0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: donkeypong on May 21, 2014, 03:51:04 amWow, Simeon sounds really negative for someone with a stake in this. Have a little patience, people! You might be a billionaire in another year or two, but it's not gonna happen by this time next week! Regarding Stan's use of language, I don't think he's the one that's trying to catch people using a wrong word. He's trying to set the record straight when others twist his words (intentionally or not) into misunderstandings and rumors. If someone in his position is not careful, then pretty soon, these rumors about Invictus' 'promises' spiral out of their control. The last thing they want is people accusing them of over-promising. Goals matter, and Bitshares is aiming to deliver great things.Billionaire in a year or two? What a joke! Look around the Bitcoin 2.0 space, is it so hard to convince yourself that BitShares is the least competitive one (well, at least up til now)? I don't mean to say that to hurt this community, but come on! Your optimistic viewpoint should be based on real progress they've made instead of some blind belief, is it?We should urge 3I to put themselves together and go for the right direction, instead of letting them to lead us by the nose.
Wow, Simeon sounds really negative for someone with a stake in this. Have a little patience, people! You might be a billionaire in another year or two, but it's not gonna happen by this time next week! Regarding Stan's use of language, I don't think he's the one that's trying to catch people using a wrong word. He's trying to set the record straight when others twist his words (intentionally or not) into misunderstandings and rumors. If someone in his position is not careful, then pretty soon, these rumors about Invictus' 'promises' spiral out of their control. The last thing they want is people accusing them of over-promising. Goals matter, and Bitshares is aiming to deliver great things.
Do I have to be dead serious with everything I write? Figure of speech, my friend. Obviously, I do believe Bitshares will be successful. Those other "2.0's" are child's play compared to what this will become: a paradigm changer.
“What part you do not get?”I am in no way a god (like Zeus), neither play one (like Stan), so here are some of the things I do not get:-How 15% dilution after/through 3 years is the same as 15% dilution right now?-For what reason Invictus should be the owner of said 300K dilution shares.-How do you ‘good I3 dogs’ think that somebody who has spent, 23K $ for this website: [http://bitshares.org/] will do a great job with the 1 mil of advertising money.Other concerns here: [link]
somebody who has spent, 23K $ for this website: [http://bitshares.org/]
Quote from: donkeypong on May 21, 2014, 04:19:24 pmQuote from: Simeon II on May 21, 2014, 01:48:18 pmWhat part do you not get? PTS holders now have 100% of the PTS. After the new PTS 2.0 come to life, they will own 1.65/2 or about 82% of generally the same thing Either way, PTS would reach 2,000,000 soon anyway (by mining otherwise), so your 82% is going to be the same.Exactly and also don't forget the 1% inflation after the 2 million would have been reached.
Quote from: Simeon II on May 21, 2014, 01:48:18 pmWhat part do you not get? PTS holders now have 100% of the PTS. After the new PTS 2.0 come to life, they will own 1.65/2 or about 82% of generally the same thing Either way, PTS would reach 2,000,000 soon anyway (by mining otherwise), so your 82% is going to be the same.
What part do you not get? PTS holders now have 100% of the PTS. After the new PTS 2.0 come to life, they will own 1.65/2 or about 82% of generally the same thing
QuoteFair enough for me :-)i am running in full-t(h)rust mode :-) from me as well. I would rather have 15% less shares and this 15% is well spent to create serious media buzz rather than have 15% more on some shares that are constantly lose their value... QuoteWhat part do you not get?What part you do not get?QuoteThis is great! Incentivize every customer to recruit 2 or 3 more customers. Explosive growth. "Like bacteria in a petri dish."
Fair enough for me :-)i am running in full-t(h)rust mode :-)
What part do you not get?
This is great! Incentivize every customer to recruit 2 or 3 more customers. Explosive growth. "Like bacteria in a petri dish."
Quote from: Simeon II on May 21, 2014, 01:48:18 pmPlus Stan thinks we are stupid enough to not get this picture, and must be happy because ‘He/I3 will do such great thing with this new money, that we can hardly imagine, the great benefits that wait us’Fair enough for me :-)i am running in full-t(h)rust mode :-)
Plus Stan thinks we are stupid enough to not get this picture, and must be happy because ‘He/I3 will do such great thing with this new money, that we can hardly imagine, the great benefits that wait us’
I really don't get what is the frustration here...QuoteEvery PTS share holder will now ALSO own a PTS2 share!The plan is to distribute the remaining PTS to the existing PTS holders and create 2 mil PTS2 which will also be distributed to the existing PTS holders, or I miss understood something? For every PTS we hold we will get now +15% PTS and 1PTS2? PTS2 will not need any mining and will be liquid?How on earth can this not be good?
