Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - matt608

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 [48] 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 ... 59
706
General Discussion / Re: Suggested Press Release regarding the merger
« on: October 21, 2014, 03:31:24 pm »
A press release is all well and good but lets get this all done first.  Make a successful transition to BTS, and then author it a glorious creation myth.  The release could be timed to come out around the day that coinmarketcap updates to show the new shares so when people ask wtf is going on with bitshares?  We can post the link to the press release.

Also I don't like much about how this release is written.  *Bitshares* should absolutely be included (eyeballs on bitshares brand!) in the headline and as this should be done after the change is complete the talk of it being a proposal should be taken out and only the actual final deal be talked about (whatever it ends up being). 

There's no need to give more than a cursory mention to the original proposal, perhaps mentioning it helps with SEO as it could be an opportunity to post a link to bitsharestalk.org. 

And make the headline much more exciting.  More like:

Bitshares unites to form Super DAC
Bitshares completes first ever crypto-merger deal
Bitshares unites the first ever crypto-merger deal
Bitshares expands via first of its kind crypto-merger


 

707
General Discussion / Re: Do you plan to sell some BTS in the next bubble?
« on: October 21, 2014, 01:44:15 pm »
Don't aim to time a speculation bubble, look for real growth.  The real measure of success is market cap and volume of the bitassets.  If a huge bubble of BTSX (or BTS) goes up to hundreds of millions or over a billion with hardly any use of the bitassets, imo it's likely to pop.  If the bitassets rise proportionally, then it should be more stable and more promising of future growth.  Not that this is a magic formula or anything, just something to keep in mind.

708
General Discussion / Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« on: October 21, 2014, 12:57:27 pm »
Any confirmation on VOTE tech + team joining BTS? 

709
General Discussion / Re: [TASKFORCE] Reddit upvote request. - only requests here no chatter. thank you
« on: October 21, 2014, 12:43:24 pm »
http://bitcoinmagazine.com/17039/fight-volatility-cryptocurrency/#comment-1646237529

710
General Discussion / Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« on: October 21, 2014, 10:39:45 am »
Quote from: pc on October 21, 2014, 10:29:58 am
Quote from: xeroc on October 21, 2014, 09:41:14 am
Quote from: pc on October 21, 2014, 09:32:23 am
Quote from: mf-tzo on October 21, 2014, 09:23:41 am
It is merger and acquisition.

Nothing is merged or acquired:

Quote from: Ander on October 20, 2014, 07:08:02 pm
3) Capital infusion to fund marketing efforts is solved by allowing for a majority vote of BTS holders to vote to create and sell shares for funding purposes

IOW: throw on the printing press and spend the resulting notes on marketing. That's pump&dump par excellence.

Quote from: Ander on October 20, 2014, 07:08:02 pm
3) Capital infusion to fund marketing efforts is solved by allowing for a majority vote of BTS holders to vote to create and sell shares for funding purposes

That only means it would be a majority-approved pump&dump.

The problem here is that the (market) value of the DAC is not so much driven by the services it offers, but by marketing. It is easy to convince a majority with the promise of a tenfold increase in market value in combination with e. g. 10% dilution. In the long run this will destroy the DAC, though, because there is no substance in it for supporting the (temporarily) higher market value.

How does attracting new long term users not support a higher market value?  That's the purpose of marketing.  There's marketing to shareholders and theres marketing to users.  There will always be speculation on what the promises of marketing are worth before the marketing actually takes place, in which case the promises of marketing has the effect of being marketing to shareholders i.e. pumping.  But unless you have reason to believe the raised funds *wont* be used on marketing to new users, then this is not a problem.

The issue is ensuring the raised funds from dilution are spent wisely.

711
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: How to become a delegate
« on: October 21, 2014, 10:29:02 am »
Are there any plans to make it easier to become a delegate, as in a simple user friendly set up?  This command line stuff is beyond me, but I'd like to be a delegate as soon as I can.  Maybe only 'technical' people are wanted?  Though I would think DOPS would be more secure with lots of back up delegates and there would be more competition for delegates to do something useful with their pay.

712
General Discussion / Re: Let's discuss what word to use instead of share dilution
« on: October 21, 2014, 08:29:18 am »
Quote from: Mysto on October 21, 2014, 08:19:02 am
Quote from: matt608 on October 21, 2014, 07:44:36 am
Not true.  There's a stigma in the crypto community against share dilution due to the lack of understanding of the company analogy i.e. lack of understanding of DACs.  Random bitcoiners see share more shares and think it must be untargeted inflation like like with POW cryptos (complete waste of money) whereas this is something quite different.  We're actually getting something of value.
When the word dilution is brought up people's minds just shut down and think "bad, bad, bad". No argument will convince them otherwise. If you change it to something new like "delegated capital infusion" then people are curious to find out what it is and are willing to listen instead of shut their brains off and think "bad, bad, bad".

