Don't forget the beginner's mind
https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Social Consensus Software License - Version 1.0 - August 10, 2013
Copyright (c) 2013 Invictus Innovations, Inc. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in the source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following condititons are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3.Neither the name of Invictus Innovations, Inc nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
This thread is a good place for III to provide factual explanation to PTS/AGS holders!
I'm for the merge. I think BTS will continue to grow despite current disputes.
However I think a promise is a promise and it should be kept.
I think integrity is important and I believe most people will understand the following written "document" as I understood it the first time I saw it.
Any AGS/PTS investor believed in it and it was backed by @Bytemast, @Stan and III.
Thanks to sudo for pointing this out:Don't forget the beginner's mind
https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Social Consensus Software License - Version 1.0 - August 10, 2013
Copyright (c) 2013 Invictus Innovations, Inc. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in the source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following condititons are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3.Neither the name of Invictus Innovations, Inc nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Now III can explain how is this non-binding promise fulfilled.
dlarimer@frodo ~]$ cat ~/projects/bitshares_toolkit/LICENSE.md
This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.
Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or
distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled
binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any
means.
In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors
of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the
software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit
of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and
successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of
relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this
software under copyright law.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
For more information, please refer to <http://unlicense.org/>
That is a draft license not in the BitShares repo... look at the actual toolkit license:
This thread is a good place for III to provide factual explanation to PTS/AGS holders!
I'm for the merge. I think BTS will continue to grow despite current disputes.
However I think a promise is a promise and it should be kept.
I think integrity is important and I believe most people will understand the following written "document" as I understood it the first time I saw it.
Any AGS/PTS investor believed in it and it was backed by @Bytemast, @Stan and III.
Thanks to sudo for pointing this out:Don't forget the beginner's mind
https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Social Consensus Software License - Version 1.0 - August 10, 2013
Copyright (c) 2013 Invictus Innovations, Inc. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in the source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following condititons are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3.Neither the name of Invictus Innovations, Inc nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Now III can explain how is this non-binding promise fulfilled.
I don't think the social consensus applies to absorption/mergers.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10214.msg135831#msg135831
However, any future DAC's who wish to, it will be difficult because pre/post feb28 AGS/PTS now have different percentage stakes in its replacement.
Honoring 20% to BTS holders would honor the contract for pre 2/28 holders but not post 2/28 holders.
I think its established at this point that there is no way to make it perfect. This may be most fair though. I don't have any better suggestions that don't tip the scale in some other unfair way.
I don't think the social consensus applies to absorption/mergers.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10214.msg135831#msg135831
However, any future DAC's who wish to, it will be difficult because pre/post feb28 AGS/PTS now have different percentage stakes in its replacement.
Honoring 20% to BTS holders would honor the contract for pre 2/28 holders but not post 2/28 holders.
I think its established at this point that there is no way to make it perfect. This may be most fair though. I don't have any better suggestions that don't tip the scale in some other unfair way.
for future DAC, I suggest we should keep the social consensus - at least 10% to AGSer and at least 10% to PTSer.
Actually I've said too much already given the fact my stake is really tiny. I'll not make this specific topic any harder for you.
I was and I'm still mostly concerned about the bolded text:
4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.
I was trying to explain this in so many posts that you might think I'm a spammer. I'm not that concerned about BTS ownership of PTS/AGS. I'm concerned about the failure to fulfill that non-binding promise-like thingy. I think post feb28 AGS/PTS holders have the right to feel lied to and whine about that.
Actually I've said too much already given the fact my stake is really tiny. I'll not make this specific topic any harder for you.
You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.
Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.
new BTSX btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%
AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%
You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.
Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.
what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.
according BM's reply, for example 3rd DACs honor new BTSX 20% instead of AGS&PTS
then AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88% much less than 10%Code: [Select]new BTSX btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%
AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%
You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.
Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.
what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.
according BM's reply, for example 3rd DACs honor new BTSX 20% instead of AGS&PTS
then AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88% much less than 10%Code: [Select]new BTSX btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%
AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%
You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.
Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.
what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.
according BM's reply, for example 3rd DACs honor new BTSX 20% instead of AGS&PTS
then AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88% much less than 10%Code: [Select]new BTSX btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%
AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%
Yes, that is my opinion also... the party that got the short side of the deal are the After 28th AGS donors [and people that donated more after than before 28th].
I am not complaining, I also understand why it was done [long form explanation in previous post of mine], but in short to make as much as possible # of people happy BM cut the stakes for himself and I3...If you have similar position as his, you get a slightly 'unfair' distribution, but unfair only compared to other positions, not unfair in general.
0.02BTSX
This thread is a good place for III to provide factual explanation to PTS/AGS holders!
I'm for the merge. I think BTS will continue to grow despite current disputes.
However I think a promise is a promise and it should be kept.
I think integrity is important and I believe most people will understand the following written "document" as I understood it the first time I saw it.
Any AGS/PTS investor believed in it and it was backed by @Bytemast, @Stan and III.
Thanks to sudo for pointing this out:Don't forget the beginner's mind
https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Social Consensus Software License - Version 1.0 - August 10, 2013
Copyright (c) 2013 Invictus Innovations, Inc. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in the source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following condititons are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3.Neither the name of Invictus Innovations, Inc nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Now III can explain how is this non-binding promise fulfilled.
It is up to developers to interpret this and the community to decide whether they have honored it satisfactorily or not. Our job is to provide well-considered recommendations and opinions to this community.My personal opinion is that the Social Consensus is not a suicide pact.
SuperDACs will out-compete our original DACs and SuperDACs can only promise what happens at genesis. After that, its under control of how shareholders vote.
My personal opinion is that the Social Consensus is not a suicide pact.
我个人的观点是,社会共识不是自杀协定。You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.
Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.
what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.
according BM's reply, for example 3rd DACs honor new BTSX 20% instead of AGS&PTS
then AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88% much less than 10%Code: [Select]new BTSX btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%
AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%
Yes, that is my opinion also... the party that got the short side of the deal are the After 28th AGS donors [and people that donated more after than before 28th].
I am not complaining, I also understand why it was done [long form explanation in previous post of mine], but in short to make as much as possible # of people happy BM cut the stakes for himself and I3...If you have similar position as his, you get a slightly 'unfair' distribution, but unfair only compared to other positions, not unfair in general.
0.02BTSX
i said it in differnt places too. this merger is in total favor of BTSX donors or before Feb. 28.
this is the reason why i am feeling i get robbed in blank daylight
no one seems to consider that BTSX is allocated from Feb. 28 Snapshot. This Snapshot will get 80% of the new merged chain. I don't understand it. This is toally wrong. If you want not change the allocation you should exclude AGS donors from this 7% and grand all the new shares to donors after the snapshot. Should be more fair. But it seems most of the people are fine to loose the promise.
This is a problem who will need fixes. In PTS you accepted smaller share allocation for the benefit of liquidity, but now AGS is much more fucked then PTS owners, if they donated after Feb. 28
Thanks to say it in better words.
You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.
Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.
what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.
according BM's reply, for example 3rd DACs honor new BTSX 20% instead of AGS&PTS
then AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88% much less than 10%Code: [Select]new BTSX btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%
AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%
ok, so I think future DACs should honor ags/pts, not BTS
This thread is a good place for III to provide factual explanation to PTS/AGS holders!
I'm for the merge. I think BTS will continue to grow despite current disputes.
However I think a promise is a promise and it should be kept.
I think integrity is important and I believe most people will understand the following written "document" as I understood it the first time I saw it.
Any AGS/PTS investor believed in it and it was backed by @Bytemast, @Stan and III.
Thanks to sudo for pointing this out:Don't forget the beginner's mind
https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Social Consensus Software License - Version 1.0 - August 10, 2013
Copyright (c) 2013 Invictus Innovations, Inc. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in the source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following condititons are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3.Neither the name of Invictus Innovations, Inc nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Now III can explain how is this non-binding promise fulfilled.
That is a draft license not in the BitShares repo... look at the actual toolkit license:Code: [Select]dlarimer@frodo ~]$ cat ~/projects/bitshares_toolkit/LICENSE.md
This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.
Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or
distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled
binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any
means.