Every PTS share holder will now ALSO own a PTS2 share!
Personally I can't wait for PTS2. And I don't care about the extra 15% dividend as long it creates a media buzz!
http://youtu.be/vDwzmJpI4io?t=11m40s
3I sucks the remaining unmined PTS into their own holding. No matter what they say and what they intend to do with those PTS, it is under their control. I wonder why they are so reluctant to spend the AGS fund to do all the marketing and bounties.Why is it a bad thing? It's because I don't trust 3I anymore. They've become the single point of failure in the whole project. In regard to the AGS fund, they are not open to suggestions from the community. And the worst part is that they seem to keep the AGS fund as their salaries for the next several years. Salaries! Not for the development of the whole industry.I'm sorry, but what you said about PTS is completely incomprehensible to me. Here's what I think of PTS: PTS and AGS will get equal share of other DACs if they can ever launch successfully: that's basically the intrinsic value of PTS and AGS. According the current ratio between PTS and AGS, a reasonable man would donate AGS, in sacrifice of the liquidity of PTS. This is the evil side of AGS: If you donate PTS in exchange for AGS, the donated PTS goes to 3I but they still have equity among those DACs; if you donate BTC in exchange for AGS, those BTC don't have equity value. And the price of PTS depends on this ratio, which inherently lost value. Simply put, 3I launched AGS to tax the PTS holders on stupidity, and the PTS holders don't have other choice since 3I makes the rules! Do the math yourselves, guys!
Quote from: mess on May 21, 2014, 05:34:09 amQuote from: Stan on May 21, 2014, 02:36:46 amDecentralized competition is what we're after. All we can do is put a product out there and hope people like it. We encourage competitors to put their own products out there and compete with us!We have just announced the intention to design an upgrade chain called PTS2 that has DPOS instead of mining and should solve all of the current problems PTS has from using legacy Bitcoin mining code. Its design will honor PTS holders 1 for 1 and reserve the unallocated/unmined 15% for use increasing its value proposition (demand) for those who choose to hold it. No different than any developer who announces, say, a 45/45/10 DAC with the 10% reserved to fund development, promotion, and support. The standard approach we have always been advocating and the freedom we have left for every BitShares developer.Now here's the thing: Every PTS share holder will now ALSO own a PTS2 share! That's how our industry works. That's how every change proposal happens. Soft forks and let the industry choose!Those who like PTS can sell their PTS2 and vice versa.That's how every shareholder gets a vote - the free market! What each person chooses to hold and chooses to sell.So nothing has changed with PTS. Miners can still mine it. Exchanges can still trade it. Your wallets will still work if they do.But developers will have to choose which chain they will honor (or perhaps some clever mix).If the majority of value stays with PTS, developers will be inclined to want to attract its holders. If the majority prefers PTS2, most developers will honor that. Over time, the least popular chain will probably die out. Or not.Nobody's rights have been violated. A new competing protoDAC has been announced! (Something we reserved the right to do from week 1). Everyone is free to own and honor the one they like best - or both - or even clone their own better alternative.And so are we. So, Stan, you're pretty determined to suck every last bit of value out of PTS, huh.Do you really need more funding for promotion, support, etc? Are 5,000 BTC + 340,000 PTS worth of donations not enough for you?Distributing the remaining PTS to AGS holders are the most obvious solution that would benefit your investors. Can't you see that at all?Don't you have any idea that this move would put you into a position that's against PTS and AGS holders?I understand completely, that 3I has reserved the right to launch a competing protoDAC, along with other rights that you guys reserved as well, like yeah, "disavow anything you ever said on this forum". Well played.But if you really want BitShares to succeed, you've got to work for the true benefit of the investors (PTS/AGS holders), instead of playing your little tricks to gradually suck everybody's money into your own pocket. I don't think you guys have the balls to piss the VCs off like this if you were to get money from VCs. And the whole idea of AGS is just scam, but we have no other choice but to donate all our ass off, otherwise our shares got diluted. But you managed to raised millions via AGS anyway. We tolerated it, so could you please just stop asking for money right now and firkin deliver?Would you mind elaborating, because I don't quite get the logic behind your reasoning.How do you see this as "sucking" all value and it being a bad thing? I also am a bit confused about the dilution of your shares if you just kept a hold of your PTS. Because from an ROI point of view PTS seems to be the big scam, because they get all the benefits of the AGS fundraiser and the projects that paid for, without needing themselves to invest in anything. I'd like it if someone could explain to me how PTS-holders are not getting anything other than a sickening better deal than people investing directly into AGS.Could very well be I'm missing some very important points, but if you just number conclusions, without the reasoning that led you to them, that doesn't help in clearing things up.
