0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/113769/cyber-fund-report-daos-will-reach-mass-adoption-disrupt-politics-and-religion-by-2025no mention to BitShares... ?
Quote from: fuzzy on January 12, 2015, 11:22:41 pmSince they plan on sharedropping 10% to BTS, I am talking to them about potentially setting up occasional hangouts with our community so they can provide updates and answer questions. Since it is only 10% and only to BTS, I am not certain I would like to set these hangouts up to be done as often as I would for, say, PLAY, MUSIC and other chains that have sharedropped more on our holders, but I would like everyone's feedback as we plan to move forward. The support on this thread looks quite lukewarm, rather than piping hot. If they were dropping 30% on us, maybe more people would be excited. But they are dividing this amongst these 2.0 communities. I'm guessing many readers still don't understand this much better than I do & I'm not convinced the developers have their idea fully developed. Occasional hangouts may be the way to go.
Since they plan on sharedropping 10% to BTS, I am talking to them about potentially setting up occasional hangouts with our community so they can provide updates and answer questions. Since it is only 10% and only to BTS, I am not certain I would like to set these hangouts up to be done as often as I would for, say, PLAY, MUSIC and other chains that have sharedropped more on our holders, but I would like everyone's feedback as we plan to move forward.
awesome, last question I promise Do you guys have linked in profiles or can you point me toward past work that shows you can complete a project of this scope?
Quote from: Vizzini on January 08, 2015, 06:39:57 pmLord Almighty, I thought I understood the basics from scanning the whitepaper. Now after reading these explanations, I realize I don't understand a freaking thing about what this is or how it works.If they're going to enable cross-trading somehow, then this is more than a hedge fund or wallet.
Lord Almighty, I thought I understood the basics from scanning the whitepaper. Now after reading these explanations, I realize I don't understand a freaking thing about what this is or how it works.
Quote from: Gentso1 on January 08, 2015, 08:46:45 pmMe - There is fashion to be chief scientist now. In fact i'am not. I think more in business terms so i am responsible for architecting all this stuff. Kostya Lomashuk - responsible for pushing everything forward.Vitalik Lvov - responsible for investment operation of cyber•Fund and providing expertise to cyber•Shares community.Dima Sadovnichiy - responsible for development. Contracts development in future.Max Uvarov - leading digital marketing expert in Russia. Didn't commit full-time to project yet, but his advices are valuable for us.Marina Guryeva and Vova Savin are early investors who believe in us from the very begin. Initially Vova was responsible for mining (hardware), but now we don't believe in mining as it exist today, so he think about engaging in some future hardware engineering. Early Believers - FFF (friends, family, fools). Small group. So we already pass this stage.Category of founders is a way to to honour people who make this all happens. This category exist and doesn't mean nor work, nor responsibility.Ok so who is going to develop the wallet and all these cool features you are talking about?Vitalik, Kostya, Dima and me. Of course we will do everything to expand the team.
Me - There is fashion to be chief scientist now. In fact i'am not. I think more in business terms so i am responsible for architecting all this stuff. Kostya Lomashuk - responsible for pushing everything forward.Vitalik Lvov - responsible for investment operation of cyber•Fund and providing expertise to cyber•Shares community.Dima Sadovnichiy - responsible for development. Contracts development in future.Max Uvarov - leading digital marketing expert in Russia. Didn't commit full-time to project yet, but his advices are valuable for us.Marina Guryeva and Vova Savin are early investors who believe in us from the very begin. Initially Vova was responsible for mining (hardware), but now we don't believe in mining as it exist today, so he think about engaging in some future hardware engineering. Early Believers - FFF (friends, family, fools). Small group. So we already pass this stage.Category of founders is a way to to honour people who make this all happens. This category exist and doesn't mean nor work, nor responsibility.Ok so who is going to develop the wallet and all these cool features you are talking about?
I saw you mention proof of honor.. proof of origin.. any other proofs of something?
What are these other groups that are listed?Distributed trusts - 10%
What are these other groups that are listed?Founders 10%-I get who this group is but can you reveal everyone in the projects name that is apart of this group?
What are these other groups that are listed?cyber•Fund 10% - This is the actual money that is used to buy assets across the 4 exchanges? Will the holding amounts be public? Who picks how much of a asset you hold and where?
What are these other groups that are listed?Inspirer's 8%- Who is included in this group (names) and how do they fit in?
How does a buyer of the UIA profit from this?
