedrop
5% dev preallocation - split among 4 or 5 trusted organizations (i3, das, dacsun, bitsuperlab, maybe more)
50% delegates (about 22.5% in first year, or 45% of remaining pool each year)
Biggest question: Will this be *perceived* as more or less FAIR?
This is fine as this is aligned with community expectations.
Pre-allocation in my opinion is good because we know developers need to get paid.
-
25% AGS
25% PTS
50% delegates (about20% per year）
This means that the investors and the maintenance is equal treatment
ase you see，Volunteers and delegates will set up funds to promote，its neddless to make the distribution become more complex.
Our team has held several activities to promote btsx, these are self funding or donations, promotion funds easily scandal. donations from the delegates is enough.
Developers need to get paid and also probably something set aside for marketing via Sharedrop. It makes sense to do it the way Toast decided to do it. There is no better initial distribution I can think of.
In these matters in my opinion as long as these things are set in the beginning the developers in the original social consensus always had the right to do this. Also really PTS/AGS gets 40% which is double the minimum.
-
+5%
Good distribution, it takes care of the community supporting the DAC as well as those developping and keeping it running afterward.
Good job Toast! +5%
-
+5%
-
+5%
-
From delegates perspective this is a profitable solution, but initial BTSX delegates were (and still are) selected by a few strong hands.
If there are another 5% given to developers and AGS/PTS holders are given less than ~20% each coin (BTSX is 50/50 AGS/PTS) then:
- developers will initially have between 10 - 50+% of all shares (5% + BTC/PTS from AGS donations and some privately owned MYSTERY stake they can buy cheap before resolving the mystery :D, and this all x2 since remaining 50% will be produced in following years);
- it will be even harder for small investors to elect their delegate of choice without help of a developer/ another token-whale;
- new users will probably drive down token's value - it's free money, but it's fine since more people will get interested;
So it will start even more centralized in comparison to those systems we are trying to replace.
This proposal could stand like that (or better with some changes) but with some additional steps:
- 101 is not a fixed number of total delegates, it is a minimum # of delegates required;
- # of delegates can grow and shrink after each round, between 101 to, say up to 8640 (1 block / delegate / day);
- 0.01% (1% of 1%) of all shares is the minimum approval threshold to get a delegate on a waiting list;
- after round is finished, network recalibrates itself like below:
{
avg delegate participation during las round: 90%;
number of active delegates: 101;
number of delegates with a warning: 17;
number of delegates to lay off (second warning): 11;
minimum threshold of future round avg. delegate participation: 80%;
number of new delegates to introduce: 20 (if all fail, avg del part will be 80%) - select delegates from waiting list (randomly or randomly with weighted probability by approval votes );
};
Delegates that have a warning can clear their warning after producing in from 3 to x consecutive rounds;
Delegates that were fired can get on a waiting list after placing a fee payment;
Registered users can get on a waiting list by placing a fee.
-
+5% +5%
-
I think there is no need to finalize an allocation at this point. I think the main priority should be getting a testnet up that has domain functionality and bidding. I also think announcing the snapshot date before this was done was very premature. But the date is announced so it will be used, but I don't think it's necessary to commit to an allocation scheme until it's basically ready to launch. We should release a chain when there is a use to it or a reason to release; hopefully a functional system that can be marketed. If we need more resources to get the development and marketing for a good rollout we could still talk to investors which would impact the allocation. I see no point or value in rushing to release another copy of the bitshares toolkit and calling it the DNS. It almost feels like the snapshot and allocation and naming conversations are creating an illusion of progress when progress should be taking place on getting a functional testnet. I haven't even seen documentation for the most recent proposed algorithms.
I would also request there be no commitment yet to release the domain system I proposed on the same chain and with this snapshot date and this allocation. Maybe that's the best thing to do and maybe it isn't. Let's do development with the goal of getting up testnets and do first things first.
-
I think there is no need to finalize an allocation at this point.
For what is worth I disagree.. Allocation should have been clear and should have been finalized already way before the snapshot..
If you want investors to buy PTS they should know exactly how many bips out of the total supply they are getting in advance for the PTS that they hold during the snapshot in order to be able to speculate on market cap and make proper investment decisions.
-
I think there is no need to finalize an allocation at this point. I think the main priority should be getting a testnet up that has domain functionality and bidding. I also think announcing the snapshot date before this was done was very premature. But the date is announced so it will be used, but I don't think it's necessary to commit to an allocation scheme until it's basically ready to launch. We should release a chain when there is a use to it or a reason to release; hopefully a functional system that can be marketed. If we need more resources to get the development and marketing for a good rollout we could still talk to investors which would impact the allocation. I see no point or value in rushing to release another copy of the bitshares toolkit and calling it the DNS. It almost feels like the snapshot and allocation and naming conversations are creating an illusion of progress when progress should be taking place on getting a functional testnet. I haven't even seen documentation for the most recent proposed algorithms.
I would also request there be no commitment yet to release the domain system I proposed on the same chain and with this snapshot date and this allocation. Maybe that's the best thing to do and maybe it isn't. Let's do development with the goal of getting up testnets and do first things first.
PS I was confused too when I realized that the DAC name is in discussion after the snapshot announcement... ??? Really weird... ::)
-
I think there is no need to finalize an allocation at this point.
For what is worth I disagree.. Allocation should have been clear and should have been finalized already way before the snapshot..
If you want investors to buy PTS they should know exactly how many bips out of the total supply they are getting in advance for the PTS that they hold during the snapshot in order to be able to speculate on market cap and make proper investment decisions.
There has been a pretty clear theory circulated that allocations that don't give at least 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS will be rejected by the market. The initial proposal by Toast announced around the time of snapshot only gave 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS. Investors can do as they like. Making premature and unnecessary commitments to investors so they can make buy and sell decisions serves no purpose and will bite you in the a** when you realize the system would have greater chance for success if a change could be made. For what it's worth, my position was that the snapshot was also premature.
-
to me it doesn't make any difference since I was all in in AGS and didn't want to bother anymore about PTS volatility since I am for the looooonggggg run...
But PTS price will not increase prior to snapshots if the exact allocation is not known in advance..so people holding PTS wanting to get out and others thinking of getting in will not have any opportunity to do so..The uncertainty about the exact allocation prior to the snapshots is reflected on PTS price.
Other than that I agree with you.