Imagine the following:Then you would be a free rider benefiting of the increase revenues cause by the dilution without any cost.
As a user I'd like to have non-dillutable share in BTSX.
For example I want to buy 1% of all BTSX shares and retain this 1% regardless of future BTSX dillution.
Of course the price for such shares could be higher and they should not be allowed to vote.
Is such mechanic useful, beneficial ?
What do you think?
Then you would be a free rider benefiting of the increase revenues cause by the dilution without any cost.
I think the best way to allow one to not be diluted is to allow old shareholders to buy the new shares before they are offered in the open market
Then you would be a free rider benefiting of the increase revenues cause by the dilution without any cost.
I think the best way to allow one to not be diluted is to allow old shareholders to buy the new shares before they are offered in the open market
The cost should be higher initial price for such asset.
What you offer is interesting. I like it.
Then you would be a free rider benefiting of the increase revenues cause by the dilution without any cost.
I think the best way to allow one to not be diluted is to allow old shareholders to buy the new shares before they are offered in the open market
The cost should be higher initial price for such asset.
What you offer is interesting. I like it.
With a DAC there is no "before they are available on the open market"....
Then you would be a free rider benefiting of the increase revenues cause by the dilution without any cost.
I think the best way to allow one to not be diluted is to allow old shareholders to buy the new shares before they are offered in the open market
The cost should be higher initial price for such asset.
What you offer is interesting. I like it.
With a DAC there is no "before they are available on the open market"....
You can have dilution by issuing new shares. What if these new shares are available for purchase by stakeholders with bitUSD at current feed price?
What if the delegate/business proposal that would normally get these shares through dillution just get the bitUSD equivalent (that was provided by shareholders buying newly issued shares) ?
BitBIP would let you hedge against dilution. We can have a perfect feed and have certain types of guarantees about the collateralization.
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.
Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.
Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.
Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.
Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.
The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares? The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.
Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.
Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.
The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares? The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.
If shares are diluted now, maybe it'll be diluted again and again, no one trust this system, BTS dies..
I think it must be some other way to make it work.
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.
Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.
Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.
The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares? The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.
If shares are diluted now, maybe it'll be diluted again and again, no one trust this system, BTS dies..
I think it must be some other way to make it work.
Do you guys understand that each capital infusion is done by a vote by all shareholders?
And a huge % of all shareholders must agree on each capital infusion for it to become reality?
And that each current shareholder has a well in advance notice to just cash out his gains and head for the door any time he disagrees with such capital infusion?
BitBIP would let you hedge against dilution. We can have a perfect feed and have certain types of guarantees about the collateralization.
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.
Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.
Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.
The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares? The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.
If shares are diluted now, maybe it'll be diluted again and again, no one trust this system, BTS dies..
I think it must be some other way to make it work.
Do you guys understand that each capital infusion is done by a vote by all shareholders?
And a huge % of all shareholders must agree on each capital infusion for it to become reality?
And that each current shareholder has a well in advance notice to just cash out his gains and head for the door any time he disagrees with such capital infusion?
There is no shareholder voting now, BM can do whatever he wants..
or with your shares?Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.
Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.
Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.
The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares? The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.
If shares are diluted now, maybe it'll be diluted again and again, no one trust this system, BTS dies..
I think it must be some other way to make it work.
Do you guys understand that each capital infusion is done by a vote by all shareholders?
And a huge % of all shareholders must agree on each capital infusion for it to become reality?
And that each current shareholder has a well in advance notice to just cash out his gains and head for the door any time he disagrees with such capital infusion?
There is no shareholder voting now, BM can do whatever he wants..
And may I ask - what prevent you to vote with your feet?
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.
Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.
Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.
The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares? The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.
Infusions are done when enough shareholders are talked into believing there will be more gain than pain.Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.
Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.
Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.
The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares? The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.Infusions are only done when shareholders believe there is more gain than pain.
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.
Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.
Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.
