0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: starspirit on June 10, 2015, 11:09:56 pmMy opinion...We need to understand the two separate concepts of income (increases value of BTS) versus distribution (application of income earned).Burning is not a source of income. It is a distribution of income. Burning is not the main goal of BTS to increase value.Revenue is earned when money comes into the system from things such as transaction fees. It used to be that revenues and burning occurred simultaneously, thus the past confusion of the two concepts. That is, transaction fees were used to instantly buy BTS and burn any excess not payable to the delegates. This represented an instant distribution of income to all owners, because there was no way for the business to hold it as a reserve.The new approach will change that, by holding the BTS in reserve instead of burning it. So when the fees are earned (in excess of pay to witnesses), that is earned revenue that goes into the pool, which is owned by BTS. From that expenses are paid to the workers. The remainder is the net profit of the business.The choices from there are what to do with that profit. Do you distribute it - i.e. burn it? Or do you reinvest it - i.e. use it to fund other work or projects? Or do you even use if for strategic purposes - i.e. to fund acquisitions etc? The quality of the decisions made in these areas will ultimately determine what value the marketplace is willing to place upon BTS. So we need to ensure those are truly wise decisions. There is no point in burning for the sake of appearances as long as there exist better ways to reinvest that money, especially early in our growth cycle. At the point of saturation there is no point in reinvesting, and all profits should be burned. But its good to have both options.There are other choices too. If we spend more on witnesses and workers than we earn in fees etc, then we are making a loss, which dilutes the business. This can make sense for a startup, but from an investors' perspective, only with a convincing plan to move it to state of future profit (or make a trade sale to another party, but I assume that's not the end goal). The notional amount of BTS to be initially allocated to the reserve pool (ie. 1.2 bn BTS) is a signal to the market as to how much we are willing to dilute the business before eventually turning a profit. From an investor's perspective, the bigger this pool, the longer the time I expect I'll have to wait before BTS is profitable. For example, if we believed we could be profitable in 3 years, there would be no need for 1.2bn BTS to exist as a dilutionary spending reserve. Of course maybe we are just being really conservative, and conservative management is not a bad thing either. I'm not sure what the right figure should be, but hopefully this gives you some idea of how investors might look at things.This nicely explains the new bare bones of DPOS 2, just add crypto More great insight from startspirit
My opinion...We need to understand the two separate concepts of income (increases value of BTS) versus distribution (application of income earned).Burning is not a source of income. It is a distribution of income. Burning is not the main goal of BTS to increase value.Revenue is earned when money comes into the system from things such as transaction fees. It used to be that revenues and burning occurred simultaneously, thus the past confusion of the two concepts. That is, transaction fees were used to instantly buy BTS and burn any excess not payable to the delegates. This represented an instant distribution of income to all owners, because there was no way for the business to hold it as a reserve.The new approach will change that, by holding the BTS in reserve instead of burning it. So when the fees are earned (in excess of pay to witnesses), that is earned revenue that goes into the pool, which is owned by BTS. From that expenses are paid to the workers. The remainder is the net profit of the business.The choices from there are what to do with that profit. Do you distribute it - i.e. burn it? Or do you reinvest it - i.e. use it to fund other work or projects? Or do you even use if for strategic purposes - i.e. to fund acquisitions etc? The quality of the decisions made in these areas will ultimately determine what value the marketplace is willing to place upon BTS. So we need to ensure those are truly wise decisions. There is no point in burning for the sake of appearances as long as there exist better ways to reinvest that money, especially early in our growth cycle. At the point of saturation there is no point in reinvesting, and all profits should be burned. But its good to have both options.There are other choices too. If we spend more on witnesses and workers than we earn in fees etc, then we are making a loss, which dilutes the business. This can make sense for a startup, but from an investors' perspective, only with a convincing plan to move it to state of future profit (or make a trade sale to another party, but I assume that's not the end goal). The notional amount of BTS to be initially allocated to the reserve pool (ie. 1.2 bn BTS) is a signal to the market as to how much we are willing to dilute the business before eventually turning a profit. From an investor's perspective, the bigger this pool, the longer the time I expect I'll have to wait before BTS is profitable. For example, if we believed we could be profitable in 3 years, there would be no need for 1.2bn BTS to exist as a dilutionary spending reserve. Of course maybe we are just being really conservative, and conservative management is not a bad thing either. I'm not sure what the right figure should be, but hopefully this gives you some idea of how investors might look at things.