In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors
of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the
software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit
of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and
successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of
relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this
software under copyright law.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
For more information, please refer to <http://unlicense.org/>
the wiki on http://wiki.bitshares.org/ is still valid?Oh .. that one is AFAIK obsolete ...
especially Social_Consensus_Software_License
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Social_Consensus_Software_License
the wiki on http://wiki.bitshares.org/ is still valid?Oh .. that one is AFAIK obsolete ...
especially Social_Consensus_Software_License
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Social_Consensus_Software_License
The whole wiki needs a rewrite :(
This is just my opinion, but in the future because of competition for features, BitAssets, network effect & developer attention, BitShares DACs already in existence & future third parties would be better off becoming part of a SuperDAC. This is why BTSX holders are doing a merger deal for Vote, DNS & maybe even BitShares Music in the future.
Features of Vote DAC may allow identification of unique individuals and information by consent, while still remaining private. This means that if a third party did want a to start a separate DAC, they can share-drop using that. Think for a moment about which you would choose if you had a business.
So PTS & AGS can keep the original model but they are just extremely uncompetitive in this rapidly evolving DAC space. PTS & AGS have also already been honoured in the BTSX snapshot.
This deal gives PTS & AGS something that is close to 10% again in BTSX. The benefit to BTSX is the marketing clarity of one BitShares and keeping as much of the great community together as possible.
However I think BTSX can compete without the deal, just like VOTE DAC + dilution + Bytemaster focus could have competed against BTSX without a deal. So even though I own equal % AGS to BTSX. (Nearly all AGS post 28th Feb) I think PTS & AGS are the ones being over-valued the most in this deal. Though at this stage, it's clearly in my and everyone's interest imo to move forward and compete because... "Time waits for no DAC."
This is just my opinion, but in the future because of competition for features, BitAssets, network effect & developer attention, BitShares DACs already in existence & future third parties would be better off becoming part of a SuperDAC. This is why BTSX holders are doing a merger deal for Vote, DNS & maybe even BitShares Music in the future.
Features of Vote DAC may allow identification of unique individuals and information by consent, while still remaining private. This means that if a third party did want a to start a separate DAC, they can share-drop using that. Think for a moment about which you would choose if you had a business.
So PTS & AGS can keep the original model but they are just extremely uncompetitive in this rapidly evolving DAC space. PTS & AGS have also already been honoured in the BTSX snapshot.
This deal gives PTS & AGS something that is close to 10% again in BTSX. The benefit to BTSX is the marketing clarity of one BitShares and keeping as much of the great community together as possible.
However I think BTSX can compete without the deal, just like VOTE DAC + dilution + Bytemaster focus could have competed against BTSX without a deal. So even though I own equal % AGS to BTSX. (Nearly all AGS post 28th Feb) I think PTS & AGS are the ones being over-valued the most in this deal. Though at this stage, it's clearly in my and everyone's interest imo to move forward and compete because... "Time waits for no DAC."
then AGS fund will help who？
My personal opinion is that the Social Consensus is not a suicide pact.
This is just my opinion, but in the future because of competition for features, BitAssets, network effect & developer attention, BitShares DACs already in existence & future third parties would be better off becoming part of a SuperDAC. This is why BTSX holders are doing a merger deal for Vote, DNS & maybe even BitShares Music in the future.
Features of Vote DAC may allow identification of unique individuals and information by consent, while still remaining private. This means that if a third party did want a to start a separate DAC, they can share-drop using that. Think for a moment about which you would choose if you had a business.
So PTS & AGS can keep the original model but they are just extremely uncompetitive in this rapidly evolving DAC space. PTS & AGS have also already been honoured in the BTSX snapshot.
This deal gives PTS & AGS something that is close to 10% again in BTSX. The benefit to BTSX is the marketing clarity of one BitShares and keeping as much of the great community together as possible.
However I think BTSX can compete without the deal, just like VOTE DAC + dilution + Bytemaster focus could have competed against BTSX without a deal. So even though I own equal % AGS to BTSX. (Nearly all AGS post 28th Feb) I think PTS & AGS are the ones being over-valued the most in this deal. Though at this stage, it's clearly in my and everyone's interest imo to move forward and compete because... "Time waits for no DAC."
then AGS fund will help who？
Fund helps AGS if no deal I assume.
