0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Chronos on April 19, 2016, 05:09:11 pmSorry for the simple question, but if nothing is done, when does vesting naturally end? What named accounts are receiving vesting funds, and in what amounts?I don't think it should end early. To me, that seems like breaking an agreement.The merger naturally ends on 5th Nov 2016 I think. So not too long but it is a large amount, circa 50 BTC per week being released at current rates. The merger gave 500 million BTS to holders of AGS, PTS, VOTE and DNS vested over two years. I think this was the final allocation...https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=844038.0
Sorry for the simple question, but if nothing is done, when does vesting naturally end? What named accounts are receiving vesting funds, and in what amounts?I don't think it should end early. To me, that seems like breaking an agreement.
Quote from: Thom on April 17, 2016, 04:56:34 pmSurprised nobody commented about the value these vested funds represent as I did. What good does delaying the vesting? The major point of vesting is to retain talent, and that aspect is mostly gone as empirical said. Same with deleting them. Sure that counters inflation, but how significant is that in the bigger picture? That primarily makes sense to the anti-dilution crowd, who offer zero input on how to pay for sustaining this ecosystem let alone improving it. They seem to loose sight of the fact their holding will become worthless if the ecosystem dies or cannot be maintained. Maybe the illusion of protecting their holdings is blinding them to the slow death that zero tolerance dilution will bring.You could make the vesting period 5x longer and really slow the downward pressure. You could also just stop the whole process for X years. What good would this do? It would slow/stop the dilution that is apparently bleeding BTS. My understand that is the objective of the suggestion in this thread. This would go further in the "good" it does. It would keep people from saying their BTS was stolen from them. Stolen from people who paid for the development of BTS2. My approach at least seems morally acceptable and is not blatant theft.
Surprised nobody commented about the value these vested funds represent as I did. What good does delaying the vesting? The major point of vesting is to retain talent, and that aspect is mostly gone as empirical said. Same with deleting them. Sure that counters inflation, but how significant is that in the bigger picture? That primarily makes sense to the anti-dilution crowd, who offer zero input on how to pay for sustaining this ecosystem let alone improving it. They seem to loose sight of the fact their holding will become worthless if the ecosystem dies or cannot be maintained. Maybe the illusion of protecting their holdings is blinding them to the slow death that zero tolerance dilution will bring.
Of course they're actual BTS, but you stimulated a question, are they already distributed, but have a lock, OR, are they not created until the "lock" (vesting period) expires?
Quote from: svk on April 17, 2016, 05:57:42 amI'm curious as to what could possibly beat the merger here, what's your #1?My #1 is the decision to distribute 50% of all BTS to PTS (and distribute based on simply holding said PTS and not actually donating those to the project(funding development). PTS being a weird combination of 90% fast mined coins held by a handful of miner whales, and 10% by small miners and buyers on the open market.My #2 is the merger by I also include here (call it #2a) the "invention" of so called self funding chains. I believe only the self diluting chains was invented, for self funding we need another element...."funds"... money and not only a way to give a stake to what I call worker-speculators (aka devs that need the money so they can put food on the table the second they receive the new shares).My #3 is Titan plus the general idea to go with non standard chain and then to poorly design it to the point of needing to abandon it in what 6 mo.?... I call it playing Sony before the start-up has even learned how to walk (aka finance itself)After those 3 there is a ton of other non-sense and or unwise decisions that I can not put in any particular order of impact...
I'm curious as to what could possibly beat the merger here, what's your #1?
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on April 17, 2016, 04:46:50 pmQuote from: Shentist on April 17, 2016, 04:23:16 pmi think the question is not clear.if you intent to free my vesting BTS we could do it, if you want to delete it i am against it. I hope this poll is about the first one.Apologies for the unclear question, the poll was to delete it, merockstar has also declared his yes vote void.https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22237.msg289902.html#msg289902I don't like editing polls after but as a few have been unclear on this point I will put an edit in the OP.deleting! what a terrible idea. i don't even want to think about this, why should we do this? srew me and others more then now?
Quote from: Shentist on April 17, 2016, 04:23:16 pmi think the question is not clear.if you intent to free my vesting BTS we could do it, if you want to delete it i am against it. I hope this poll is about the first one.Apologies for the unclear question, the poll was to delete it, merockstar has also declared his yes vote void.https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22237.msg289902.html#msg289902I don't like editing polls after but as a few have been unclear on this point I will put an edit in the OP.
i think the question is not clear.if you intent to free my vesting BTS we could do it, if you want to delete it i am against it. I hope this poll is about the first one.