Quote from: Stan on May 21, 2014, 02:36:46 amDecentralized competition is what we're after. All we can do is put a product out there and hope people like it. We encourage competitors to put their own products out there and compete with us!We have just announced the intention to design an upgrade chain called PTS2 that has DPOS instead of mining and should solve all of the current problems PTS has from using legacy Bitcoin mining code. Its design will honor PTS holders 1 for 1 and reserve the unallocated/unmined 15% for use increasing its value proposition (demand) for those who choose to hold it. No different than any developer who announces, say, a 45/45/10 DAC with the 10% reserved to fund development, promotion, and support. The standard approach we have always been advocating and the freedom we have left for every BitShares developer.Now here's the thing: Every PTS share holder will now ALSO own a PTS2 share! That's how our industry works. That's how every change proposal happens. Soft forks and let the industry choose!Those who like PTS can sell their PTS2 and vice versa.That's how every shareholder gets a vote - the free market! What each person chooses to hold and chooses to sell.So nothing has changed with PTS. Miners can still mine it. Exchanges can still trade it. Your wallets will still work if they do.But developers will have to choose which chain they will honor (or perhaps some clever mix).If the majority of value stays with PTS, developers will be inclined to want to attract its holders. If the majority prefers PTS2, most developers will honor that. Over time, the least popular chain will probably die out. Or not.Nobody's rights have been violated. A new competing protoDAC has been announced! (Something we reserved the right to do from week 1). Everyone is free to own and honor the one they like best - or both - or even clone their own better alternative.And so are we. So, Stan, you're pretty determined to suck every last bit of value out of PTS, huh.Do you really need more funding for promotion, support, etc? Are 5,000 BTC + 340,000 PTS worth of donations not enough for you?Distributing the remaining PTS to AGS holders are the most obvious solution that would benefit your investors. Can't you see that at all?Don't you have any idea that this move would put you into a position that's against PTS and AGS holders?I understand completely, that 3I has reserved the right to launch a competing protoDAC, along with other rights that you guys reserved as well, like yeah, "disavow anything you ever said on this forum". Well played.But if you really want BitShares to succeed, you've got to work for the true benefit of the investors (PTS/AGS holders), instead of playing your little tricks to gradually suck everybody's money into your own pocket. I don't think you guys have the balls to piss the VCs off like this if you were to get money from VCs. And the whole idea of AGS is just scam, but we have no other choice but to donate all our ass off, otherwise our shares got diluted. But you managed to raised millions via AGS anyway. We tolerated it, so could you please just stop asking for money right now and firkin deliver?
Decentralized competition is what we're after. All we can do is put a product out there and hope people like it. We encourage competitors to put their own products out there and compete with us!We have just announced the intention to design an upgrade chain called PTS2 that has DPOS instead of mining and should solve all of the current problems PTS has from using legacy Bitcoin mining code. Its design will honor PTS holders 1 for 1 and reserve the unallocated/unmined 15% for use increasing its value proposition (demand) for those who choose to hold it. No different than any developer who announces, say, a 45/45/10 DAC with the 10% reserved to fund development, promotion, and support. The standard approach we have always been advocating and the freedom we have left for every BitShares developer.Now here's the thing: Every PTS share holder will now ALSO own a PTS2 share! That's how our industry works. That's how every change proposal happens. Soft forks and let the industry choose!Those who like PTS can sell their PTS2 and vice versa.That's how every shareholder gets a vote - the free market! What each person chooses to hold and chooses to sell.So nothing has changed with PTS. Miners can still mine it. Exchanges can still trade it. Your wallets will still work if they do.But developers will have to choose which chain they will honor (or perhaps some clever mix).If the majority of value stays with PTS, developers will be inclined to want to attract its holders. If the majority prefers PTS2, most developers will honor that. Over time, the least popular chain will probably die out. Or not.Nobody's rights have been violated. A new competing protoDAC has been announced! (Something we reserved the right to do from week 1). Everyone is free to own and honor the one they like best - or both - or even clone their own better alternative.And so are we.