You are proposing a share drop of 10% to maidsafe,ethereum,bitshares and nxt. Is their an actual date set when these sharedrops will happen?
Then 22% for purchaser's-I am assuming this is the UIA across each platform? Is the amount of User issued assets equal on each platform?
what happens if you sell out on next but have a surplus on bitshares?
Quote from: vlight on January 07, 2015, 08:42:24 pmThere are cybershares on Coinprism, NXT, Counterparty and etc. How do you plan to make them interchangeable? They naturally have different price so 1 cybershare on NXT is not equal to 1 cybershare on Coinprism or Counterparty.That is the most hard issue of the project and to be honest i still don't know the right answer inspite of the fact that upcoming DApps industry with or without cyber•Shares should solve it. I have assumptions for solution. There could be 2 approaches:(1) Fixed supply. Works for real word cases with security placements. This approach will get different prices. It is not harmful for cyber•Shares itself, but it is not the best solution for startups which will use crosschain community for promoting. Nobody wants the fragmented price across logically same entity. Thus, any DApp developer who want use crosschain approach anyway will need flexible supply.(2) Flexible supply. There is 2 cases to understand:(2.1) Alice wants to move token from NXT (fixed supply by design) to Open Assets (OA) (flexible supply by design). She sends NXT token to contract. Contract lock NXT token, issue OA token and send to Alise.(2.2) Alice wants to move token from OA to NXT. She sends OA token to contract. Contract destroy OA token, take token from locked and send to Alice.I forsee Proof-of-Origin as set of tools which will make possible entities to effectively regulate supply of tokens across protocols. So cyber•Shares start from ready to use fixed supply, but after Ethereum launch will implement trustless (now its not) Proof-of-Origin.
There are cybershares on Coinprism, NXT, Counterparty and etc. How do you plan to make them interchangeable? They naturally have different price so 1 cybershare on NXT is not equal to 1 cybershare on Coinprism or Counterparty.
Quote from: 21xhipster on January 08, 2015, 05:17:23 am BitShares still don't understand the power of internal economy created through UIA.Welcome!Could you expand on this? I'm presently trying to learn more about the potential of UIAs.
BitShares still don't understand the power of internal economy created through UIA.
I'm still not super clear on what these are all about, but they put BTS into a positive light and seems to take a cooperative approach.https://medium.com/cyber-shares/why-we-created-cyber-shares-86f224fb0b02
How could you possibly guarantee a 100% conversion rate? That is impossible. Nothing prevents the previous owners from continuing the old blockchain while also taking advantage of the new tokens you gifted them (see our recent example with PTS for evidence).
Instead of arbitrarily deciding a percentage to reward yourself for the integration/development/marketing work you are planning on doing and wondering if you picked the right number to not piss too many people off, you let the stakeholders themselves decide who to pay and how much for the value that they add. You campaign as delegates to work on the new coin and the stakeholders vote for you if they think you can do a good job. If it turns out some of you are doing a poor job, the stakeholders vote you out.If you allocate 10% to a group and it turns out they do a bad job, the stakeholders don't have a way of getting that stake back from you. They either have to accept being "robbed" of their value or they just give up and dump the coin and try with again with another coin by another group.Of course, this doesn't solve all the issues. You still need to arbitrarily decide which projects to sharedrop on and how to allocate the percentages between them. There will always be disagreement with that as well. I don't know of a nice solution to that problem however. And once again, nothing guarantees that the projects you sharedrop on are going to give up on their original token and use your new one. They just as likely might dump the tokens you gift to them and use it to buy more of the ones that you sharedropped on.
Quote from: Vizzini on January 08, 2015, 01:19:28 amAnd they cut you in for 10%, so who's complaining? With all honour i don't understand this logic. We don't use toolkit. We invest in fact our personal money, time and expertise to do something we believe is useful for EVERYBODY. We don't ask your money, time or something else. Take it. Use it. Do whatever you want.There is funny fact. 10% from nothing is nothing. 10% from something to complain is already your valuation. If there is valuation so value added. Our team is voluntary, full time and take all risks don't asking nobody, nothing. And, of course, want to be rewarded. Is it bad?I understand we logic behind AnderQuote from: Ander on January 08, 2015, 01:41:04 amBut more seriously, if this cyberShares is taking a significant %age of the total (which they are), they need to be adding a LOT of value through development work, marketing, integration, etc. Are they? If they are, this coin could be good, though it does seem pretty weighted in favor of giving its devs coins.I want to remember that this is a project, not the state. 10% for building project at this point of competitiveness we perceive as fair and almost any project operate it. What about revolver?. We are happy to fairly share 10% of devs bag with everybody who join. Really. We need it.If you join would you vote for 7%, 5%? If there will be the case - ok. We will change terms. Anybody want to offer better way to produce fair dev's bag? Welcome.