It really comes down to how one sees the vested balances. Does one see them as actual BTS?
Quote from: gamey on April 17, 2016, 07:47:03 amI suspect a lot comes down to how one views the vested balances. I view them as just as legitimate as other BTS, fungible or not. Others seem to take the view that because these BTS are not liquid, then somehow they are in a second class. Obviously I disagree.Part of the reason they were made vesting was to ensure we retained our devs. Quote from: bytemaster on October 22, 2014, 12:56:16 pmThe result is that as part of the merger many people (including the large Dev fund) are taking a long-term vested interest in things. Do you really want Toast, Adam, and I to have instant access to a large percentage of all new funds or do you want us vesting with a long time horizon? We failed to retain Toast, Adam/FMV is crowd-funding separately and BM is focusing on another DAC. There is also speculation there has been a lot of selling by key parties... https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22098.msg287894.html#msg287894So in addition to all of the above, by continuing the merger we may also be inadvertently (though I'm sure they will disagree) funding other DACs at our expense. Quote from: bytemaster on October 21, 2014, 10:28:46 pmWe are the single largest holder of PTS by far. Giving a large stake to PTS and AGS would be massively in our favor. I understand your POV and perhaps it is the correct one, but continuing the merger is not a competitive/successful business strategy for BTS at this stage imo so it is worth discussing.
I suspect a lot comes down to how one views the vested balances. I view them as just as legitimate as other BTS, fungible or not. Others seem to take the view that because these BTS are not liquid, then somehow they are in a second class. Obviously I disagree.
The result is that as part of the merger many people (including the large Dev fund) are taking a long-term vested interest in things. Do you really want Toast, Adam, and I to have instant access to a large percentage of all new funds or do you want us vesting with a long time horizon?
We are the single largest holder of PTS by far. Giving a large stake to PTS and AGS would be massively in our favor.
Quote from: dannotestein on April 16, 2016, 11:35:28 pmI was always opposed to the merger (even without understanding all the ramifications of it) and the way it was essentially "forced" on the community. And, IMO, it turned out to be in the top 3 or 4 "disasters" for bitshares (probably #2). It totally failed at its stated purpose (which was never adequately explained anyways), it wasn't decided very democratically, it killed a number of funding opportunities, directly and indirectly cost BitShares two core developers (toast and Nathan), brought us another even more ineffective and expensive marketing manager that ultimately led the community to conclude that hiring an effective and reasonably priced marketing manager wasn't possible (something I don't think is true), introduced a lot of unnecessary inflation, and disenchanted a lot of loyal BTS followers. On a personal level, it cost me some of my BTS ownership, as I wasn't a donator after the first BTS snapshot, since I thought most of the value proposition of AGS was tied to that snapshot. I liked a lot of the other plans in theory, but they were all high-risk long term plays, and I didn't see sufficient experienced manpower and funding to make those teams effective.Despite the personal cost to me, I have to agree with gamey that changing the rules at this point would make us guilty of the same thing that was done to us, so I'm voting against this plan.These undesirable side effects may be true, but people always leave out worse consequences of not doing anything.We were out of funds to work on BitShares. We were obligated to stop at BTSX and start working on the other chains with the remaining post 2/28 funds. This would have resulted in multiple unfinished chains, none of which were likely to generate income before funding ran out and the team would have had to disperse in search of work.The decision was made to get one really solid chain working and producing income before diluting dwindling resources into other new starts which, as you say, were much longer term plays - too long to solve the problem of keeping the team together.That might have worked except for a down draft in crypto at the time which was generally interpreted as caused by the merger leading to a bigger downdraft caused by blaming the merger. So BitShares wound up unable (or unwilling) to pay its developers. We had to invent Graphene and now Steem to keep going. The one constant driver that we have always had to face is how to put food on the table while continuing to be available to support the prime vision.Every single step forward along the way has been influenced by that fiscal reality. If you are willing to ignore that constraint and imagine some parallel universe where dev paychecks don't matter, then sure, there were lots of more popular paths we could have taken.