Stan, seems like you are striving to catch somebody use a wrong word (though the example you try to cash on seems auto/google translation) to prove you did not poop up today.BTW the guy that posted most angrily today -Simeon - was the guy who brought me to Bitshares, he has more than 3K PTS invested in AGS (pre-Feb 28th PTS, bought for real $ and invested in AGS; so >$24K invested in AGS), so careful when you curse the hand that feeds you.
Quote from: mess on May 21, 2014, 02:02:12 amDue to 3I's history it is not unreasonable to put it that Stan's PROMISE of 2x,...10X return is highly improbable. So, please, do us a favor and don't screw up on those unmined PTS!If 'improbable' was 'unproven' I would give
Due to 3I's history it is not unreasonable to put it that Stan's PROMISE of 2x,...10X return is highly improbable. So, please, do us a favor and don't screw up on those unmined PTS!
QuoteBut the arrogance it takes for Invictus to treat those 15% of PTS as theirs, as something that belongs to them...I suppose everything is a matter of perspective, but currently those funds are earmarked for paying miners to burn electricity. So the PTS community / shareholders are the ones who should vote on what to do with the remaining PTS. I3 Ltd (AGS fund) controls something like 20% of PTS and so would benefit greatly (far more than any other single actor) by stopping the dilution of PTS and not giving anything away. So it is a question of what the remaining PTS shareholders wish to do. In the interest of separating development from marketing I have left Stan, Brian, Gregory, and Arlen to work with the community to develop the best plans. I am not a dictator in these things.Personally I suggested to them that PTS holders should get some benefit as well: ie give x% to PTS holders. However, I can also see that we intended there to be equal shares in PTS/AGS long-term. In my opinion the arrogance is in assuming we are arrogant. In reality we are just people trying to do the best by everyone and improve the value of what everyone is holding.We also would not be changing the deal for PTS holders: we said that there would be 2M + 1% inflation and reserved the right to fork the chain at any point to upgrade it. In this particular instance the PTS holders go from having 1% inflation to steady deflation from trx fees. Still a win for them.
But the arrogance it takes for Invictus to treat those 15% of PTS as theirs, as something that belongs to them...
Just, trying to say, mostly to the other posters, not you smiley35:- Have a little backbone and voice your opinion what is best for you (us)! Do not just stand up and applause whatever “Stan’ says is ‘The next best thing after the hot water’ “.- Do not let Stan claim something that is not his, just because “He knows, best what to do with it”. - And lastly, do not attack someone defending your interest, just to gain points in the eye of the muster.
Quote from: smiley35 on May 20, 2014, 11:42:43 pmThe important part that seems to get lost in the noise is that every change/update made is done in a way that increases the value proposition for those invested. AGS was a phenomenal deal for PTS holders if one could see through the curtain of technical and economic development. Similarly whats happening here is that instead of spending the remaining PTS on security, it will now be used to get people excited and incentivized to use bitshares.I will try to adhere to your polite tone! I do not argue with the need for marketing! (read my post, please.)My post is regarding Stan's stance (bytemaster kind of distanced himself from this proposition in his earlier post) - ‘You fools out here, we have the best marketing Idea. Instead of giving you 15% (i.e. not diluting your shares as promised), we will take those money and PROMISE to give you 2X….10X return.’ My point is ‘If we have 15% of the PTS, let’s put our collective brain and decide what is the best way to spend them’
The important part that seems to get lost in the noise is that every change/update made is done in a way that increases the value proposition for those invested. AGS was a phenomenal deal for PTS holders if one could see through the curtain of technical and economic development. Similarly whats happening here is that instead of spending the remaining PTS on security, it will now be used to get people excited and incentivized to use bitshares.
Quote from: fuznuts on May 20, 2014, 10:51:07 pmWhy would it not be better to give some of the pts strategically to form partnerships with a solid footprint in alternative media and//or companies with philosophical characteristics that would help to further bootstrap the industry?Are all readers, except bytemaster and Agent86, on this forum dyslexic? Everybody responding to my words –READ MY POST before answering.*donkeypong* – you do not have to put this effort. For you registration time on this forum is all that matters, so no need for you to try reading. It will not change my registration date!