The new approach will change that, by holding the BTS in reserve instead of burning it. So when the fees are earned (in excess of pay to witnesses), that is earned revenue that goes into the pool, which is owned by BTS. From that expenses are paid to the workers. The remainder is the net profit of the business.The choices from there are what to do with that profit. Do you distribute it - i.e. burn it? Or do you reinvest it - i.e. use it to fund other work or projects? Or do you even use if for strategic purposes - i.e. to fund acquisitions etc?
In the 3 way split variant we can answer the question – ‘What is this burning thing actually do’ – by saying ‘We burn part of the income generated by the DAC as a dividend for the shareholders’, while with the worker-burner the answer is less powerful - 'We are reducing the theoretical maximum supply of BTS'.Please, consider.
Quote from: tonyk on June 10, 2015, 01:20:28 pmQuote from: tonyk on June 09, 2015, 01:23:46 am1. There is no more BTS burning. No more dividends ....Anyway this matter is easily fixable – by setting 3 way split instead of the proposed 2 way (80%/20% for referral program/ future spending’s fund), by just adding % to be burntOf course there is another way to do this, another way which allows actually even more aggressively removing/burning of BTShttps://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/37Thanks for listening to the feed back from the community BM!
Quote from: tonyk on June 09, 2015, 01:23:46 am1. There is no more BTS burning. No more dividends ....Anyway this matter is easily fixable – by setting 3 way split instead of the proposed 2 way (80%/20% for referral program/ future spending’s fund), by just adding % to be burntOf course there is another way to do this, another way which allows actually even more aggressively removing/burning of BTShttps://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/37Thanks for listening to the feed back from the community BM!
1. There is no more BTS burning. No more dividends ....Anyway this matter is easily fixable – by setting 3 way split instead of the proposed 2 way (80%/20% for referral program/ future spending’s fund), by just adding % to be burnt
this summer
So BTS are removed from the market if growth isn't occurring, but if it is those BTS get used to facilitate more growth?Clever compromise.
Quote from: tonyk on June 09, 2015, 04:46:43 pmQuote from: Riverhead on June 09, 2015, 04:30:48 pmBurn means different things to different people I suppose. In the case of BTS Graphene a burnt share is one that is held by the blockchain for possible release later. In BTS 1.0, and I believe most other instances, it means transferring of value to an address for which the private key is not known. It's just semantics. In the case of BTS Graphene the pool is drawn on to cover the costs of running the network. In BTS 1.0 where a burn is the traditional understanding the share holders would have to decide to hard fork to increase supply if the number of BTS got too low. Both scenarios result in the same thing - enough BTS to allow the protocol to exist. The difference is BTS Graphine doesn't require the hard fork.Since the pool cannot be spent by anyone but only metered out to workers I feel it is basically burnt. It cannot be used in commerce.I am with svk and many others. Recycling for reuse is not burning. And it is not just semantics.Your post lead me to a different thought though.BTS share are made of primarily carbon. When they are recycled they are turned to.....Graphene of course. OK so I re-read the post on project funding and I see what I was missing:https://bitshares.github.io/technology/stakeholder-approved-project-funding/While it still doesn't qualify as what I consider burning, as long as the amount "burnt" or going into the reserve fund exceeds the amount being paid to witnesses and workers, the amount of freely available BTS will decrease. This will have the same effect as burning, as the shares will not be in circulation but held by the blockchain, however the funds may need to be released later on if the amount being "burnt" starts to decrease and falls below the sum of witness and worker pay.In the end I think it's quite clever, it lets the blockchain build up a rainy-day fund of sorts that can be used to maintain witness and project funding in the case transaction volume falters for example.
Quote from: Riverhead on June 09, 2015, 04:30:48 pmBurn means different things to different people I suppose. In the case of BTS Graphene a burnt share is one that is held by the blockchain for possible release later. In BTS 1.0, and I believe most other instances, it means transferring of value to an address for which the private key is not known. It's just semantics. In the case of BTS Graphene the pool is drawn on to cover the costs of running the network. In BTS 1.0 where a burn is the traditional understanding the share holders would have to decide to hard fork to increase supply if the number of BTS got too low. Both scenarios result in the same thing - enough BTS to allow the protocol to exist. The difference is BTS Graphine doesn't require the hard fork.Since the pool cannot be spent by anyone but only metered out to workers I feel it is basically burnt. It cannot be used in commerce.I am with svk and many others. Recycling for reuse is not burning. And it is not just semantics.Your post lead me to a different thought though.BTS share are made of primarily carbon. When they are recycled they are turned to.....Graphene of course.