True but that's probably just due to the history of crypto where dilution has always been spent on pointless stuff.  I don't know that people holding 'real' shares in formal companies mind at all when there is a stock split or share dilution or whatever it's called, because they know it means the company is growing.  Any time VC money or angel investment funds are raised for a startup there will be dilution of the shares, these are things the original share holders want to see happen.

It does need to be explained clearly though, and more than one term can be used in any explanation.  Imo there's nothing wrong about saying 'share dilution' so long as its accompanying explanation is well done.  If people prefer 'capital infusion' that's fine by me but one way or another the explanation will need to include the creation or issuance of more shares.


713
General Discussion / Re: Let's discuss what word to use instead of share dilution
« on: October 21, 2014, 07:44:36 am »
Quote from: pc on October 21, 2014, 07:36:50 am
The mere  presence of this thread is proof that you know exactly that this share dilution proposal is a bad thing, and you just want to cover up that fact.

It is share dilution, so just call it what it is.

Not true.  There's a stigma in the crypto community against share dilution due to the lack of understanding of the company analogy i.e. lack of understanding of DACs.  Random bitcoiners see share more shares and think it must be untargeted inflation like like with POW cryptos (complete waste of money) whereas this is something quite different.  We're actually getting something of value. 

I'm happy calling it share dilution, that's what it is.  Better call it share dilution than 'inflation' which is a term applied to currencies, not shares, as far as I know.  Share dilution, capital infusion, whatever.  The more people understand the company analogy the less this matters.

Though of course technically these are not "shares", but thinking of them as shares helps clarify what's going on.

714
General Discussion / Re: Can someone please??
« on: October 21, 2014, 07:23:49 am »
The first post of this thread contains a summary:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10214.0

715
General Discussion / Re: Let's peg stock market indices: S&P, Dow, Nasdaq
« on: October 21, 2014, 07:16:28 am »
Quote from: onceuponatime on October 21, 2014, 02:31:14 am
The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin.

Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.

Agree.  This is something for the future.  There are many things BTS can do, theres commodity exchange in a futures market (wayyyy bigger market than stock exchange), other currencies to launch first (bitEUR, bitSLV) to market to forex traders and a strenghening of the flagship asset, bitUSD.  BM mentioned marketing may consist well made videos sent to email lists of 100,000s of forex traders.  If thats the case we want the strongest bitcurrencies and bitGLD and bitSLV before going into stocks.

Imo

bitcurrencies ---> bitcommodities ----> bitstocks

And there may be way to launch bitstocks is more regulatory friendly ways by tracking the price of certain funds rather than the actual stock (or something, I know nothing about this).

716
General Discussion / Re: How much btsx did you panic sell?
« on: October 21, 2014, 07:06:58 am »
I doubled my position...

717
General Discussion / Re: Cap capital infusion at the rate bitcoin uses ?
« on: October 20, 2014, 10:05:08 pm »
We don't need such a high 'share issuance' rate, it's not worth having it that high just to have a simple comparison to bitcoin.  Better to have much less and for it to be well allocated.

718
General Discussion / Re: What does a fair allocation of Bitshares to BTSX/AGS/PTS holders look like?
« on: October 20, 2014, 09:40:21 pm »
Quote from: Shentist on October 20, 2014, 09:37:57 pm
+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.

I thought vote is going to be running on the same BTS chain.

719
General Discussion / Re: What does a fair allocation of Bitshares to BTSX/AGS/PTS holders look like?
« on: October 20, 2014, 09:32:20 pm »
Others have pointed out its easier to keep it on the current BTSX blockchain in which case this not what we want, but I've written up an option E anyway so I'm posting it:

Option E is combining option D with option A, keeping the total at 2 million while including PTS + AGS + 10% marketing/dev budget but with the original proportions BM stated of the quantity of BTS that PTS + AGS should recieve.  As he pointed out they are getting a liquid asset, BTS, in exchange for their illiquid assets, so that is compensation.  I am open to changing my mind and being convinced it's unfair but having a liquid asset you can actually sell (large quantities of) sounds like a plus.

Option E

New Bitshares entity is created with 1.8 billion shares currently in existence, with the following allocation:
1.5 billion shares, or 80% of these shares would be given to BTSX holders.
150 million shares, or 10% of these shares would be given to PTS holders.
150 million shares, or 10% of these shares would be given to AGS holders.

Then, a vote on whether to create 200 million shares for the capital infusion for the marketing efforts, would bring us back to 2 billion total.


720
General Discussion / Re: Summary of recent events / merger proposal
« on: October 20, 2014, 08:27:00 pm »
Quote from: roadkill on October 20, 2014, 08:20:24 pm
Quote from: jsidhu on October 20, 2014, 08:09:56 pm
Will future DACs be snapshoted from BTS? If so, will you have cases where it will be pumped and dumped as new snapshots occur?

I don't think PTS pumps since Feb/Mar have been more than a few million USD.
Would not be a huge impact on BTSX. Risk will lessen as the market cap grows.

Good point. 

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 [48] 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 ... 59

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 22 queries.