Why would it not be better to give some of the pts strategically to form partnerships with a solid footprint in alternative media and//or companies with philosophical characteristics that would help to further bootstrap the industry?
Quote from: liondani on May 20, 2014, 11:23:52 amPS What about the Idea to give the remaining PTS to AGS investors and the percentage that will take I3 because they are heavily invested on AGS would used for that reason Stan mentioned.After all it would be near $1.000.000 after PTS price raise because of the buzz and I hope the release of BitsharesX...
PS What about the Idea to give the remaining PTS to AGS investors and the percentage that will take I3 because they are heavily invested on AGS would used for that reason Stan mentioned.After all it would be near $1.000.000 after PTS price raise because of the buzz and I hope the release of BitsharesX...
Quote from: liondani on May 20, 2014, 11:52:21 amOr anounce when you will BURN THEM (the remaining PTS) ...The PTS with DPOS technology and the BURNING METHOD would surely boost the value of PTS...and make the holders twice happy!
Or anounce when you will BURN THEM (the remaining PTS) ...The PTS with DPOS technology and the BURNING METHOD would surely boost the value of PTS...and make the holders twice happy!
Also, my recommendation if you are worried about 15% is to head over to: http://www1.agsexplorer.com/Make the commitment, stop sitting on the fence! I don't mean to make light of your concern but try to think of the biggest picture.
Sock puppet?
Giving 15% to grow the community is good, very good indeed!Dilution with 15% all current PTS holder is not good BUT PTS holders must be aware of this already, so it is OK!But the arrogance it takes for Invictus to treat those 15% of PTS as theirs, as something that belongs to them by some unknown right is, unbelievable!The arrogance of Stan does not stop there! He goes on to claim that because of their treatment of funds that are not theirs, this whole scheme will actually be very beneficial for the holders of PTS!‘A lousy 15% plus-up for PTS holders only is not the best we can do! We are aiming for 2x, 3x, ... 10x... growth in value’How about a noble idea – if this promo will be so great, why doesn’t Invictus add 15 % of their own PTS and 15 % of the AGS fund, so the PTS holders benefit even more???And the calm, approving response of the community to that outrageous suggestion is sheepish. We deserve our fate if we accept such despicable statements with such calm and notes of happiness.
Giving 15% to grow the community is good, very good indeed!Dilution with 15% all current PTS holder is not good BUT PTS holders must be aware of this already, so it is OK!But the arrogance it takes for Invictus to treat those 15% of PTS as theirs, as something that belongs to them...
Quote from: lzr1900 on May 20, 2014, 09:10:42 amETA of the new PTS DPOS version?don't tell me soon,i hate this world :p..if you can not give any ETA,just ignore me ok i see , * or winter... I surrender.."Or winter" was a a reference to the fact that half the planet is "soon" heading into winter.(I didn't want to be a Northern Hemisphere chauvinist.) PTS2 will be out as "soon" as XT has proven DPOS is ready for prime time.
ETA of the new PTS DPOS version?don't tell me soon,i hate this world :p..if you can not give any ETA,just ignore me ok i see , * or winter... I surrender..
We already left the miners behind by establishing that it is wasteful
thanks for always having the people from Down Under in mind hahaQuote from: Stan on May 20, 2014, 03:30:39 am*or Winter
*or Winter
I think this is an idea that could benefit everyone a lot and get us a lot of attention and good will, as long as it's done well. This is way better than distributing them by mining.
So long as Invictus has the right to decide whoever gets the remaining unmined PTS, it is in violation of the original social contract.
It's actually just another way to capture the remaining unmined PTS ($1m) into your own pocket, just like what you did by AGS. So long as Invictus has the right to decide whoever gets the remaining unmined PTS, it is in violation of the original social contract. You actually don't need an extra $1m to *help build the crypto-equity industry*, the fund you kept hostage via AGS is already far more than enough.As an angry investor who invested more than $100k, though I don't post in this forum a lot, I really care the whole development of this project. And I'm really disappointed to see you guys bouncing checks all the time.
I can see future posts and reviews.... "how become Bitshares a religion? " "bitsharestalk community multimillionaires members made another marvellous/giant charity donation! "... etc.... .... ....Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D using Tapatalk
Is there a less forum-centric announcement of this news anywhere? Most of the people I could send this information to would be bewildered by the inside references and jokes. (Although I enjoy them personally).