Burn means different things to different people I suppose. In the case of BTS Graphene a burnt share is one that is held by the blockchain for possible release later. In BTS 1.0, and I believe most other instances, it means transferring of value to an address for which the private key is not known. It's just semantics. In the case of BTS Graphene the pool is drawn on to cover the costs of running the network. In BTS 1.0 where a burn is the traditional understanding the share holders would have to decide to hard fork to increase supply if the number of BTS got too low. Both scenarios result in the same thing - enough BTS to allow the protocol to exist. The difference is BTS Graphine doesn't require the hard fork.Since the pool cannot be spent by anyone but only metered out to workers I feel it is basically burnt. It cannot be used in commerce.
Quote from: Riverhead on June 09, 2015, 04:30:48 pmBurn means different things to different people I suppose. In the case of BTS Graphene a burnt share is one that is held by the blockchain for possible release later. In BTS 1.0, and I believe most other instances, it means transferring of value to an address for which the private key is not known. It's just semantics. In the case of BTS Graphene the pool is drawn on to cover the costs of running the network. In BTS 1.0 where a burn is the traditional understanding the share holders would have to decide to hard fork to increase supply if the number of BTS got too low. Both scenarios result in the same thing - enough BTS to allow the protocol to exist. The difference is BTS Graphine doesn't require the hard fork.Since the pool cannot be spent by anyone but only metered out to workers I feel it is basically burnt. It cannot be used in commerce.There might be something I'm not getting here but it doesn't seem to be the same thing at all to me, semantics or not. In BTS 1.0 or any other coin, burning means removing shares/coins from the total supply, never to be seen again. In BTS 2.0 it seems to me "burnt" funds will be recycled back to workers who are then free to release them back into circulation by selling them. What I am missing?
Correct, you now effectively have a "paid by the job" paradigm instead of your old "paid by the hour" one
Which is why workers shouldn't be doing marketing. I do not support using worker pay to fund marketing campaigns. Let the marketers speculate on their cost/reward ratio.
there is a third scenario : 1000 new users come in after the hard work was done by the worker marketer who spent 30000USD per month , but each of those users only generates 20USD fees per person in this year .
workers shouldn't be doing marketing. I do not support using worker pay to fund marketing campaigns. Let the marketers speculate on their cost/reward ratio.
Quote from: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 06:32:08 pmQuote from: Riverhead on June 09, 2015, 06:25:53 pmQuote from: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 06:22:39 pmQuote from: Ander on June 09, 2015, 05:31:54 pmQuote from: Riverhead on June 09, 2015, 05:24:04 pmHow do we communicate that there are 3.7B coins. No inflation, no burning. Fixed supply but controlled circulation.I think the problem is that this is not what a lot of us want. We want there to be less than 3B coins and decreasing. The value proposition of BTS is that when it becomes successful, it can burn more coins than are added, being deflationary, thus paying a dividend to holders.The perception of future inflation is a huge factor in the value of BTS. At 2.5B BTS and decreasing, each BTS is going to be a lot more valuable than at 3.7B and not decreasing. And the more valuable the BTS are, the more the workers can get paid out of the BTS that are created.The total amount of BTS in circulation will be far less under this model. If BTS survives for the next 3 years and gains any traction what so ever then transaction fees will far exceed the daily spending limit and should continue to do so forever.So the pool can keep growing so long as fees can cover network costs? In an extreme example where BTS is worth $1000/share (hey, it happened to BTC ) there may be 1 billion BTS in circulation and 2.7 billion BTS in the pool?The pool is like a pond with a maximum drain rate of 5 bts per second. The stakeholders can plug the drain at just enough to cover witness pay (no workers). Any time fees are above 5 bts/sec the pool is growing but the rate at which it can drain is shrinking. The only time where dilution will be a problem is if the protocol has no traction and yet BTS holders still vote to pay workers. If the network has no traction and doesn't pay workers it is dead. If the network has traction and is gaining users then it will be deflationary. So fear of dilution is completely misplaced because it will either by deflationary in the long-run or it will die. there is a third scenario : 1000 new users come in after the hard work was done by the worker who spent 30000USD per month , but each of those users only generates 20USD fees per person in this year . Gaining traction != the sheet is balanced . It all depends on if the income > the cost . Some business has tons of users and still losing money .