I was always opposed to the merger (even without understanding all the ramifications of it) and the way it was essentially "forced" on the community. And, IMO, it turned out to be in the top 3 or 4 "disasters" for bitshares (probably #2). It totally failed at its stated purpose (which was never adequately explained anyways), it wasn't decided very democratically, it killed a number of funding opportunities, directly and indirectly cost BitShares two core developers (toast and Nathan), brought us another even more ineffective and expensive marketing manager that ultimately led the community to conclude that hiring an effective and reasonably priced marketing manager wasn't possible (something I don't think is true), introduced a lot of unnecessary inflation, and disenchanted a lot of loyal BTS followers. On a personal level, it cost me some of my BTS ownership, as I wasn't a donator after the first BTS snapshot, since I thought most of the value proposition of AGS was tied to that snapshot. I liked a lot of the other plans in theory, but they were all high-risk long term plays, and I didn't see sufficient experienced manpower and funding to make those teams effective.Despite the personal cost to me, I have to agree with gamey that changing the rules at this point would make us guilty of the same thing that was done to us, so I'm voting against this plan.
I agree with Julian. How exactly do we go through this whole merger fiasco and yet still end up losing BM to a competing chain? It's completely ridiculous. Reminds me of when the promise was to focus all efforts on BTS, but then BM goes and tries sharedropping Devshares to AGS/PTS. Then came the brownies. Now obviously Steem.How hard is it to focus on just one damn project?But be that as it may it seems pretty obvious that ending merger vesting early would cause more harm than good. Oh well.
Quote from: gamey on April 16, 2016, 10:37:22 pm Those balances *are* the property of their owners. That property interest was the equivalent of a royal grant made by the (former) developers of Bitshares who held merge rights on the Bitshares Github repository. The legitimacy of that act has always been in doubt, because it was never subject to stakeholder vote.The quid-pro-quo for this gift was the alignment of the developer resources and chains (vote, dns, bitshares). Additionally there was an insight that having multiple dapps on the same chain has synergy and efficiency benefits compared with multiple dapps on different chains. (See BMs discussion on the cost of cross-chain transactions, or consult the Ethereum market cap for reference). The Bitshares Royalty have now abdicated their position in favor of a new interest (Steem). It is natural to consider if Bitshares can afford to pay 700k/day with no benefit attached, and when the original terms of the arrangement no longer carry any meaning.
Those balances *are* the property of their owners.
Quote from: dannotestein on April 16, 2016, 11:35:28 pmI was always opposed to the merger (even without understanding all the ramifications of it) and the way it was essentially "forced" on the community. And, IMO, it turned out to be in the top 3 or 4 "disasters" for bitshares (probably #2). It totally failed at its stated purpose (which was never adequately explained anyways), it wasn't decided very democratically, it killed a number of funding opportunities, directly and indirectly cost BitShares two core developers (toast and Nathan), brought us another even more ineffective and expensive marketing manager that ultimately led the community to conclude that hiring an effective and reasonably priced marketing manager wasn't possible (something I don't think is true), introduced a lot of unnecessary inflation, and disenchanted a lot of loyal BTS followers. On a personal level, it cost me some of my BTS ownership, as I wasn't a donator after the first BTS snapshot, since I thought most of the value proposition of AGS was tied to that snapshot. I liked a lot of the other plans in theory, but they were all high-risk long term plays, and I didn't see sufficient experienced manpower and funding to make those teams effective.Despite the personal cost to me, I have to agree with gamey that changing the rules at this point would make us guilty of the same thing that was done to us, so I'm voting against this plan.What are #1,#3,#4 and #5 *disasters* in your book?[I have my own list and " 'THE merger' is close to #2 spot most of the time", just curious what are the rest/in what order]
this summer
The promise that was made, was to align the various competing chains and interests (vote, dns, bitshares etc) under the one umbrella, and to retain developer resources.This is the promise that was broken.It's quite normal for agreements to set aside when the original intention of the agreement cannot be fulfilled or when one side to the agreement fails to perform. (And in the real world, damages would ordinarily be paid for breach and loss).
THe people who vote yes are people who probably don't have any vested balances.
You own the network, but who pays for development?