Do you think AGS can compete if Bytemaster focus elsewhere?
I don't even think BTSX can compete if Bytemaster focus on Vote DAC with its other features. That is only my opinion though.
First I saw bm's proposal I thought ptser were all fucked, but looks like the agser after 228 were fucked more seriously....You got at least 10% each if you count DNS and VOTE, since only the parts allocated to AGS and PTS will be honored. So 7+7+3+3 becomes 10+10.
Not that this isn't a total clusterfuck, but I don't feel like AGS or PTS are the ones who got the bad deal.
what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.
according BM's reply, for example 3rd DACs honor new BTSX 20% instead of AGS&PTS
then AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88% much less than 10%Code: [Select]new BTSX btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%
AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%
Yes, that is my opinion also... the party that got the short side of the deal are the After 28th AGS donors [and people that donated more after than before 28th].
I am not complaining, I also understand why it was done [long form explanation in previous post of mine], but in short to make as much as possible # of people happy BM cut the stakes for himself and I3...If you have similar position as his, you get a slightly 'unfair' distribution, but unfair only compared to other positions, not unfair in general.
0.02BTSX
i said it in differnt places too. this merger is in total favor of BTSX donors or before Feb. 28.
this is the reason why i am feeling i get robbed in blank daylight
no one seems to consider that BTSX is allocated from Feb. 28 Snapshot. This Snapshot will get 80% of the new merged chain. I don't understand it. This is toally wrong. If you want not change the allocation you should exclude AGS donors from this 7% and grand all the new shares to donors after the snapshot. Should be more fair. But it seems most of the people are fine to loose the promise.
This is a problem who will need fixes. In PTS you accepted smaller share allocation for the benefit of liquidity, but now AGS is much more fucked then PTS owners, if they donated after Feb. 28
Thanks to say it in better words.
We said we would recommend AGS/PTS get 10% each of *FUTURE* DACs built using the toolkit. Congrats, you got 10% of *PAST* dacs as well.
We said we would recommend AGS/PTS get 10% each of *FUTURE* DACs built using the toolkit. Congrats, you got 10% of *PAST* dacs as well.
First I saw bm's proposal I thought ptser were all fucked, but looks like the agser after 228 were fucked more seriously....
bm, have you ever considered who were they? They're your true believer who supported you during your darkest days!!
I'm a pts holder and a agser pre-228... I make this post just want to tell you and everyone in this forum that a lier won't get 2nd chance! You betrayed your believer once, you will certainly do it again.... Be careful
来自我的 HUAWEI HN3-U01 上的 Tapatalk
I didn't betray anyone... I have many friends and family that are AGS holders post Feb 28... I am a large ags holder Post Feb 28.@Bytemaster betrayal is a strong word. Your mistake is in the initial social contract. You put a lot of effort in it and it was completed. Even if it wasnt technically included in the BitsharesX it attracted significant amount of investors. It was well written and very appealing. Your mistake that you still cant acknowledge is that you did nothing to explain to the investors that this contract doesn't apply to BitsharesX. Many investors believed in it and it was the sole reason for investing. Even if your proposal might be fair and even possibly a deal for PTS/AGS it doesn't change the fact that the contract was violated (or it will be in the future DACs). There were numerous examples where this was clearly stated in this forum and III did nothing to inform the community about these rules. I think this is your mistake.
AGS was a gift... no strings attached. Anyone who has AGS and is complaining has no one they can blame but themselves for setting wrong expectations.
We said we would recommend AGS/PTS get 10% each of *FUTURE* DACs built using the toolkit. Congrats, you got 10% of *PAST* dacs as well.
I prefer someone to have the guts to alter the deal if he thinks it will be for something better and make it more profitable rather than just wait and watch it die. Since the majority agrees this is a good thing to do, then I do not care if any original deal was violated. We definitely need VOTE urgently to avoid these discussions in the future+5% +5% Kudos to BM!
I didn't betray anyone... I have many friends and family that are AGS holders post Feb 28... I am a large ags holder Post Feb 28.
AGS was a gift... no strings attached. Anyone who has AGS and is complaining has no one they can blame but themselves for setting wrong expectations.