Quote from: Riverhead on June 09, 2015, 06:25:53 pmQuote from: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 06:22:39 pmQuote from: Ander on June 09, 2015, 05:31:54 pmQuote from: Riverhead on June 09, 2015, 05:24:04 pmHow do we communicate that there are 3.7B coins. No inflation, no burning. Fixed supply but controlled circulation.I think the problem is that this is not what a lot of us want. We want there to be less than 3B coins and decreasing. The value proposition of BTS is that when it becomes successful, it can burn more coins than are added, being deflationary, thus paying a dividend to holders.The perception of future inflation is a huge factor in the value of BTS. At 2.5B BTS and decreasing, each BTS is going to be a lot more valuable than at 3.7B and not decreasing. And the more valuable the BTS are, the more the workers can get paid out of the BTS that are created.The total amount of BTS in circulation will be far less under this model. If BTS survives for the next 3 years and gains any traction what so ever then transaction fees will far exceed the daily spending limit and should continue to do so forever.So the pool can keep growing so long as fees can cover network costs? In an extreme example where BTS is worth $1000/share (hey, it happened to BTC ) there may be 1 billion BTS in circulation and 2.7 billion BTS in the pool?The pool is like a pond with a maximum drain rate of 5 bts per second. The stakeholders can plug the drain at just enough to cover witness pay (no workers). Any time fees are above 5 bts/sec the pool is growing but the rate at which it can drain is shrinking. The only time where dilution will be a problem is if the protocol has no traction and yet BTS holders still vote to pay workers. If the network has no traction and doesn't pay workers it is dead. If the network has traction and is gaining users then it will be deflationary. So fear of dilution is completely misplaced because it will either by deflationary in the long-run or it will die.
Quote from: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 06:22:39 pmQuote from: Ander on June 09, 2015, 05:31:54 pmQuote from: Riverhead on June 09, 2015, 05:24:04 pmHow do we communicate that there are 3.7B coins. No inflation, no burning. Fixed supply but controlled circulation.I think the problem is that this is not what a lot of us want. We want there to be less than 3B coins and decreasing. The value proposition of BTS is that when it becomes successful, it can burn more coins than are added, being deflationary, thus paying a dividend to holders.The perception of future inflation is a huge factor in the value of BTS. At 2.5B BTS and decreasing, each BTS is going to be a lot more valuable than at 3.7B and not decreasing. And the more valuable the BTS are, the more the workers can get paid out of the BTS that are created.The total amount of BTS in circulation will be far less under this model. If BTS survives for the next 3 years and gains any traction what so ever then transaction fees will far exceed the daily spending limit and should continue to do so forever.So the pool can keep growing so long as fees can cover network costs? In an extreme example where BTS is worth $1000/share (hey, it happened to BTC ) there may be 1 billion BTS in circulation and 2.7 billion BTS in the pool?
Quote from: Ander on June 09, 2015, 05:31:54 pmQuote from: Riverhead on June 09, 2015, 05:24:04 pmHow do we communicate that there are 3.7B coins. No inflation, no burning. Fixed supply but controlled circulation.I think the problem is that this is not what a lot of us want. We want there to be less than 3B coins and decreasing. The value proposition of BTS is that when it becomes successful, it can burn more coins than are added, being deflationary, thus paying a dividend to holders.The perception of future inflation is a huge factor in the value of BTS. At 2.5B BTS and decreasing, each BTS is going to be a lot more valuable than at 3.7B and not decreasing. And the more valuable the BTS are, the more the workers can get paid out of the BTS that are created.The total amount of BTS in circulation will be far less under this model. If BTS survives for the next 3 years and gains any traction what so ever then transaction fees will far exceed the daily spending limit and should continue to do so forever.
Quote from: Riverhead on June 09, 2015, 05:24:04 pmHow do we communicate that there are 3.7B coins. No inflation, no burning. Fixed supply but controlled circulation.I think the problem is that this is not what a lot of us want. We want there to be less than 3B coins and decreasing. The value proposition of BTS is that when it becomes successful, it can burn more coins than are added, being deflationary, thus paying a dividend to holders.The perception of future inflation is a huge factor in the value of BTS. At 2.5B BTS and decreasing, each BTS is going to be a lot more valuable than at 3.7B and not decreasing. And the more valuable the BTS are, the more the workers can get paid out of the BTS that are created.
