And AGS has 0 liquidity.

This has been said over and over, also as an accusation to the effect that AGS is being gifted liquidity.

First of all, AGS holders never wanted quick liquidity.  That's why they bought AGS.  It was a long term investment to start with.  Otherwise they could have bought PTS.  I don't think AGS holders are thanking their lucky stars now that they have liquidity.  It's more of a liability now.  They will have to watch the markets and manage it, be tempted to sell it, etc.  AGS holders probably aren't happy with this sudden liquidity.

Another point is that that AGS was always intended to end up effectively liquid.  Every time a new DAC came out it was becoming more liquid.  Also based on the fact that all along the idea was to build foundation-industry DACs which would then be "snapshoted" in the the future.  With time, AGS was alway supposed to be tending toward complete liquidity.

Another thing to consider would be the expectation of the buyer (what they thought they were buying).  BTSX buyers thought they were buying a certain number of BTSX.  That stays the same.  PTS/AGS buyers thought they were buying a percentage.

Really fair would be some sort of moving average payout which maintains that 7% (or whatever is decided to be fair) over time.

I have no idea.  Just curious what people think.

Do AGS holders have to claim BTSX and DNS before the merger?  There is still no safe way to do this without exposing private keys.

Is it safe to move funds on and off exchanges right now?  How about claiming unclaimed Genesis funds in BTSX, DNS, etc. right now?

And what will happen generally unclaimed funds (I think BTSX has about 1/3 unclaimed still)?  Technically they are still associated with a Bitcoin address and not a BTSX address? Or are they already on the network somehow?

Quote from: Stan on October 18, 2014, 04:14:39 pm

All of you guys are doing great!  I am extremely proud of the collective reasoning powers of this forum.

Keep on following all this thread to its only possible Darwinian conclusion...

 

(You may quit when you have evolved a solution that nothing else can beat.)

Bytemaster and co. are extremely confident about the network effect they can gain using dilution as well as the fact they need it for infrastructure and development.

Quote from: bytemaster on October 18, 2014, 12:20:30 am

Btsx is not being abandoned.  This project is designed to fund common infrastructure via dilution.   My job is to lead not code.   And btsx is dac suns job to maintain upgrade and bug fix.

Btsx is hamstrung with a fixed dev budget that will take time to grow. 

Quote from: bytemaster on October 18, 2014, 02:58:18 am

1) BTSX hard cap of 2 billion is going to limit its growth potential.

Quote from: bytemaster on October 18, 2014, 01:51:11 am

7) The biggest reason of all why we are doing this has to do with the fact that we can gather "network effect" faster with the VOTE DAC...

How we do all of that is still slightly under wraps... but trust me it may beat BTSX to the moon.

Now I am someone more in favour of no dilution but there is no advantage to not choosing the general option Bytemaster is for after feedback. So now I'm for dilution.

Why? Put simply Bytemaster doesn't work for us. As he says above he's here to lead not code.

While I'm sure BM will fulfil his obligations to a DAC, he doesn't work for the DAC. So you can either be part of a DAC where the underlying toolkit development etc.  is largely lead by Bytemaster but there is no option where he is the one being lead on big decisions imo.

If BM is clear after feedback that dilution is required for the BitAsset network effect. Then...

The only possible Darwinian conclusion:

What does Bytemaster think is the best dilution model for BTSX? and pretty much do that.

Also to follow that formula more in general. To not support the direction of the key talent after feedback especially on big decisions leads to more of these mixed options and uncertainty.

This is mind twisting.  Like the end of the film "The Usual Suspects"

Are you suggesting that those who are capable of this evolutionary step will recognize the foley in BTSX, dump it, and move on with BM?

Quote from: blahblah7up on October 18, 2014, 03:30:33 pm

Since the same technology is behind each one of these DAC's it will probably make more sense just to switch on trading for all the other currencies in the DAC that gains the widest adoption.  No need to trade between chains.  Just have the delegates publish the appropriate feeds and away you go. BTSX might be worthless.

This is the problem... There is nothing stopping other DACs from creating other Bitassets. BitsharesVote or any other DAC can create bitGLD, bitSLV, etc.. and at that point BTSX is pretty much useless if other DACs have the same functionality with more features built on top of bitAssets.

...and more users.  The winning DAC will turn out to be "candy crush DAC" where you can buy bitGLD, vote for you local senator, and release coins for your latest home made dance album.

I think the easiest way to think about it is:

1 bitUSD = 1 USD always

That never changes because of the peg.  bitUSD just follows the COURSE of real USD.
If real USD is loosing value because it is being inflated, bitUSD will also reflect that loss in value.