if they are done developing, then yes, that's why the vesting period was created (to guarantee support for the duration of the vesting period). if the devs are still developing, then no.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on April 16, 2016, 04:22:01 pmQuote from: btswildpig on April 16, 2016, 03:42:29 pmQuote from: Empirical1.2 on April 16, 2016, 03:14:44 pmQuote from: gamey on April 16, 2016, 02:39:57 pmEnd it as in pay out remaining balances or completely stiff the people who signed up for the original vision ?The latter, stiff the people (like you and me) who have shares still vesting. (Though I wouldn't say we all signed up for the vision, DNS/BTSX/PTS lost millions of dollars in value at the time & it was pushed through with very little voting stake.) It's costing BTS a fortune per day and not achieving many of the original outcomes, so I would vote to end the merger even though I have a few hundred thousand BTS still vesting. Though it's obviously up to others (who have already received 70% of their vesting shares) and other BTS shareholders if they think that's in the best interest of BTS overall. I think it will hopefully that mean we can spend a lot more on our valuable developers and development without impacting the BTS price as much, the combination of which should make BTS more valuable.what could this possibly accomplish ? Another demonstration that "BTS would move heaven and earth to feed their few developers at the expense of all/some investors" ? Though I hate the merger .... I can't support this .That's ok, it's a controversial topic and may not be in the best interest of BTS overall. You don't have to vote to spend more on development if you don't want to, that's your choice. But the merger is costing 700k a day, 5 million BTS a week. Do you think BTS can afford spending 50-60 BTC a week on it, even though it's not achieving many of the original outcomes?Do you think people who paid much more for PTS/AGS/DNS would sell their vest shares at this low price ?
Quote from: btswildpig on April 16, 2016, 03:42:29 pmQuote from: Empirical1.2 on April 16, 2016, 03:14:44 pmQuote from: gamey on April 16, 2016, 02:39:57 pmEnd it as in pay out remaining balances or completely stiff the people who signed up for the original vision ?The latter, stiff the people (like you and me) who have shares still vesting. (Though I wouldn't say we all signed up for the vision, DNS/BTSX/PTS lost millions of dollars in value at the time & it was pushed through with very little voting stake.) It's costing BTS a fortune per day and not achieving many of the original outcomes, so I would vote to end the merger even though I have a few hundred thousand BTS still vesting. Though it's obviously up to others (who have already received 70% of their vesting shares) and other BTS shareholders if they think that's in the best interest of BTS overall. I think it will hopefully that mean we can spend a lot more on our valuable developers and development without impacting the BTS price as much, the combination of which should make BTS more valuable.what could this possibly accomplish ? Another demonstration that "BTS would move heaven and earth to feed their few developers at the expense of all/some investors" ? Though I hate the merger .... I can't support this .That's ok, it's a controversial topic and may not be in the best interest of BTS overall. You don't have to vote to spend more on development if you don't want to, that's your choice. But the merger is costing 700k a day, 5 million BTS a week. Do you think BTS can afford spending 50-60 BTC a week on it, even though it's not achieving many of the original outcomes?
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on April 16, 2016, 03:14:44 pmQuote from: gamey on April 16, 2016, 02:39:57 pmEnd it as in pay out remaining balances or completely stiff the people who signed up for the original vision ?The latter, stiff the people (like you and me) who have shares still vesting. (Though I wouldn't say we all signed up for the vision, DNS/BTSX/PTS lost millions of dollars in value at the time & it was pushed through with very little voting stake.) It's costing BTS a fortune per day and not achieving many of the original outcomes, so I would vote to end the merger even though I have a few hundred thousand BTS still vesting. Though it's obviously up to others (who have already received 70% of their vesting shares) and other BTS shareholders if they think that's in the best interest of BTS overall. I think it will hopefully that mean we can spend a lot more on our valuable developers and development without impacting the BTS price as much, the combination of which should make BTS more valuable.what could this possibly accomplish ? Another demonstration that "BTS would move heaven and earth to feed their few developers at the expense of all/some investors" ? Though I hate the merger .... I can't support this .
Quote from: gamey on April 16, 2016, 02:39:57 pmEnd it as in pay out remaining balances or completely stiff the people who signed up for the original vision ?The latter, stiff the people (like you and me) who have shares still vesting. (Though I wouldn't say we all signed up for the vision, DNS/BTSX/PTS lost millions of dollars in value at the time & it was pushed through with very little voting stake.) It's costing BTS a fortune per day and not achieving many of the original outcomes, so I would vote to end the merger even though I have a few hundred thousand BTS still vesting. Though it's obviously up to others (who have already received 70% of their vesting shares) and other BTS shareholders if they think that's in the best interest of BTS overall. I think it will hopefully that mean we can spend a lot more on our valuable developers and development without impacting the BTS price as much, the combination of which should make BTS more valuable.
End it as in pay out remaining balances or completely stiff the people who signed up for the original vision ?
Quote from: gamey on April 16, 2016, 02:39:57 pmEnd it as in pay out remaining balances or completely stiff the people who signed up for the original vision ?The latter, stiff the people (like you and me) who have shares still vesting.