How do we communicate that there are 3.7B coins. No inflation, no burning. Fixed supply but controlled circulation.
QuoteIn a Stan moment it reminds me of how airships control altitude. Helium is only lighter than air at near atmospheric pressure. Compress it into tanks and it is not lighter than air. By controlling the portion of helium in the gas bags vs what's in the tanks the buoyancy of the ship can be tightly controlled.Continuing the Stan style... keep in mind that we in the early stages of flying [blockchains in this case] and we are still using hydrogen...highly flammable!
In a Stan moment it reminds me of how airships control altitude. Helium is only lighter than air at near atmospheric pressure. Compress it into tanks and it is not lighter than air. By controlling the portion of helium in the gas bags vs what's in the tanks the buoyancy of the ship can be tightly controlled.
what is the benefit of being a BTS holder again ? I fail to see that yet in this model .Growth...right ..... but even if you bring 10 million people in the system , there is still a question : which form of dividend is given to every shareholder ? If you are betting on tons of people buy fixed amount of share resulted in the rise of price .... then XRP could claim the same thing .
Quote from: tonyk on June 09, 2015, 05:19:48 pmI get the opposite point of view in this thread...well kind of.The big problem is - Lesson NOT learned from 1.0 - Perceived inflation is worse than actual inflation.How do we communicate that there are 3.7B coins. No inflation, no burning. Fixed supply but controlled circulation.In a Stan moment it reminds me of how airships control altitude. Helium is only lighter than air at near atmospheric pressure. Compress it into tanks and it is not lighter than air. By controlling the portion of helium in the gas bags vs what's in the tanks the buoyancy of the ship can be tightly controlled.
I get the opposite point of view in this thread...well kind of.The big problem is - Lesson NOT learned from 1.0 - Perceived inflation is worse than actual inflation.
BTS holders are in complete control over how fast things are burnt. Their is a max daily spending limit hard coded and unchangeable. Sustainability and "fixed supply" makes accounting checks easy.
I am with svk and many others. Recycling for reuse is not burning. And it is not just semantics.Your post lead me to a different thought though.BTS share are made of primarily carbon. When they are recycled they are turned to.....Graphene of course. --this. however, we could just setup a worker dedicated to burning BTS.--No we cannot. All we can set up is a worker that recycles the BTS back to the fund for reissuance..
Quote from: tonyk on June 09, 2015, 04:46:43 pmQuote from: Riverhead on June 09, 2015, 04:30:48 pmBurn means different things to different people I suppose. In the case of BTS Graphene a burnt share is one that is held by the blockchain for possible release later. In BTS 1.0, and I believe most other instances, it means transferring of value to an address for which the private key is not known. It's just semantics. In the case of BTS Graphene the pool is drawn on to cover the costs of running the network. In BTS 1.0 where a burn is the traditional understanding the share holders would have to decide to hard fork to increase supply if the number of BTS got too low. Both scenarios result in the same thing - enough BTS to allow the protocol to exist. The difference is BTS Graphine doesn't require the hard fork.Since the pool cannot be spent by anyone but only metered out to workers I feel it is basically burnt. It cannot be used in commerce.I am with svk and many others. Recycling for reuse is not burning. And it is not just semantics.Your post lead me to a different thought though.BTS share are made of primarily carbon. When they are recycled they are turned to.....Graphene of course. this. however, we could just setup a worker dedicated to burning BTS.
Quote from: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 02:44:32 pmUnder BitShares 2.0 the "reserve fund" is just another way of looking at "burned funds". The maximum spending rate has not changed. Therefore the "available supply" is technically unchanged. Except perhaps we could claim 3.7 Billion shares and pump coin market cap No don't do that, everyone would think BTS had diluted again and would dump.
Under BitShares 2.0 the "reserve fund" is just another way of looking at "burned funds". The maximum spending rate has not changed. Therefore the "available supply" is technically unchanged. Except perhaps we could claim 3.7 Billion shares and pump coin market cap
I think the difference is that previously burned fees are now added to the funding pool. It's only once it has passed through this pool that the shareholders decide whether or not to burn it by paying a worker proposal to burn the income.
what is the benefit of being a BTS holder again ? I fail to see that yet in this model .Growth...right ..... but even if you bring 10 million people in the system , there is still a question : which form of dividend is given to every shareholder ?
No bro burning is not alive, available bts no trend to cero more time. or i dont understand it.
Except perhaps we could claim 3.7 Billion shares and pump coin market cap