We said we would recommend AGS/PTS get 10% each of *FUTURE* DACs built using the toolkit. Congrats, you got 10% of *PAST* dacs as well.
I didn't betray anyone... I have many friends and family that are AGS holders post Feb 28... I am a large ags holder Post Feb 28.
AGS was a gift... no strings attached. Anyone who has AGS and is complaining has no one they can blame but themselves for setting wrong expectations.
We said we would recommend AGS/PTS get 10% each of *FUTURE* DACs built using the toolkit. Congrats, you got 10% of *PAST* dacs as well.
I didn't betray anyone... I have many friends and family that are AGS holders post Feb 28... I am a large ags holder Post Feb 28.
AGS was a gift... no strings attached. Anyone who has AGS and is complaining has no one they can blame but themselves for setting wrong expectations.
We said we would recommend AGS/PTS get 10% each of *FUTURE* DACs built using the toolkit. Congrats, you got 10% of *PAST* dacs as well.
so why delete the "draft license"? Shy?
Did we have a announcement which announced that it was a draft license？
If somebody saw it before and wanted support 3i to be a long long-term investments, then went to sleep long time, when he wake up, he finds he is naked.
Yes it's his fault, it's ourself's responsibilities to invest in something, even something(who is something?funny) is always so changeable.
Social Consensus is not Sincerity, i got it.
PS, bm, is bt & b in your list?
I didn't betray anyone... I have many friends and family that are AGS holders post Feb 28... I am a large ags holder Post Feb 28.
AGS was a gift... no strings attached. Anyone who has AGS and is complaining has no one they can blame but themselves for setting wrong expectations.
We said we would recommend AGS/PTS get 10% each of *FUTURE* DACs built using the toolkit. Congrats, you got 10% of *PAST* dacs as well.
wrong!
BTSX was in your own vision never supposed to be this "SuperDAC".
So all AGS Supportes after Feb. 28 will loose the most because, no one will create new DACs and allocate shares to them. You can call it a merger, but it is clearly a broken promise. Maybe not in legal sense, but it should be clear what I3 and you self promised and what you will do now?
Do you think this is the original promise? Do you really think AGS donors after Feb. 28 are rewarded with a ok shareallocation? I don't think so.
Why not start from scratch allocate 74% BTSX 10% AGS 10% PTS 3 % DNS 3% Vote ? Would be saving much of critics, because with this allocation you will only to be dealing with value for DNS and Vote, but not with not honoring your own promises many times stated in this forum.
Do you really want to risk to support this late AGS supporters?
Seriously people complaining about the allocation are either out of their minds or seriously super greedy. We are talking about receiving BTS for f..sake. We are where bitcoin was in 2009 for the rest of the people outside cryptocurrencies. The world is not 5mil bitcoin users...So be thankful that BM is such a great leader and not a scamer like half of the shit coins devs out there, accept his gift and show your support. Please stop complaining and get over it...
I didn't betray anyone... I have many friends and family that are AGS holders post Feb 28... I am a large ags holder Post Feb 28.
AGS was a gift... no strings attached. Anyone who has AGS and is complaining has no one they can blame but themselves for setting wrong expectations.
We said we would recommend AGS/PTS get 10% each of *FUTURE* DACs built using the toolkit. Congrats, you got 10% of *PAST* dacs as well.
wrong!
BTSX was in your own vision never supposed to be this "SuperDAC".
So all AGS Supportes after Feb. 28 will loose the most because, no one will create new DACs and allocate shares to them. You can call it a merger, but it is clearly a broken promise. Maybe not in legal sense, but it should be clear what I3 and you self promised and what you will do now?
Do you think this is the original promise? Do you really think AGS donors after Feb. 28 are rewarded with a ok shareallocation? I don't think so.
Why not start from scratch allocate 74% BTSX 10% AGS 10% PTS 3 % DNS 3% Vote ? Would be saving much of critics, because with this allocation you will only to be dealing with value for DNS and Vote, but not with not honoring your own promises many times stated in this forum.
Do you really want to risk to support this late AGS supporters?
I am not going to complain about the current allocation but imho the distribution of 74/10/10/3/3 would have avoided much of all these complains.