And they cut you in for 10%, so who's complaining?
But more seriously, if this cyberShares is taking a significant %age of the total (which they are), they need to be adding a LOT of value through development work, marketing, integration, etc. Are they? If they are, this coin could be good, though it does seem pretty weighted in favor of giving its devs coins.
Quote from: Ander on January 08, 2015, 01:41:04 amBut more seriously, if this cyberShares is taking a significant %age of the total (which they are), they need to be adding a LOT of value through development work, marketing, integration, etc. Are they?Exactly. But more importantly we now have a way to pay for devs, marketing, etc. without having to allocate a huge stake initially to some group of people. If they want to work for the new DAC they can get elected as delegates and get paid for their services. If the stakeholders don't like what they are doing, they can vote them out and they no longer receive any extra funds. Allocating a significant percentage of the stake to them for the promise that they are going to add value in the future is no longer necessary IMO.
But more seriously, if this cyberShares is taking a significant %age of the total (which they are), they need to be adding a LOT of value through development work, marketing, integration, etc. Are they?
How I understand the terms, you take a snapshot (or possibly multiple snapshots of multiple chains) when you are doing a sharedrop.snapshot = the freeze-frame of a chain-state, where balances at a particular blockheight are recordedsharedrop = a new token allocated to a single snapshot or collection of snapshots
Quote from: arhag on January 08, 2015, 01:33:30 amGuys, I am going to take a snapshot of BTS and the Ethereum genesis stake and create AwesomeCoin. Do it. Do it better. If you solve upcoming industry problems better - we will join. Everybody will.But please don't confuse snapshot and sharedrop. Snapshot != Sharedrop. Problem with snapshot is that you wont get 100% conversion rate. With sharedrop you will. Snapshot is cheaper (almost free). Sharedrop costs fees. Snapshot require time and expertise (You still dont understand that this is the biggest problem?) for people. Sharedrop is native and cost nothing to people. No time, no costs, no expertise. You just receive it and that is it. You can destroy asset, sell, hold, try to forget it. But anyway you'll touch.
Guys, I am going to take a snapshot of BTS and the Ethereum genesis stake and create AwesomeCoin.
Looks like a promise the moon type coin/project then give yourself a healthy sharedrop. Like SuperNet, it'll do everything. Invest early and don't miss out on another game changer.
it'll do everything.
What will your sharedrop percentages be? And how will you track the success of these 2.0's
Are you planning to hold a basket of shares or is this an index fund?
Quote from: gamey on January 08, 2015, 12:31:31 amLooks like a promise the moon type coin/project then give yourself a healthy sharedrop. Like SuperNet, it'll do everything. Invest early and don't miss out on another game changer.Guys, I am going to take a snapshot of BTS and the Ethereum genesis stake and create AwesomeCoin. The allocation is as follows: 49% to BTS, 49% to ETH, and 2% to me. What? What's the issue? BitShares and Ethereum together will be an unstoppable force with a superior network effect. What does it matter if both communities get 49% rather 50%? Don't squabble over minor percentage differences when we have order of magnitude gains in price to realize. And my stake of 2% isn't significant enough to compromise delegate voting or other stakeholder voting consensus.
https://github.com/cyberFund/cyberShares/wiki
cyber•Shares distribution 10% to honor cyber•Shares founders 10% to honor cyber•Fund holders 10% to honor BitShares holders 10% to honor Ethereum holders 10% to honor MaidSafe holders 10% to honor Next holders 8% to honor leaders and inventors 10% to build system of distributed trusts 22% to genesis purchasers
ags and pts holders will still argue about the sharedrops
Quote from: toast on January 07, 2015, 07:02:30 pmI'm still not super clear on what these are all about, but they put BTS into a positive light and seems to take a cooperative approach.https://medium.com/cyber-shares/why-we-created-cyber-shares-86f224fb0b02CyberShares is a crypto platform using NXT\ETH\Maid\BTS as sharedrop instruments , to gain the maximum demographic of this four communities .