The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares? The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.
I think that you are missing the point that the ability to raise capital is limited by the market. Anything anyone does to vote in large spending that is not productive will impact share price. This in turn will hurt devs more than help.
Trust has value.
I think that you are missing the point that the ability to raise capital is limited by the market. Anything anyone does to vote in large spending that is not productive will impact share price. This in turn will hurt devs more than help.
Trust has value.
What is wrong in offering all newly issued shares proportionally to shareholders at feed price ?
I think that you are missing the point that the ability to raise capital is limited by the market. Anything anyone does to vote in large spending that is not productive will impact share price. This in turn will hurt devs more than help.
Trust has value.
What is wrong in offering all newly issued shares proportionally to shareholders at feed price ?
That doesn't do anything other than a stock split... the purpose is "value transfer" from "everyone" to those providing capital infusion.
I think that you are missing the point that the ability to raise capital is limited by the market. Anything anyone does to vote in large spending that is not productive will impact share price. This in turn will hurt devs more than help.
Trust has value.
If dilution becomes a done deal then I like your line of thinking with this. I think it's important to put and many checks and balances in the code with maybe some hard limits.I think that you are missing the point that the ability to raise capital is limited by the market. Anything anyone does to vote in large spending that is not productive will impact share price. This in turn will hurt devs more than help.
Trust has value.
I'm not missing that point, i understand what you want and why you want it. Development is obviously essential but this is just money printing. Adding the value of one thing to another is great (facebook buys oculus rift or PTS + AGS = BTS) but just saying we are issuing x shares for development is not specific enough. All that will happen is shares value will be diluted.
As im typing this i think i see a solution. If a delegate were to ask for a specific sum to complete a specific development then it should work. It would work because in this case the market knows exactly what it is getting and at what price. Then once consensus has been reached and the funds issued the market can decide if it agrees with consensus (and adjust price) and again the market can readjust its opinion/price once the development has been completed and is adding value.
The delegate then earns a reputation based on what they propose and what they deliver.
For this to work I think you would not only have to hard code a % inflation but also hard code a maximum single award. Maybe the maximum award could be increased as reputation (number of completed projects) increases.
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.
Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.
Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.
The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares? The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.
Yeah, we would all want the non-dilutable ones, because we all would want to have other people pay for the capital infusion but not us.As much as I hate the idea of dilution and even though I do hold some PTS and AGS, I agree that all shares, once merged, should be treated equally.
To be fair, everyone needs to be equal. 1 share is 1 share. Everyone equally pays for dilution, if it is voted for.
Yeah, we would all want the non-dilutable ones, because we all would want to have other people pay for the capital infusion but not us.As much as I hate the idea of dilution and even though I do hold some PTS and AGS, I agree that all shares, once merged, should be treated equally.
To be fair, everyone needs to be equal. 1 share is 1 share. Everyone equally pays for dilution, if it is voted for.
Having 2 "classes" of tokens seems like a horrible mess, the point of all of this is to simplify and condense right? After all the turmoil let's at least hit that mark haha.
Makes sense to me. As long as we are going with a single DAC system there doesn't seem to be any point to keeping PTS and AGS around, might as well roll it all into a single system.Yeah, we would all want the non-dilutable ones, because we all would want to have other people pay for the capital infusion but not us.As much as I hate the idea of dilution and even though I do hold some PTS and AGS, I agree that all shares, once merged, should be treated equally.
To be fair, everyone needs to be equal. 1 share is 1 share. Everyone equally pays for dilution, if it is voted for.
Having 2 "classes" of tokens seems like a horrible mess, the point of all of this is to simplify and condense right? After all the turmoil let's at least hit that mark haha.
One of the proposals was to proportionally offer newly issues shares to ALL of the shareholders at feed price BEFORE they are offered to anyone else. In this all shares are identical. And there is no difference between former AGS/PTS and BTSX => everything is equal BTS.